Hearing and not hearing
Commentary
The Old Testament lesson gives us an example of the diversity that characterizes the writings in the wisdom literature. Here is a poem that personifies Wisdom as a prophetess crying in the street. This personification of Wisdom comes to full flower in the Jewish writing, Sirach. The context in our lesson is the open marketplace of ideas where many voices compete for a hearing. Lady Wisdom is not without competition. Mistress Folly is also on a soapbox (Proverbs 9:13-18). The Word faces competition. Here is the competitive context in which the community of faith carries on the task of proclamation.
In this world where there are many tongues at work, James reminds us of the power of words to bless or curse. The little tongue is a powerful instrument that can mobilize language to wound or heal, destroy or build up, clarify or obfuscate. When it comes to the use of the tongue even by the most saintly among us, sin crouches at the door.
Our gospel lesson from Mark is set within a section of his gospel whose overarching theological theme is hearing and not hearing, seeing and not seeing (Mark 8:14--10:52). Last week we read how Jesus opened the ears of a deaf man. This week he is among his own disciples who, though they have ears, remain deaf to his cross talk.
Sermon Seeds In The Lessons
Proverbs 1:20-33
The Word of Divine Wisdom does not march forth in strength and take the field by storm. There are other words, other voices, other gospels, that is the situation of the preaching ministry of the church in every time and place. Lady Wisdom in this poem knows the preacher's discouragement when listeners turn their backs toward the Word. She runs the risk of becoming a bitter lady. "Because I have called and you refused, have stretched out my hand and no one heeded, and because you have ignored all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof, I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when panic strikes you ... when distress and anguish come upon you" (Proverbs 1:24-27). This is an honest expression of emotion. Who hasn't been tempted to gloat over the demise of fools?
Yet there is something troubling here. There are religious folk whose ego needs seem to require a hell for those who reject their messages. Think of the laments of Jesus over the negative reaction to his words and ministry (Luke 13:34-35, 19:41-45). He set the consequences before them, but there was no gloating, just tears, and arms outstretched on a cross.
James 3:1-12
"Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain to the quality of deeds." Elie Wiesel said that. Would it not be equally true to add that in moments of gracelessness, words also attain the quality of deeds? We tend to rate actions over words, forgetting that speech itself is an action. It is also a great mystery. You move a red muscle in your mouth, set sound waves moving in the atmosphere, and a small receiving set in someone's ear, far more complicated than any radio, picks up your noises and by a chemical miracle translates them into meaning. In your listener's head is inserted an idea that triggers a reaction. The biblical witness is prefaced by the conviction that speaking initiates action. "In the beginning was the Word."
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me." Oh yes they can! The Greek word for flesh is the word sarx. The Roman charioteer carried a sharp whip that cut into the flesh (sarx) of his horse. There is the origin of our English word, sarcasm. Sarcasm is words that lacerate and hurt. They can roll off the tongue of any one of us. Words can also bind up, encourage, inspire. People in the Nazi occupied countries of Europe risked listening to their radios at night. They hung onto the words of Winston Churchill. It has been said of him, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." Isn't it our task as the church to mobilize the wonderful words of life and put them into circulation? Each encounter of every day gives us opportunity to speak words that build mutual respect, reconcile, heal.
Saint Anthony of Paduah was a noted preacher. When his relics were unearthed the claim was made that his tongue was miraculously preserved. Do we need anything so much as a holy tongue? Think of all the television and radio talk show hosts who fill the air with mean-spirited bombast and hot air. Think of the acrimonious words generated by wagging tongues in the nation's capital. Think of how easily anger can control our own tongues.
I have heard a lot of mean things whispered in the nooks and corners of churches. So had James apparently. I think he would heartily commend the prayer of the psalmist: "Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips" (Psalm 141:3).
Mark 8:27-38
Mark makes it quite clear in his gospel that Jesus had problems of communication with his disciples. Is this an ongoing problem? Three times in Mark's narrative Jesus will try to tell his disciples about the suffering he sees ahead of him. Three times they will just screen out his words.
This first incident is prefaced by Jesus' questions, first about who others say he is, and second, about who they say that he is. Peter is first to answer this second question and he answers in terms of the traditional expectation. "You are the Messiah." Then Jesus quite openly starts to talk about events awaiting him in Jerusalem. Peter assumes the posture of teacher, takes Jesus aside, and rebukes him. Peter would impose upon Jesus his own definition of his person and mission. The severe reply of Jesus reveals that Peter and the others have been interpreting Jesus in terms of the values of pomp and power that prevail in their own culture.
