Inherit the Wind

Inherit the Wind

 

John 3:1-17

The mission of Christ: saving the world 

 

3:1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews.

 

3:2 He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with that person."

 

3:3 Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above."

 

3:4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?"

 

3:5 Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

 

3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

3:7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.'

 

3:8 The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

 

3:9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?"

 

3:10 Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?

 

3:11 "Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen, yet you do not receive our testimony.

 

3:12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

 

3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

 

3:14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

 

3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

 

3:16 "For God so loved the world that God gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

 

3:17 Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

 

 

I stole the title of this message from the 1960 film by the same name, starring Spencer Tracy and a truly all star cast. “Inherit the Wind” is based on the real-life “Scopes Monkey Trial,” over a Tennessee school teacher who taught Darwin’s theory of evolution, which ran afoul of the biblical “creation story” popular in the Bible belt. The sermon title has nothing to do with the Scopes Monkey Trial, other than the idea that new discoveries often conflict with long-accepted beliefs.

 

Every pastor loves to preach on this text, mostly because it contains the most “famous street address” from the pages of scripture: John 3:16. You simply can’t preach this text without winding up eventually at verse 16, but something else caught my attention this time around the John 3 “horn.” The text tells us that the exchange recorded is between Jesus and Nicodemus, a Pharisee. The whole “born again” (or “from above”) thing comes from this passage, something that got Jimmy Carter into all kinds of controversy during his presidential campaign because he claimed to be a “born again Christian.” Playboy Magazine and other more legitimate journalism of the day weren’t familiar with the term, and because Carter paired it with his confession that he “lusted after women,” it went “viral,” as we would say today. His dilemma was quite a LONG distance from what our own President today has confessed in the “Access Hollywood” video. 

 

No, what caught my attention this time through the John 3 passage was what Jesus reportedly said in verse 8 about the wind that “blows where it chooses.” Since “wind” or “breath” is the Bible’s metaphor for the Holy Spirit, this gives an interesting random quality to the course and work of the Spirit of God. If we take Jesus at his word, here—and isn’t this the whole point of the controversies ranging from “biblical authority” to the scholars of the “Jesus Seminar”—he is telling us that at least one of the “persons” of the Holy Trinity is not bound by too many constraints. There are whole branches of the Christian tradition that believe in things like “election” and “predestination,” both of which tend to “lock God in” to certain outcomes in God’s dealing with humanity, based solely on the idea that God’s eternal existence and life “outside” of time means that God already “knows” how everything is going to turn out in the end, and therefore has preordained it to be. If that sounds confusing to you, join the club. On the other hand, other traditions within Christianity advance the idea of “free will,” wherein humanity was granted the ability to choose by God, and this includes our own spiritual destiny. I’m sure God is amused by all of the kerfuffle over this question, which may be the reason Jesus tried to set the record straight with “For God so loved the world that God sent the Son so that whosoever believes in him may not perish, but have eternal life.” Remember the old “KISS” thing? Keep It Simple, Stupid? Here you go. 

 

During a brief “social media” break while writing this message, I ran across a posting from an “anonymous participant” on a page called “United Methodist Church Members.” The author castigates the “idea” of “gay Christians,” suggesting that, according to scripture, there is no such thing. This kind of judgmental spirit comes from circling the wagon around a few “clobber” verses and then using them to “cancel” other people who LOVE God and who are LOVED BY God, as clearly stated in this passage by Jesus Christ. The “whosoever” in John 3:16 is the key. How sad that some feel they must elevate their own spiritual status by queuing over others. To quote the late Rodney King, “Why can’t we just all get along?” Playing God and judging others is beyond my paygrade. It’s really beyond all of our paygrades, friends. 

 

Back to the meandering Spirit. Indeed, God’s Holy Wind DOES wander the earth, looking to touch the lives of the people whom God loves. And those of us who have signed on to faith in the Son of God are gifted with the Holy Wind, meaning we are empowered and led by the Spirit. Hearing from this text that that same Spirit isn’t necessarily “working a program” beyond loving and embracing the people of God, “as the wind blows,” means that God may well call us to do things both beyond our comfort zone and even beyond our skill set. This is why we learn later that the Spirit also imparts “gifts” to God’s people, as needed, and “as the Spirit wills.” Why are we so quick to “pigeonhole” people into roles when God reserves the right to call them beyond their acquired abilities? Our pastor mentioned recently how we in church leadership should not expect that every school teacher wants to teach Sunday school, nor does every accountant feel called to be on the finance committee. They may come to us caught up in the Holy Wind, feeling a call to serve God on a different plane than what they do for a living. Serendipity is a “thing” of the Spirit, as I read this text, and for why? Only God ultimately knows, but one guess is that when opening our lives to God’s leading, being challenged beyond our comfort zone might “feel” like something God would legitimately do (i.e. Moses, King David, Esther, Ruth, and virtually any of the twelve called by Jesus). Following the proverbial “other road” as God leads also opens us to more passion about our calling. Passion is good!

