WHO ARE WE SUBJECT TO?
A sermon by Rev. Dr. Jack E. Skiles

August 23, 2009

Ephesians 6:10-20; John 6:56-69

Do you think Jesus was serious when he stated that we should forgive those who hurt us? Did the Scripture scribes get it right when they wrote that we are to love our enemies? Was Jesus simply off his rocker when he suggested we need to move beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth mentality? Are we really to forgive as God has already forgiven us?

It just makes for good evolutionary survival sense that we have instilled deep within our collective experience the reality that someone who has hurt us once is liable to hurt us again. But, once we have insured our basic safety and security, does it make sense to never forgive, to live always in an agitated sense of defensiveness and anger?

I don't know about any of you, but I know that I need a spirituality that calls me beyond my most basic instincts now and again. I love a vast array of realities surrounding what it means to be a human being, but I can tell you I don't enjoy my many, most base emotional reactions, that so often make me question on occasion if I am truly even a partially civilized person.

It has been distressing these past couple of weeks to listen to the deeply polarized dialogue regarding the health insurance and care debate. It has been bad enough to listen to many of the words spoken, but it has been even more distressing to note with alarm that our neighbors are showing up at the discussions toting hand guns and assault rifles. I can do so much damage with my words when I leave myself uncensored, I can guarantee you that I should not carry a gun. While I understand 2nd Amendment rights, I know, with you, that we are on the verge of multiple disasters where good people will bring gun violence into what should be civilized debates.

You with me know that politicians are waiting for gun violence to erupt in public discussion forums so that they can respond in the face of disaster rather than risk leading society in the face of NRA blowback. My heart aches for leaders who risk doing good things, progressive things rather than those who rather simply stay rich, connected and playing the mood of society, rather than proactively leading society to a better place, a safer place, a saner place.

Who are we subject to? For those of us who have the nerve to name Jesus as our Christ, we have a tough road to go if we are honest, don't we? How insanely painful it was this past week to hear the anger and see the now twenty-year-old-plus grief of those who lost loved ones in the jetliner brought down by a bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland back in 1988. How does our faith inform us as the Scottish officials let out of prison the sole individual convicted of the crime of killing some 279 passengers, who was given a life sentence? He has a cancer that doctors say will take his life within three months. Assuming his guilt, which many do not, but assuming his guilt, is there room for compassion? Is showing compassion to a mass killer at the end of his life an act of justice and love to an enemy in the spirit of Jesus, our Christ?

How about some compassion for NFL star Michael Vick, the convicted abuser and killer of dogs, who was convicted, has confessed his guilt, and done his time in prison? Is there a reason to extend hope on our part to his desire to be a professional football player, his chosen line of work, so that he can earn a living?

Who are we subject to as we determine our answers to these relatively-speaking high profile cases? Who are we subject to in our private lives, where we live every day? This tension is where we enter the reading from John's gospel this morning. The author of John has gone to great lengths to state that Jesus is the Bread of Life, that to believe in Jesus is sufficient for all things. But, John is saying, the people, us if you will, we aren't satisfied with the spirit of Jesus guiding our lives, what we want is what Jesus can do for us now, give us bread, give us drink, give us safety, give us security, give us answers to our deepest problems and longings, give to us so that we don't to struggle on our own.

The author of John's gospel is showing us this morning that even when Jesus walked the earth, dedication to him and his way was often not popular and many of those who followed Jesus turned back and no longer went with him (6:66). There were many who had been drawn to and were following Jesus both among the ordinary people and some Pharisees and religious/political leaders as well. But now they began to respond to Jesus' message and method. Some complained (v 61; see vv.41, 43), others no longer believed in him (vv. 64), some rejected him (vv. 66) and even some betrayed him (vv. 64, 71). Like the rich young man, they turned and sadly walked away, Jesus was asking more than they were willing to give. Jesus lost most of his followers this one day, and perhaps that was quite intentional on his part.

John 6:56-71 signals a profound turning point for this author, as Jesus moves from popularity to be rejected, left on his own by many and ultimately given up to die. While many reject him, other disciples, emboldened by Peter's confession of faith, follow Jesus with even more determination. After so many are leaving, Jesus asks, "Are you going to leave too?" And Peter responds, "Who else would we follow? We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

So many, in John's gospel, once they know the cost of following Jesus, give up. When they come face to face with the reality that following Jesus calls them to give up the power, possessions and prestige of their lives, they reject him. They leave Jesus because he no longer serves their purposes. But for us Christians, "To whom else can we go?"  Jesus purposefully asks in John and to us this morning, "Choose this day whom you will serve." (see Joshua 24:15)

If there is one major complaint about my preaching that I get to hear, it is that I am not practical enough. "Tell me," I am asked, "tell me how to be a faithful follower." "Tell," I am often asked, "tell me how to be more spiritual.â" I really prefer to preach in broad strokes believing that it is each of your (our) responsibilities to struggle with the individual strokes, to risk and learn by doing and discovering our own spiritual pathways.

