They say that in preaching everything is easier to understand if you can find a clear
cut example. One would expect that for us at least the Bible would be the expected place to turn for those very
descriptive images of people who have been leaders in the faith. Throughout the Old and New Testament one book
after the other gives us detailed stories of their lives as in the true nature of the name Israel they "wrestled
with God." The Book of Hebrews even has an extensive list in the eleventh chapter of those whose purpose was
to live as examples of what they believed. That chapter concludes however with the words "And all these, though
well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised since God had foreseen something better for us,
that apart from us they should not be made perfect."
Apparently we are not all in agreement about that, since the quest for what constitutes perfection is still going
on. If you consider for example the slew of reality TV shows currently bombarding our culture one would think that
perfection is obtained through strength, courage, beauty, or the sheer ability to be manipulative.
In his book "The Purpose Driven Church," Rick Warren says that congregations are still looking for that
winning combination. He says: "A healthy church is one who is warmer through fellowship, deeper through discipleship,
stronger through worship, broader through ministry, and larger through evangelism." And then he goes on to
say, "Every church is driven by something. There is a guiding force, a controlling assumption, a directing
conviction behind everything that happens. It may be unspoken. It may be unknown to many. . . but it is there,
influencing every aspect of the church's life."
If we take seriously the directives found in our lections for today we may want to do some serious pondering about
what perhaps "unspoken conviction" is driving the life of this church? What choices have we made? What
examples are we looking to for inspiration?
The Psalm which we used for our call to worship, and the opening teaching of the Psalter itself says that in terms
of choices there are really only two: life with God or life without God. That's pretty simple! It gives us a pretty
graphic description of one who is deeply rooted in life sustaining faith as opposed to one whose very existence
depends on the whims of the changing elements.
The Old Testament lesson from Proverbs, though couched in what may seem a dated role model, gives the example of
a "Godly wife and mother" whose ambition is simply to be the best she can be within the parameters of
her position in life. She does in fact an exemplary job even for that time period showing remarkable skill in both
home and marketplace, but most importantly she is aware of her own worth, moves with confidence and kindness, and
is seen as happy in what she does.
Throughout scripture the image of a woman or a wife is often synonymous with a house of worship, or a congregation.
Beautiful equates with wisdom, confidence and tireless energy in the examples of what God seeks to find in relationship
with the true believer.
We have only to contrast that image with those highlighted in last night's Miss America contest to see how vast
the gulf may be between the ideals of scripture and pop culture. While many may say the standards of that pageant
are not the ones that drive their lives. I would suggest we consider the recognition paid to the anniversary of
two deaths a few weeks ago, the first Diana Spencer and the second Mother Theresa. It was hard to forget the first,
the second was hardly mentioned.
Obviously wealth, glamour, and ready access to the trendiest spots on earth are not to be sneezed at. Who wouldn't
want them? And who would encourage their child to aim lower so as not to be influenced by any of those things?
So is anybody concerned about the modern-day implication of Jesus' action in bringing a child forward, putting
his arm around that child and saying to his disciples, "Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes
me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me."?
Remember that this action followed his disciple's private argument about who among them was the greatest. When
he asked what they had been talking about they were ashamed to admit that it had been the basis of their heated
discussion along the way. We are also told that they were also afraid to ask questions about the teachings he was
giving them that they did not understand because they didn't want to look foolish. They had forgotten or perhaps
never heard that old maxim that "the only stupid question is the one we don't ask!"
In his response to all of this Jesus seems to be presenting a real contrast of ministry styles here. The one from
the disciples is based on status, "Who is the best?", "Who comes first?" While Jesus, with
his arm around the child, seems to speak of a community based on relationships, equality and the embracing Spirit
that binds us together.