 

I live with a nonconformist. If you know Dara, and how proper she always seems, you might find that interesting, even unexpected. However, throughout her childhood, she regularly chose to swim upstream from her peers. She chose her own fashions based on what SHE liked and felt comfortable in, balked at popular trends in music or activities, and kept her cache of friends to a minimum, so as not to be influenced by “the crowd.” Thanks to this “against the current” style, she has demonstrated an acute ability to discern the leading of the Holy Spirit. Maybe verse 8 is the reason? Believe me, “the wind blows where it chooses,” summarizes my loving wife! My label for her has often been “The Statue of Liberty.”

 

As you read this, if you are one of those folks who prefer to have a planned, neat agenda, the Good News is that God loves you, too. However, don’t always resist the divine “randomness” of the Spirit who may call you to at least temporarily leave your comfort zone to go “on mission.” For those of you who, like myself, thrive in the world of randomness (at least of thought), work at being able to more clearly discern whether your “inspirations” are your own or of the Spirit. There’s nothing wrong with doing good works because you like to engage in them, but just don’t miss the “Kairos” movements of the Spirit, who will take you to where and when they are most needed. One final caution: never sit still and wait for the Spirit to move you, for the Spirit moves too fast for that. Besides, each of us has already been given spiritual gifts for service, as the Bible tells us, and we should be about using these gifts, even when we are experiencing a lull in the “wind.” It is my conviction that the Holy Spirit finds it easier to lead someone who is already moving than an “object at rest.” To quote an African American preacher friend of years ago: “This is THAT which the Spirit has promised, and if this ISN’T that, I’m gonna’ do THIS until THAT comes along!”

 

So, this is the “Wind” we inherit as followers of the Christ. It will do us well to remember that “the wind blows where it chooses,” and if the wind of the Holy Spirit blows in our direction, we will be blessed—and mightily used of God—if we perk up and catch the breeze. Our “inheritance” in this regard goes well beyond just simple ministry tasks. God IS on the move in the world, desiring us to be heralds of the Good News of “great tidings for all people.” This is not the time for telling people they DON’T QUALIFY for redemption because of some characteristic of their personhood. In Christ, we are called to embrace, not partition, love, not judge, and welcome, not screen those whom the Holy Wind blows our way, or we to them. Remember the story from Acts about Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch wherein the Spirit LITERALLY “blew him” to the eunuch so the latter could find God’s redeeming love. I could happen to you, if you open yourself to inheriting the wind. Amen.

 

MacGuffin

 

The MacGuffin 

Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7

Eating of the tree of knowledge 

 

2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

 

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden,

 

2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

 

3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

 

3:2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,

 

3:3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.'"

 

3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die,

 

3:5f or God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 

3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.

 

3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

 

 

The famous filmmaker, Alfred Hitchcock, used what he called a “MacGuffin” in his films. A MacGuffin is a “device” or an element in the film used to move the plot along, was not really the story being told, nor even essential to it. Trouble is, often, viewers would miss the real message of the movie, getting caught up instead by the MacGuffin! Examples of MacGuffins in films include: the “spy” focus in “The 39 Steps”; the briefcase in “Pulp Fiction”; the ark in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”; and the $40,000 in “Psycho.” Another example I can think of is the falcon figurine in “The Maltese Falcon.” None of these items is really what the story is about. You could substitute almost anything for the MacGuffin in each of these films, and still have the central stories of adventure, mystery, intrigue, and most importantly, the relational interaction between the main characters. All good filmmakers understand the principle of the MacGuffin.