Paul in our passage from Ephesians, today, does get somewhat pointed about our involvement in public life with our faith. We are going to look at the parts of the passage that were excluded from our eyes in the lectionary readings because of their controversial content, but by so doing we risk missing the profound insight Paul has for us today.

Paul has something to say about marriage, the family and employment.

I know some of you have already looked at the parts we didn't read today, because these sections are just so unavoidable to notice where Paul really seems to come off as a mingy, slave owning, child beater. In marriage many have interpreted Paul to say that wives should be docile and obedient to husbands. Paul's statements about the parent-child relationship have been use to lend credence to fathers being rulers of the roost over their children in such a way that too often has led to abuse. And Paul in regard to slaves seems to suggest that we employees should become virtual slaves of our employers and that we who are employed are little more than economic production units.

But, a careful examination of the text leads us to recognize that Paul taught none of the aforementioned. Rather it has to do with how Paul has been interpreted down through the centuries that has served to strengthen the hands of the systems of domination from emperor to husband, pope to parent or tycoon to employer.

It is easy to read what Paul says in Ephesians and decide that Paul is nothing more than a male chauvinist pig. But to read Paul as such is to break a big rule in Biblical work. Here is the rule: "The Bible wasn't written to me or to you. It was written to the people who originally received it, and must always be read within their context to understand it."

Ephesians was not written to us. It is safe to suggest that Paul had no dream that twenty-some centuries later, we would exist, because he was sure the world was coming to closure in his lifetime. He was sure of it and lived like it.

At the very least we need to understand marriage, family and slaves,and employers of the 1st century. Women were property. Period. There was no implied love between men and women in marriage. It was a patriarchal economic arrangement. If love developed that was unusual. The poets of the day talked about love between people, but it was the sort of sexual relationships that occurred for the husband and wife outside of marriage (that was one of the functions of the Roman baths).

Regarding family, the wife was property and so were the children and children were even lower on the rungs of society than wives. Papa, or in Latin, pater , was in charge of his economic unit.

Work was no different. An owner had complete control over his property and slaves were property. An owner of a slave was responsible for feeding and housing a slave. Not so lucky, oftentimes, were freed men and women. Many employees were in worse economic positions than were 1st century slaves.

That was the world in which Paul lived. Now, what did it mean to act like a Christian in that world? Paul required of wives, children, slaves and employees nothing more than what the law of the land required. But, on the other hand, what Paul was requiring of those who held all the power, husband, parent, owner, and employer were actions and attitudes that far exceeded the law and which were consistent with being one who claimed to be a follower of Jesus, Christians.

Paul requires of the powerless only what the law requires. But, of the powerful, Paul requires far more. He requires husbands to love their wives as they love themselves, respect and fairness in regard to their children as fathers and fairness and equity toward workers on the part of employers and owners.

In other words, what Paul is requiring in this passage is a redistribution of power for those who claim Jesus as Lord and Christ. Paul is requiring a changing of the power-relationships between those Christians holding power and those who have no power, so that those who have power treat the others with love and respect. Paul is, in reality, increasing the power of the powerless and reducing the power of the powerful, so that they can no longer act unilaterally, as they want, when they want, because they can.

Try to imagine you are first century people who love Jesus and are deeply ensconced, deeply embedded in what is one of the most repressive cultures ever known to humankind. When this portion of Paul's letter is read to you in your Sunday morning gathering, knowing what you now know, there was a collective shock wave in that room of Jesus believers. Then, I suspect that those who were relatively powerless in that congregation looked at each other with conspiratorial smiles while those who were powerful sat there stunned, probably angry and saying to themselves, “wait till I get this letter leaked to Fox News, they will take care of Paul!” You see the powerful are not happy with Paul because Paul's version of faith in Jesus lays the axe at the root of the tree of the empire, of patriarchy, of violence and hate speech and disregard of the powerless.

Was Paul a male, chauvinist pig when he says, "Wives be subject to your husbands?" Actually, quite to the contrary. Paul was saying, "Women, you need to stay safe for the problem impacts you, but it is not your problem, it is the problem of men." Paul not only was not a chauvinist, he was a radical liberal who was seeking the radical transformation of three of the most basic Roman and Jewish institutions. For the next three hundred years after Paul's writing the early church experienced some of the most radical and significant growth in women's rights until the 20th century. Paul and the early, early church from Jesus, until Rome and Constantine took over the church in 325 CE, this early church was filled with strong, competent female leadership and men who shared responsibilities with men. Check out Paul's companion, name Thecla, sometime.

