What’s left of church after removing layers of customs & cultural traditions?

 

screenshot of image search for "Mark 7"

Men’s study of Mark only got a few lines into chapter 7 before one tangent after another came up to understand Jesus’ interaction with the Sadducees and Pharisees as a demonstration of God’s authority and power. Each week this lively conversation is a high point in person or via Internet. Here is one question: Jesus faulted the church leaders for obsessing about handwashing (not part of Leviticus or Old Testament instructions from God) rather than obsessing with something that matters for expressing and receiving God’s love. Modern-day worshipers eagerly reach for routines and comfortable expectations week after week, rather than fixating on the main prize: God’s love, spiritual maturity, care for one another. It is impossible to worship like free-floating “jazz improvisation,” although Quaker silent meetings do that sometimes. But to obsess about rigid liturgy is misguided if you read Mark 7 as an indictment against worshiping institutional features instead of worshiping God’s power and untamed wildness. Putting God’s words into a well-worn box or Sunday morning time slot does not help anybody to embrace and grow and reach out to others. So there is the question: what would it look like to peel off the customs so that only the teachings remain visible? Would worshipers clean themselves up for church on Sundays or instead “come as you are”? Would favorite seats in the sanctuary matter much? And would the same cycle of functions, efforts, and concerns preoccupy people between one fiscal year and the next? Maybe the Puritans were on the right track by obsessing about purity and discounting anything that gets in the way of God and his people. Then again, they were puritanical sinners, too. 

On top of this balancing act between externals like Order of Worship and weekly worship with others & the most important thing: hungering to know God better, there is a biographical dimension or growth path for each person: “going from the spiritual milk to the spiritual meat” as experience, knowledge, suffering, and love extend into one’s life. Some beginners DO need simple externals to grab onto that later are less necessary for relating to God, hour by hour and year by year. In other words, customs and traditions might not be Christianity, but they present a source of meaning and express (Worldly) certainty.

Another question that came up is about “gatekeepers” who set standards or expectations about what it looks like, sounds like, feels like to “be” a Christ follower and God seeker. On the one hand Jesus, again and again, criticizes the “white washed tombs” of death that the Pharisees represent, saying that those kinds of sanctimonious externals are wrong-headed and can lead others to the wrong idea, as well. It is not what sacred foods you eat or impure things you avoid that matter so much as what is in your heart. Heart not stomach is what counts in Mark 7. So this idea that God can work with just about anybody and any situation is another way of saying that there should be no gatekeepers; the bar is set very low to encourage everyone to come into relationship with God. At the same time, though, we read “the gate is narrow” as a visual image to mean that, yes, anything is acceptable if your heart is in the right place, but that The Way calls for effort and devotion. Another related image that came up during the discussion uses the radio receiver analogy: God is broadcasting eternally, but each of us needs to turn on the radio and tune the dial to hear the Word. It is there for everyone day and night, but so few make a commitment or know the first step to take.

Finally, branching off the Mark 7 passage about the difference between externals (like Sadducees washing hands in a ritual formula) and what is in a person’s heart, the analogy from legal trials came up. When a person dies as a result of someone’s action (or inaction), then judges want to determine if this is Murder (1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree) or Manslaughter. For the deceased and all  those who are bereaved as a result, calling the event murder or manslaughter makes little material difference. But if the killing is a premeditated ambush versus spur-of-the-moment versus completely unintentional then the perpetrator is labeled differently and will see him or herself differently, too. When it comes to actions & intentions, maybe the same is true of worship routines: going through the motions (your heart is not in it that day) differs a lot from doing it “like you mean it.” The same is true of weekly Bible study – showing up and going through the motions yields less fruit than being fully present and speaking purposefully with words well chosen. Necessarily, this summary of September 28, 2021 only scratches the surface of the tangents, ricochets, and fireworks that go off in the space of one hour. It is not a conversation to be missed.

Jesus as the model, St. Paul as the coach

So much of the 2nd (New) Testament seems to be comprised of letters from Paul to the various congregations and synagogues around the Mediterranean who knew him. He offers encouragement, admonition or correction, and instruction to guide them, either in reply to things they brought to him, or in his circular, general teaching letters. While there were many things in common between both men, clearly they play different parts, both then and now, for those who follow the Way, narrow though it is.

Authors in many decades have lined up the words and meanings of each teacher to see if the message from Jesus and the demonstration of God's love by Jesus somehow is filtered in particular ways, due to Paul's own biographical pattern and life themes.Their formative experiences were not so far apart in time, although Paul (Saul) is from Tarsus to the north of today's Israel, while Jesus is from Nazareth, still within the orbit of greater Jerusalem. Saul had privileges in education and refinements of life, while Jesus grew up with modest means. Maybe most striking of all is the fact that Paul persecuted the Jesus followers at every turn until the point of his dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus. Jesus and those who came after his time and public ministry were the object of punishment for officials like Saul.