 

Too bad we religious people don’t get it, though, when it comes to the Bible and its wealth of stories! Ignore the plot device of the MacGuffin, and one misses the “why” of the story in the first place. Today’s passage is from Genesis, and what we have come to call the “Creation story.” Specifically, this part of that story has been labeled by theologians down through the century as “The Fall,” when Adam and Eve SINNED, thus introducing sin into the human equation, and cutting off humanity from deity. BOY, did we miss the boat here, and any decent filmmaker could tell us this! We went for the MacGuffin and missed the depth and meaning of the story.

 

Let me put on my best filmmaker “hat” and reapproach this passage: it’s not about SIN, at all. SIN is the MacGuffin that moves along the narrative. The actual story is about choice, trust, redemption, and love. I must confess that in my earliest days of preaching, I, too, got caught up in the MacGuffin. While I never taught this Adam/Eve/Serpent/God story as literally true, I was guilty of telling my first congregations that it was a metaphorical story designed to tell how “sin” first entered into the human experience, and that this “original sin” was what has plagued humanity, down through the ages. Thankfully, I at least told my folk that God loved them and provided a means of redemption in Jesus Christ, but that even this is too shallow for the powerful and inciteful message of Genesis 2.

 

Before we get beyond the MacGuffin of sin, let’s talk about “original sin” for a moment. Most of us grew up in some religious tradition that spoke of it, and even tried to teach the concept in Sunday School. The Roman Catholics really struggled with it, because they had two major streams of thinking about just what the “original sin” was. For the branch of the Catholic Church that flowed from Thomas Aquinas, the original sin of Adam and Eve was simply that they were “disobedient,” eating of the tree that God told them to leave alone. However, the branch of Catholic theology that stemmed from St. Augustus was much more specific: Adam and Eve had sexual relations before God had “prepared” them for it, and the Genesis 2 story is a metaphor for this version of “original sin.” Believe me, the whole thing is more complicated than that, but for now, my “Cliff Notes” version must suffice. My point, though, is that “sin” is not the real point of the story in Genesis. Some may believe my assertion here is heretical, but I don’t think so.

 

If we believe that God “hates sin,” then why would God creates humans with the ability to choose how to behave. What God “hates” about sin is how it seriously damages relationships and may harm human community. The commandments that God passed along to Moses are all about how God wants us to avoid sin because of this. As I mentioned in a recent sermon, all ten commandments are about the harm the listed infractions can do to relationships—with God, and with others. I would assert that the first commandments about how we should respect our Creator have less to do with how God “feels” about it than they do with how God desired to preserve Israel’s focus on their Lord (i.e. worship, service, and fellowship) that became their most common bond, helping them build and sustain a beloved community. The rest of the commandments “prohibit” behaviors that break relationships between neighbors, friends, and families, and by extension, harm the community at large. By believing the “offense” is against God, we are scapegoating not only where the real harm is occurring, but making God out to be the “mad dad” (as in the old threat, “Wait until your FATHER gets home!”). 

 

We learn from the history of God and humanity in the Hebrew Bible that God loves humanity. In the New Testament, the Christ Event is front-and-center as the continued “working proof” that God loves us all. It’s also in the New Testament that we read that God IS love. What more do we need to “get it” that God’s “best life now” is that God’s people would truly find a path toward being a Beloved Community, would live in harmony with one another, would desist from hurting one another, and might also find a path back to their loving Creator. God loved us so much that God DID give us the freedom to choose how we will live, how we will behave, and what we will do to find the fulfilment and joy in life. Or not. Yes, we even have the freedom to make bad choices, to blame “life” for our dissatisfaction, and even to take it out on whatever we understand “God” to be.

 

By believing in “original sin” as some specific thing that our progenitors did, thus “introducing” sin into the human existential continuum, we fall for two “MacGuffins” that were really just there to move the true “plot” along: Adam and Eve “did it”; and “The devil made us do it.” Had “original sin” been the real issue bothering God, don’t you think Jesus would have made that the central point of his message? Instead, he loved the unlovable, taught us to love our neighbor, to love God with all our heart, strength, soul, and mind, demonstrated that men AND women are equal partners in life, and showed humanity that forgiveness and healing are the highest of virtues. He went to the cross, rather than pull some kind of divine power play to save himself, and offered that he was fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy to “take away the sins of the world.” The church has focused SO MUCH on “the blood,” the cross as the “propitiation for our sins,” and on our redemption as being a “one and done” thing that I fear we’ve fallen for the “MacGuffin” again. The true plot of the Jesus story is that God came among us to again show us the height and breadth of Divine love, and to yet again PLEAD with us to “be our sibling’s keeper.”