The disciples are climbing over one another with little regard for Jesus or anyone else. He by contrast makes room
for everyone, even them in his call for community. Human beings are so concerned with keeping score, with being
right. Thus James writes "the conflicts and disputes come from your cravings that are at war within you… you
covet something and cannot obtain it; so you engage in disputes and conflicts." The craving is for status
The contrast here is in the example of "great" vs. "nobody much." In that society, women and
children had no real place except as the possessions of a man. While the disciples were bickering about which one
of them would get to sit at the head of the table one day, Jesus reached down to the "nobody" child and
announced "My Kingdom is about a different kind of greatness than you seem to understand. It is about giving
a voice to the silenced, a place to the dispossessed, a sense of great worth to the one regarded as the most worthless
among you. If you want to be like me you must first see the value of them, and if you see my wisdom in my understanding
of this, then you can also know my understanding of God."
Since this is the time of year when the nominating committee is busy trying to fill the right positions with the
right workers, the education committee is trying to fill those last slots with the right teachers, and the Church
Council is trying to get you all to come out to small group meetings to hear about the challenges and visions of
the church…we often hear repeatedly how the same few do so much. It can be discouraging and it can also be dangerous,
threatening to give those few a sense of being the "truly dedicated."
It may be really important for all of us to note that children were not workers at all. The role of children in
the Greco-Roman world was very different than in our own. In that world children were thought of as unbridled little
bits of chaos. They were not considered naive, innocent, sweet, and trusting. Rather the ancients regarded children
as terrible nuisances, necessary for carrying on the family name and sustaining the village, who were able to be
disciplined and tolerated until they became useful, reasonable adults. They were without status, and possessed
no power to give them position. More than half of them did not live to be adults. Many were even killed at birth
(particularly girl children). Others were simply put out in the field, left to starve to death or perchance be
taken by a family who were unable to have children of their own. In times of food shortages the children were fed
last. There was no profit in taking children as captives since they we seen as useless burdens.
None of this was intended to be cruel. These were rather things people did because they felt they had to do them
to survive.
It was not a good time to be a child. Children, along with tax collectors and sinners were considered to be second-class
citizens. They ranked last in the consideration accorded to persons - even lower than women-- simply another mouth
to feed.
So picture those first disciples who were given the example of a child,-- as tall as their kneecaps, with limited
vocabulary, unemployed, zero net worth, a nobody in this world,--and yet they were told here is a sign of the way
God organizes community.
Maya Anjelou, speaking to the importance of letting children know how precious they are, said, "When your
child walks into the room, do your eyes light up?" Our churches may want to check the mirrors to see what
their faces reflect regarding the presence of the children in their midst. The one who cries or makes a little
noise, the strange one who was probably only brought here to be baptized, the others who came with that child that
we've never seen before. What they see in our eyes will certainly have an impact on those children's future desire
to participate in the life of the church.
At the same time, while we may take Jesus' words to heart we must also face the fact that we have perverted the
value system of his day in a totally different way. Today's children are no longer children. They dress as little
adults, they choose life-styles that are adult, they have become so sophisticated that "simple and naive"
is not always an epithet that can be leveled at them. Too many of them want the same values they see modeled in
the homes that bore them, and they want those privileges before they can cope with the adulthood that demands them.
Their innocence was swept from them before their childhood began.
Maybe a part of the church's role today has to be as an example of an alternative. In light of the revelations
regarding the abuse of children within the church itself, and certainly it has happened in all denominations, we
must face the reality that welcoming a child into our midst must have as a priority the desire to protect their
innocence, or to give it back to them. For some children the church alone can provide that one safe place where
they can actually experience that place to be a child.
Perhaps parents more than anyone else need to hear that "learning to be a confident, happy, and productive"
child in the house of God may be the best example any of us can strive for. It often seems that the happiest people
in the world are the ones who aren't looking for it, who have less control over their circumstances, who don't
have what we call "advantages"... In other words, happiness is a byproduct, not the central issue in
their lives. They find it as a child finds a shiny pebble or a pretty flower.
Of course there will always be alternative views, and as a character in an Andre Gide novel says: "Some people
you have to allow to be right. It consoles them for not being anything else."
My God help us to make the wisest choice!
|