For those early congregations that Paul fostered, he was regarded as the nearest thing to the flesh and blood Lord and Savior; lamb of God. And so it is natural that they would model themselves on Paul's example in his person, as much as they would aspire to be like Jesus in the stories passed down. So instead of comparing and contrasting the Jesus message in the lens of Paul versus in the lens of Jesus as committed to print in centuries after Paul's time, perhaps it makes more sense to separate their functions: Jesus as model for each person to look to like a homing beacon, Paul as Paraclete - one who walks alongside a person to encourage and share what burdens there may be.

"Be like Jesus," or "follow Paul's advice about what to seek after (positive examples) and what to avoid (negative examples)" may be heard. But inundated by consumer culture and the urge for "liberty," "low maintenance," "convenience" or fun, "path of least resistance," and "least restrictive environment," modern minds can easily be distracted from Paul's guidance or Jesus' example. The surrounding society invites us to search for our identity, find out who we are, or just "be yourself."

Going back to the imagery of the Bible, we are meant to be God's person, not our own impression of what might be interesting or likely to attract peer accolades. To be God's person means to produce "good fruit"; Fruits of the Spirit come from a particular tree. These attributes that grow from such a Jesus-rooted tree will not appear on other trees. We grow into the person God wants us to be; fulfilling our fully integrated ("you are the branches, I am the vine"), God-fearing and loving selves. We incline always to seek to be closer to God and to be loving of neighbor as also of ourselves.

The modern currents, flows, and undertows swirling around us may pull us toward the easiest, most pleasant, or least uncomfortable path, but whether the way is convenient or it carries friction, that is incidental to being God's person in the wide World. Sometimes the modern society and God's way may happen to run together; other times they may intersect as the paths cross, or the roads may be diametrically opposed (mutually exclusive) to each other. No matter what the surrounding society may urge, it should first be God's way that we seek and if it happens to coincide with the society's culture and language, so be it. Where the two ways differ so be it. also.

Rough and tumble? Consumerism vs. Christ'ism

image search "coupon" collage shows full color wares to buy

How best to follow Jesus when descriptions show him challenging the status quo of Pharisees and the strong language and actions he metes out to his all-too-humanly-frail disciples? He demonstrates infinite love and patience in many ways, but also insistence and impatience about fools and foolishness.

Ever since the "single use" disposable approach to mass production, distribution, consumption, and landfilling, the worldview of consumerism and advertising has almost completely dominated our societies: to spend (therefore to earn) is to live. That seems to leave little time to reflect and seek relationship with God, all of creation, and one's neighbor. So the iconoclasm we read of in the Bible by Christ's example seems to be less Pharisees (although the legalism, head-smart but heart dumb, bull-headed self-assuredness can be seen today in pulpits and lay leaders and followers, too) and more a problem on consumerism that blinds us from seeing each other. Perhaps in our time to "be in the World but not of the World" means to reject the many incentives and rewards of buying more and more. And it means not to measure self-worth or the success of others by brand of clothing or personal automobile. So long as we consist of flesh and blood, the body will be blessing and curse at the same time; something that shapes our engagement with all that is around us and thereby a source of being prey to temptations. And yet, when eternal life or else damnation is at stake, the present moment of living is no time to obsess about 'being a nice person' if that separates you from God and God's will, or it separates you from one another as a wedge instead of a bridge. In the end, following the Jesus example, is to "speak truth to the power" that so dominates our minds and times: consumerism and reducing and simplifying the world of experiences into "maximizing utility" as an economic animal.

Grace is similar to Mercy in that it is given, no matter if merited, earned, or paid for. But it differs in that grace makes whole, holy, completed. By contrast, mercy is granted in place of expected punishment or debt that is owed; it does not by itself create wholeness or completed relationship (repair). And grace differs to righteousness, too. Righteousness means being attuned to God's word and desires, in tune with God by direct and correct relationship. Grace repairs and fills the gap that separates self from the Creator. And so with respect to Jesus' example of himself disregarding The World in order to keep in constant prayer and communion with Father/Mother God, this idea of grace is central, because it fills any gap or separation or shortcoming.

With something like 1 in 4 residents in the USA defined by income as impoverished --this in the wealthiest and most resource-wasting society on the planet-- Jesus would surely engage directly and persistently with people struggling to survive. Again and again the ones with ears to hear and eyes to see are the ones he meets at the margins of society, the edge of the road, or the outer part of gatherings. People who are ill, or who are impoverished, or who have been humbled by circumstance (or possibly by their own disciplined habit) are most primed to embrace the message of love that is abundant and unending, without conditions and status.