 

Even as Jesus taught us, forgiveness is the easy part. Living into it is the challenge. We participate in our own redemption by LIVING the Gospel that Jesus taught. Not “earning” God’s favor, mind you, as this has been granted to us by Jesus, himself, but by BECOMING the people that WE want to be and that GOD wants us to me. By following through in making the Beloved Community a possibility, through mending our rifts with each other, and by looking out for “the least of these,” we bring joy to the halls of heaven, for this is what God was after, all along.

 

Make no mistake about it, sin was not “introduced” to the world by Adam and Eve. Their story was just the MacGuffin to move the plot along, getting us to focus on our OWN culpability in humanity’s inability to sustain God’s dream of a Beloved Community. The freedom that God gave us as humans can be used for “bad” (sin) or “good” (agape love). We are the ones who make the choice, in both the micro AND the Macro of this decision. Blaming it on Adam and Eve, or even “the serpent” sends us down the path of deception and blame, two things that will RUIN any attempt at building a sustainable human community, or what the Bible calls “The Kingdom of God.” 

 

If it sounds like I’m suggesting that much of theology and church history has swallowed the MacGuffin whole and missed the REAL truth of the God-human struggle, I confess that I am. The longer I study the Bible, the more I see that God IS love, and WE are the offspring of that love. The true “melody” of human redemption, and that which will fully restore our relationship with our Father/Mother God, is best summed up in the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God has given you.” Amen.

All of Us

All of Us

 

2 Peter 1:16-21

Shining with the glory of God 

 

1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

 

1:18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.

 

1:19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

 

1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

 

1:21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

I have always ascribed to the scholars’ idea that the Petrine epistles are remembered/transcribed sermons, possibly by Peter, although I seem to recall that most “Bible guys” give the letters too late a date for that to be true. They certainly could be messages by one of Peter’s younger charges, though. I can “hear” Peter’s voice in these letters, at least the enthusiasm and temperament of the “Peter” we read of in the Gospels. Like so much of the Bible, though, it really doesn’t matter a great deal. This is the canon we have, and the Bible with which we must wrestle, interpret, and preach, so there you have it. And the Petrine letters are chockful of stuff worth wrestling with, all kind of jammed in there together—much like most of our sermons, wouldn’t you say?

 

Therefore, let’s start with the last two verses of this passage, since they have to do with the very idea of scriptural interpretation. As an immature, Christian youth, I remember thinking these verses were telling us that, ultimately, it would be the Holy Spirit that would have to help us understand what scripture means, since the Holy Spirit was the “inspirer” of them, in the first place. Remembering how my various literature teachers used to go into long excurses about what William Shakespeare really “meant” with his flowery prose, I used to think, “Wouldn’t it be cool if we could actually ASK Bill Shakespeare what he meant? Wouldn’t that end the sometimes wide-a-field speculation? 

 

One of my favorite scenes in Woody Allen’s Oscar-winning film, “Annie Hall” happens when he is standing in line with Diane Keaton, waiting to get into a movie. A man behind him is “pontificating” to his date about the “depth of meaning” in this film and all kinds of other artful media expressions from film to television. Allen eventually “has enough” of what he believes is just pseudointellectual babble, and when the man moves on to express his opinions regarding media scholar Marshall McLuhan’s work, Allen openly expresses his displeasure. The man reacts by stating that he “teaches a course” at Columbia on modern media, which he believes elevates him to the level of expert, especially on the work of McLuhan. Allen responds, “Oh YEAH, well…” and he reaches off camera and tows in the REAL Marshall McLuhan, who denigrates the man’s lack of knowledge of his work, putting him in his place. Allen then breaks character again, looks directly into the camera, and speaks: “Don’t you wish REAL LIFE were like this?” Kind of my idea about trusting that if the Holy Spirit is the true inspiration behind what we read in the Bible, then the Holy Spirit should be “patient zero” in our efforts to interpret it.

 

Not so easy, is it? Don’t we ALL have our own ideas about how the Spirit “speaks” to us? Some of us talk of the “still, small voice,” while others rise in public worship and spew long speeches in “tongues,” awaiting an interpretation, in the full believe that we have just regurgitated an actual, in-real-time message DIRECTLY from the Holy Spirit. How in the world can either of these “voices” be trusted to give us the unarguable “interpretation” of something from the Bible? See the problem with expecting the Holy Spirit to be Marshall McLuhan, waiting just off camera to be consulted? 

