The Barrel
by
John H. Pavelko
.When Not On God's Side!Mark 8:31-38 |
|
My name it means nothing My age even less I come from the country they call the Midwest Was brought up there and taught the law to abide And that the land that I live in Had God on our side1 When the Mayflower sent sail from Europe, those first Pilgrim settlers believed that God commissioned them with the task of creating a "New Israel." They had received a Divine calling to build a "city upon a hill" in the wilderness. They sought the freedom to worship God according to their own values, beliefs, and theology. Since the first day our founding ancestors walked upon the New England shores, the American people believed that God has been on our side through famine, pestilence, war, and prosperity. That faith has inspired magnificent acts of charity and compassion. Its bash boldness has driven us to accomplish great deeds against overwhelming odds. Acting like priests of the national religion, Presidents have often used the "God bless America," to comfort a nation during times of crisis and tragedy but also in hopes of garnering national support of a debatable presidential decision. The implication is clear-what right does the commoner have to question the man that God has ordain to lead? However, just as the disciple Peter discovered, whether in Presidential politics or basic Christian discipleship, we can quickly find ourselves on the backside of God. The confrontation between Peter and Jesus comes at a critical juncture in the ministry of our Lord. Jesus had displayed extraordinary power that astonished the residents of Galilee. He offered teaching that was marked by its unusual authority and insight. But his association with social outcasts so scandalized the guardians of conventional piety that they could only speak of him in demonic terms. Controversy over his ministry was nearing a climax. In this climate of rising tension, Jesus takes his disciples aside and asked them, "Who do men say that I am?" It is an introductory question. Jesus is not concerned about the every changing opinions of the crowd but he asks his disciples to get them talking. They offer a few comments and then Jesus asks them, "But who do you say that I am?" This is the question he really wants his disciples to answer. Peter steps forward with his dramatic response, "You are the Christ, the son of the Living God." However, Peter quickly discovered that one right answer does not make for a perfect score. The fisherman, perhaps overconfident, after correctly answering Jesus question then takes Jesus aside and rebukes him for talking about his pending death. His popularity was growing. Jesus was too crucial to the movement to use negative language. People are going to get depressed. They won't sign up. They won't buy the latest book. But Jesus refuses to succumb to Peter's tempting offer. Jesus rebukes Peter and tells him that if he wants to be on God's side, there is a price. He must be willing to take up his cross. This is a difficult message in a society that sacrifices commitment for convenience. CONVENIENCE FOR COMMITTMENT
"Is the baby healthy?" she asked. "That's what I wanted to discuss with you," the doctor said. "The baby is healthy -- except for the problem. However, it does have a slight, rather common respiratory ailment. My advice is that you let me take it off the respirator -- that might solve things. At least, it's a possibility." "It's not a possibility for us," they said together. "I know how you feel," responded the doctor. "But you need to think about what you're doing. You already have two beautiful kids. Statistics show that people who keep these babies risk a higher incidence of marital stress and family problems. Is it fair to do this to the children you already have? Is it right to bring this suffering into your family?" At the mention of "suffering" I saw her face brighten, as if the doctor were finally making sense. "Suffering?" she said quietly. "We appreciate your concern, but we're Christians. God suffered for us, and we will try to suffer for the baby, if we must." "Pastor, I hope you can do something with them," the doctor whispered to me outside their door as he continued his rounds. Two days later, the doctor and I watched the couple leave the hospital. They walked slowly, carrying a small bundle; but it seemed a heavy burden to us, a weight on their shoulders. We felt as if we could hear them dragging, clanking it down the front steps of the hospital, moving slowly but deliberately into a cold, gray March morning. "It will be too much for them," the doctor said. "You ought to have talked them out of it. You should have helped them to understand." But as they left, I noticed a curious look on their faces; they looked as if the burden were not too heavy at all, as if it were a privilege and a sign. They seemed borne up, as if on another's shoulders, being carried toward some high place the doctor and I would not be going, following a way we did not understand.2 The doctor could not comprehend why they would be willing to sacrifice their priorities, their goals, dreams, and plans to care for such a child. In his mind, medical technology was supposed to make life convenient, easy. The death a child who suffered from a genetic defect would sad but understand. The medical problems and physical demands the child will require in the future would be far greater than the short term trauma they would have felt at his death. The doctor just could not understand that on God's side, commitment is inconvenient. Jesus never once told the disciples that the life of discipleship would be easy. He never once attempted to disguise, minimize, or falsify the dedication and commitment that they would have to make. He never once said promised that they would be nominated for any good citizenship award or honored for their working in building community relationships. Once again this is a difficult message in a world that is will to sacrifice conviction for compromise. COMPROMISE FOR CONVICTION
"There are many lovely, wonderful Hindus, Muslims, Jews and atheists in our city. Good citizens who have every right to expect to have all the same rights and responsibilities as citizens as anybody else," said the Anglican Dean of Sydney but than with a non-ecumenical boldness, seldom displayed, he continued by saying But their different religions cannot all be right. Some, or all of them, are wrong, and if wrong are the monstrous lies and deceits of Satan, devised to destroy the life of the believers, to capture them into the cosmic rebellion against God and to destroy the freedom they should have in Christ. Christians in Sydney are being pressured to preach at best a muted message of Christianity. Certainly not one that will ever deny falsehood.3 His critics have charge him with inflaming religious intolerance at a time when he should be working for reconciliation. In the second and third centuries, Christianity grew dramatically from a small Jewish sect into a multicultural religion. As it grew it posed a threat to the religious and political leaders because it refused to acknowledge that the emperor, Caesar was Lord. The political leaders viewed this an act of treason. All they were asking the Christians do to was to demonstrate their allegiance to the state by sacrificing to the Emperor. But those early believers viewed it as a statement of faith. They refused to include Caesar in a pluralistic collection of gods to whom they would serve. They believe in one God manifest in three persons-Father, Son and Spirit. For refusing to compromise, they were burned, beaten, mauled by wild breasts, and crucified. Today we are being asked once again to accept a monotheistic theology with a pluralistic viewpoint. We are asked to believe in one God who has revealed he, she, or itself through various religions, an amalgamation of prophets, and other devout and holy teachers. We are asked to sacrifice our convictions for a spirit of compromise and tolerance. Our society is uncomfortable with any religion that defends absolute truth or seeks to proselytize the unconverted. We are to respect each other's beliefs and allow for divergent view. But once again, Jesus understood that there was only one side of God. It required a Cross-a bloody, painful, tormenting, sacrificial death. It could not be sanitized, or compromised. Mel Gibson is in Italy making a movie about the life and death of Jesus. He hopes to depict the suffering and torment of Christ's death on the cross in a more realiztitc way than other movies have. He claims that previous versions have "...either suffer from bad hair, inaccurate history, or not just being real." His goal is to present Christ's message of love, hope, and forgiveness. But he is already under attack. A Jewish rabbi is worried that he will cast blame once again upon the Jews for the execution. Several reporters have begun investigating his personal life in hopes of finding information that would discredit him CONCLUSION
1 Bob Dylan, "With God on Our Side," Whitmark Music
|