You and I find ourselves today wondering why at times Paul in all his writings did not speak more about involvement in politics. Most simply, involvement in politics was not an option available in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the current era. No commoner, not even a Roman citizen like Paul, had a participation point. Only Roman nobility and military commanders had a voice and Paul tells us in 1Corinthians 1:26, talking about the early followers of Jesus, "not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth," because they were primarily slaves, freedmen and women and peasants.

Paul does not recommend that Christians do what they cannot do. Rather he stresses their involvement in everyday life where they can have the greatest impact—and that would be in marriage, the home and work. Paul believed that faith in Jesus would bring radical change to the cultural climate of the people of his day and calls us to do the same.

Now, Paul moves to conclude his letter to the Ephesians by suggesting that they put on the armor of God as they prepare to live in the midst of a culture whose most important values are not the values of the one they call their Lord and Savior. But, more than just fighting against a cultural dominance, Paul was asking his people then, and I would suggest now, to be aware that we are in the midst of a great spiritual battle that goes deeper than any cultural definitions.

Paul asks his fellow followers of Jesus to put on God's protective righteousness and truth, protect our walking with the gospel of peace, hold the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit in order to do battle. In other words, Christians seeking to bring salvation into a culture that is pervasively desirous of power in all the wrong ways, these Christians would not be going into battle alone.

But, Paul knew, as you and I do, that problems that beset our culture are often times as bad, if not worse, in others. We are up against the interior spirituality of a world of people who do not of our own accord treat each other or the very world itself very well. The spiritual diseases that allow the rich, the wealthy and the powerful to feel a right to possess while others openly and privately suffer is a world-wide spiritual affliction. What must I do to inherit eternal life? Remember Jesus being asked that question? "Go, sell and give all you possess to the poor and needy, then come and follow me."

There is a spirit of individual entitlement that lurks in the soul of every one of us which most often morphs into whole cultures and nations of selfish indifference that then rise up with weapons of war to protect what is rightfully ours and to take from others. Wouldn't it be weird if we went to war not to nation-build, but so that we could actively share our wealth toward those most in need rather than seeking to insure selfish national security based on the fear of others taking what we have?

Remember Jeremiah Wright, the retired UCC pastor, who landed himself in a heap of trouble for being angry at the government of the United States? He was President Obama's pastor for more than a decade up on the south side of Chicago. In one of the last interviews I've read, he reiterated that his preaching, his call to justice, his demands for righteousness for those most in need in our country and the world would be in Obama's face just as he had preached into the dereliction of faith principles in previous administrations. Dr. Wright knows that African American Christians, no matter their history, are no better at spiritual warfare than are Caucasian Christians, once empowered and tempted by the power and greed and avarice that comes with being in positions of power. Paul knew that the spiritual warfare we are called upon to fight knows no cultural, racial or faith boundaries.

In light of such an ongoing and formidable foe, what are God's faithful people to do? Two things, Paul says are we to do. First, we are to suit up in the armor that is from God. If we are we living our lives faithfully, it is a tremendous armor from within which to battle. Paul knows that it is not going to save us from the big battles, this saying we are men and women of faith. In fact, the intensity only grows for those who in faith stand against the spiritual darkness that permeates so much of what happens in real life. So, Paul moves on to his second answer.

He says, "Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints." The greatest weapon that we have to battle both the evils of our culture and the world, is not our political power, our economic security, who we know or even the armor of God. It is our knees. It is prayer. Only by bathing, covering our entire battle against the powers of this world, the powers that move our souls to allow selfish greed and arrogance to breed even in ourselves, it is only prayer, constant conversation with God's spirit, Paul tells us, that will give us the hope to win and presevere in the face of such a formidable foe.

Paul is direct. To be effective as prayers, our prayers must be constant (vs. 18). They must be intense and they must be unselfish. That is, it must be directed not towards our own worries to finish a degree, a dissertation, the book, the job, our spouse, our children, and our pet. Rather, prayer must be directed toward those like Paul who are on the front lines of battle and must be centered on praying them through to be faithful to their end as they engage quite literally the forces of evil in our world.

For Paul, Christianity is not to be about talk, maintaining a privatized faith simply building up a church full of people and only going forth into the world to talk up the faith and make converts. That is seen by Paul as the path of least resistance and a very pathetic faith.

Paul believed we need to be working for the Kingdom of God, the Reign of God, the Dreams and aspirations of God in the real world, in the real structures of society and governments and among nations. He called the church to move out into the public life, living a profoundly different and compassionate lifestyle than the rest of society and working together for the transformation of that society's politics, economics, culture, and dare I say it, health care and insurance, into at least an approximation of the Kingdom of God.

Pray always, live courageously and let us see more of the reality of God become real in our world because of the lives we live.

Amen.