 

AND, even IF we could tap the Holy Ghost as a resource, we still have to deal with the “living” nature of scripture. I have come to believe this means that the Bible CAN be interpreted “freshly” for each time and era, and that it can mean different things to different people, consulting it for different reasons. Is this what the Petrine voice (which I’ll now refer to simply as “Peter” to keep the narrative easier to follow) is trying to tell us in these verses? Is Peter saying that, since the Holy Spirit “inspired” these words, desiring them to have universal, not time-locked, meaning, we are FREE to interpret their meaning for what we are facing, at any given time, both as individual Christians, and as the church? I believe the author is amplifying this assertion by stating in verse 20, that there IS no “one person’s interpretation” that can be said to be exhaustively “right.” The texts of scripture are for ALL people, for ALL time, and may have a VARIETY of interpretations, as led by the Spirit in kairos time, and as called upon by the zeitgeist. In other words, even if we are somewhat successful at deducing what a given text meant when it was first written, it is true that its meaning in the current era may be different, or at least apply differently, because history, circumstances, and WE have changed. What ALL of us should affirm together is that the scriptures HAVE MEANING for us, and are “inspired by God and are useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in right living.” I’ve heard that somewhere. What we ALL can affirm is the value of the Holy Bible for our individual and corporate “wrestling matches” over its meaning. No ONE can say “Here’s exactly what this means for all of us.” It just doesn’t work that way. Never has. If you don’t believe that, just pick up a good text on church history. We can see things so very differently, depending on our perspective, our need, and our OWN history, can’t we. Another case in point…

 

Recently, the nation has been doing its “dividing” thing over a Super Bowl halftime show by the Puerto Rican musical star, “Bad Bunny” (real name: Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio.) Some people felt his show was obscene, while others of us thought It was artistic and amazing. Some felt it was divisive and “political,” while most of us saw it as celebrating American inclusivity, unity, and love. Some pontificated that “only Americans should be performing at the Super Bowl,” while others pointed out that, as a native-born Puerto Rican, Mr. Bunny IS an American. Discounting the actual factual correction stated in the last postulate, it should be clear that different audiences can see the same show and come away with entirely different meanings and opinions about it. We should be able to agree on the facts, even if that is the only thing, but the context we are in currently even puts these in dispute, so let’s move on.

 

One more assertion I need to make, concerning what Peter tells us in these last two verses: “scriptural authority” does not mean that there is one single “interpretation” of scripture that is absolutely, unarguably correct. It just means that we agree that the Bible is the “one book” Christians have as our common source of faith, guidance, and life. We are clearly free to take different meanings away from it, as the Holy Spirit inspires. The closest parallel I can think of from secular history is the Constitution of the United States of America. It is AUTHORITATIVE because it was made so by the founders, and as properly amended through our history. Would anyone argue, though, that any part of it has one, clear INTERPRETATION? History has proved this wrong, as well, as Supreme Courts have shifted gears on its meaning multiple time. Its interpretation and meaning, whilst varied, do not reduce its authority. The preamble begins with the main thing: “We the people.” We’re in this together. Ultimately, our “divisions” shouldn’t matter. Later, regarding God’s heartfelt desire in giving us Jesus and the Word of God, Peter will tell us that God wishes that “none should perish.” WE are in this together, and this is the main thing that we should keep the main thing. If it isn’t about ALL of us, then none of us is safe.

 

While there is a lot of good stuff in this passage, I want to close with one phrase that keeps haunting me in this time of disaffiliations, division, and downright nasty badgering between factions, of which I confess I’ve been quite caught up in, frankly. Peter uses the phrase in verse 19 of “a lamp shining in a dark place.” He refers here to “prophecy,” but given the wider context of the passage, I believe he is speaking of the Word of God, namely Jesus Christ, himself. And as “ambassadors for Christ,” we are being challenged to keep this lamp shining. It is clear that the “dark places” do not go away just by the clock ticks of history. We are in one right now, both in the church AND in American society. One message that can be universally accepted if we preach it right is this “ALL of us” message. And yes, this is a follow up on my “All for One, One for All” message of a couple of weeks ago. Can we at least agree that there is ONE God, one faith, one baptism, one Lord of us all in the Christian church? (And “one nation under God,” if you want to stretch this to patriotism?) Is this not the “main thing”? I would argue that both the Word of God and the U.S. Constitution are here to draw believers (and patriots) into single communities, where mutual respect and the “common good” are perfected and practiced. Whenever one person or one faction believes it has the “ultimate truth,” this kind of unity is not only threatened, but probably impossible. We’re very close to this right now.

I encourage us to bring out those lamps, for only light can drive out darkness, and only love can drive out hate. I’ve heard that somewhere, too. Jesus told us “a house divided against itself will not stand.” And for we patriots, Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Both were right, and should be passionately heeded by those of us with the lamps. Amen.

Bland

Bland

 

Matthew 5:13-20

The teaching of Christ: salt and light 

 

5:13 "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything but is thrown out and trampled under foot.

 

5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid.

 

5:15 People do not light a lamp put it under the bushel basket; rather they put it on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house.

 

5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

 

5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

 

5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

 

5:19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

My dietitian wife decided years ago that I am what they call a “super taster.” Super tasters can discriminate countless flavors and nuances of flavors in anything they might eat. I am usually the first to suggest that the milk is on the verge of spoiling, or that something has “too much garlic,” or is over-cooked. Back when Dara was doing the cooking, my unusual tasting ability was a thorn in her side, especially because back in that time, I was a pretty picky eater. Believe me, being a picky eater AND a super taster is a very bad combination, especially when someone is trying to prepare dinner for you! For this reason, Dara was ready to give up fixing meals for yours truly, very early on. Our hectic schedule and my “food terrorism” led us to eat our meals at restaurants much of the time. This way, we could each order what we wanted, and I was free to pick establishments whose cuisine was both consistent and mildly seasoned. I had added to my future retirement agenda a desire to learn how to cook, myself, something I had never done, beyond frying an egg or flipping a flapjack. Highly-processed foods and the microwave had become my friends, when forced to dine alone at home. 

 

COVID and the Great Shutdown pushed my “learning to cook” agenda item up to “now.” Once cloistered at home, Dara had reminded me that she would not return to making food that would almost need to be prepared separately, in order to even marginally appeal to our divergent sense of taste. SO, I began to search the Internet for interesting sounding recipes, and SURPRISE! Most published recipes used a wide variety of seasonings and ingredients that I had heretofore eschewed in my picky, super-tasting culinary experience. I confess that, early on, I tried making some of those dishes and leaving OUT the “offensive” spices and foodstuffs, but, as you can guess, the resulting meals were bland beyond measure. I simply HAD to learn to eat a wider variety of things AND be willing to hit the spice cupboard. Then, not long after retiring, something else happened.

 

I FINALLY listened to the advice of both my physician and my M.Ed., RD, LDN spouse, and lose some excess poundage. My doctor suggested “10 or 15 pounds,” but when I looked at those BMI and “healthy weight for your height and age” diagrams, I knew that if I was to do this, we were looking at more like 50, not 15 pounds! Regarding the weight loss journey, by simply using a free APP on my phone and counting calories, I did succeed in losing almost 50 pounds over a year period (I set the APP to lose “a pound a week,” and it worked!) By continuing to use the APP to log what I eat, I have been able to maintain my “best weight” for almost three years, now, and I don’t see myself going back. But what really happened, between learning to cook (still a work in progress) and eating healthier, is that I am eating a much wider variety of savory food ingredients: onions, fresh garlic, natural flavors like lemon, lime, basil, parsley, dill, and an increasing palette of spices. Making flavors and mixing tastes (should have been natural for a super taster?) became the “game” of enjoying food, substituting for a bland diet of “consistent and familiar” tastes, supplemented by larger quantities of what I ate. Eating less, enjoying it more, and experiencing the pleasure of sharing a new recipe with my wife, who now can eat the same things I’m eating, has truly been a salvific revelation. And not once has my beautiful partner said, “I told you so!”, even though she certainly would be right to do so.

 

I’ve preached on this text from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew a hundred times, but now it has so much more meaning to me. As I’ve shared here, I now UNDERSTAND his caution to the Christ follower about not being a BLAND witness, or living a life without “savor.” The Christian should “taste” different to the world, and not one that has a bad aftertaste, or the pungent, bitter shock of something that has spoiled. Salt that gets wet and dissipates its savor is worthless, even gross. As I’ve learned through cooking, things don’t taste better just because you add MORE of a particular seasoning, or throw a bunch of competing spices together. In fact, good recipes “work” because of the balance of flavors and tastes. This is exactly what Jesus is telling us in this metaphor of the “saltiness” of the Christian witness. It should not be bland, the way I used to eat my food, but neither should it be overly spiced, out of balance, or loaded up with what “ingredients” are free, cheap, or easy to acquire. Good cooking requires careful planning, quality ingredients, deliberate processes, and aimed at an “audience” with just the right appetite for what you are offering. A Christian life lived to glorify God and demonstrate the love and grace of Jesus Christ follows exactly the same formula, or “recipe.” 

 

[Sidenote: By the way, if you are interested in doing more cooking yourself, here’s a lesson I learned early on about seasoning—most of the best chefs in the world will tell you that the two most essential seasonings are basic SALT and PEPPER. Other herbs and spices should be used sparingly, but in any savory dish, they will ALWAYS default to “sea” or “kosher” salt and “freshly ground” pepper. Meats, potatoes, seafood, vegetables—start with salt and pepper and keep it simple.]

 

All of us preachers have probably fallen prey to the “salt and light” pairing in a sermon or two about this hallmark message from Jesus, haven’t we? Still, even as “saltiness” is essential for good cooking and effective witnessing, so is LIGHT essential as a metaphor for what we “project” onto the world around us. In an earlier message (or two) I shared about my life-long interest in astronomy, and my delving more seriously into it in retirement. I am the proud owner of two different “smart” telescopes, and one new-to-me HUGE Schmidt/Cassegrain reflector telescope that is just itching for nice weather to point heavenward. Of course, all of these devices are for viewing light sources of the cosmos that are nigh unto impossible to view without amplification. The smart telescopes use highly sensitive digital sensors to “stack” methodically acquired photos of deep space objects over time. It is this stacking that brings out the exceptional images of nebulae, star clusters, and galaxies. Most of you have seen some of these images I have posted on social media. We can likewise learn a “light of the world” lesson from this hardware, as well. The “light” our life and our witness gives off does not need to be blindingly bright, especially when our “audience” is our neighbors, family, friends, and others with whom we frequently interact. Their perception of us is like the methodical stacking of images accomplished by the smart telescope. They will be wowed not by our brilliance, but by the consistent “light” we shine over time. Our goal should be to be a consistent witness of the presence of Christ in our life, not dazzle them with some artificial “bling.” It doesn’t take much to get their attention, initially, especially when we profess to be a person of faith. It is our profession of this that will point them in the right direction, and believe me, they will know what to look for, in their quest to see how “genuine” we are. We don’t have to be perfect, just honest with our journey and transparent enough for others to “see in” to what is taking shape in our faith journey. The question is, “Can I live my life in such a way that someone else, looking in, would want to live like I do?” I am reminded that on more than one occasion, the Apostle Paul actually told his charges, “If you want to follow Jesus, follow me and do what I do.” I wish I could say that! I’m not there yet, but similar to my cooking expertise, I’m getting better at it!

 

We all know the church is just a “gathering of believers,” but again, the world is watching us. Some of our congregations have allowed themselves to become so bland that the “flavor” they offer to members, visitors, and the outside world is like the basic, poorly seasoned fare I used to call my “staples.” It’s no wonder that so many of our “members” are inactive, when we don’t offer much to grab their spiritual tastebuds. That old chestnut, “The church is called to be faithful, not successful” has bothered me. I think we are called by the Holy Spirit to strive for both. Faithfulness means we keep the main thing the main thing. “Successful” means we can still attract a crowd. Had Jesus not gathered a mob around himself, we might never have heard of the “Sermon on the Mount.” In my ministry, I told my staffs that my goal was to make what we do in the church “exciting” enough that people were afraid of what they might miss, were they absent. It’s a tall order in this day of so many options and choices, but God is a pretty good draw, if we can refrain from too much “old time religion” and always having to be “theologically correct.” And any church in our time that doesn’t have some foot in the work of social justice is putting their light under a basket. Period.

 

So, I’ll sum up my understanding of this passage thusly: as followers of the Christ, we are at our best when we are “tasty and bright,” not bland and dull. Go hit the spice rack and light a signal fire, Christian! Let them see what you are made of! Amen.