Jesus must have anticipated this kind of an answer, else why did he forbid them to mention Peter's answer to anyone? Mark certainly wants us to get the point that there is only one way to understand Jesus and that is in terms of the cross. Mark certainly wants us, the readers, to see ourselves mirrored in the presumption of Peter and the propensity of the disciples to see Jesus in terms of the values and presuppositions of their own culture. The Jesus Bruce Barton wrote about in the 1920s looked very much like a successful corporate executive. Look through the picture file of your church school and see how many pictures show him as quite middle class.
Check out John Bowden's provocative book, Jesus, the Unanswered Questions. In chapter four, "The Kaleidoscopic Christ," he reviews the dazzling variety of ways Jesus is seen through the eyes of Christians around the world. There are subtle ways in which cultural values and even psychological needs can shape one's image of Jesus. Is this the Satanic influence that Jesus perceived?
The convenient deafness of the disciples to the cross talk of Jesus is also suggestive. We do not hear what we do not want to hear. Is their non-understanding as simple as that? Why are Christmas Eve and Easter services the most heavily attended and Maundy Thursday and Good Friday services much less popular? Is Mark assaulting disciples who proclaim a triumphalist message of cheap faith and easy victories?
In this world where there are many tongues at work, James reminds us of the power of words to bless or curse. The little tongue is a powerful instrument that can mobilize language to wound or heal, destroy or build up, clarify or obfuscate. When it comes to the use of the tongue even by the most saintly among us, sin crouches at the door.
Our gospel lesson from Mark is set within a section of his gospel whose overarching theological theme is hearing and not hearing, seeing and not seeing (Mark 8:14--10:52). Last week we read how Jesus opened the ears of a deaf man. This week he is among his own disciples who, though they have ears, remain deaf to his cross talk.
Sermon Seeds In The Lessons
Proverbs 1:20-33
The Word of Divine Wisdom does not march forth in strength and take the field by storm. There are other words, other voices, other gospels, that is the situation of the preaching ministry of the church in every time and place. Lady Wisdom in this poem knows the preacher's discouragement when listeners turn their backs toward the Word. She runs the risk of becoming a bitter lady. "Because I have called and you refused, have stretched out my hand and no one heeded, and because you have ignored all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof, I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when panic strikes you ... when distress and anguish come upon you" (Proverbs 1:24-27). This is an honest expression of emotion. Who hasn't been tempted to gloat over the demise of fools?
Yet there is something troubling here. There are religious folk whose ego needs seem to require a hell for those who reject their messages. Think of the laments of Jesus over the negative reaction to his words and ministry (Luke 13:34-35, 19:41-45). He set the consequences before them, but there was no gloating, just tears, and arms outstretched on a cross.
James 3:1-12
"Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain to the quality of deeds." Elie Wiesel said that. Would it not be equally true to add that in moments of gracelessness, words also attain the quality of deeds? We tend to rate actions over words, forgetting that speech itself is an action. It is also a great mystery. You move a red muscle in your mouth, set sound waves moving in the atmosphere, and a small receiving set in someone's ear, far more complicated than any radio, picks up your noises and by a chemical miracle translates them into meaning. In your listener's head is inserted an idea that triggers a reaction. The biblical witness is prefaced by the conviction that speaking initiates action. "In the beginning was the Word."
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me." Oh yes they can! The Greek word for flesh is the word sarx. The Roman charioteer carried a sharp whip that cut into the flesh (sarx) of his horse. There is the origin of our English word, sarcasm. Sarcasm is words that lacerate and hurt. They can roll off the tongue of any one of us. Words can also bind up, encourage, inspire. People in the Nazi occupied countries of Europe risked listening to their radios at night. They hung onto the words of Winston Churchill. It has been said of him, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." Isn't it our task as the church to mobilize the wonderful words of life and put them into circulation? Each encounter of every day gives us opportunity to speak words that build mutual respect, reconcile, heal.
Saint Anthony of Paduah was a noted preacher. When his relics were unearthed the claim was made that his tongue was miraculously preserved. Do we need anything so much as a holy tongue? Think of all the television and radio talk show hosts who fill the air with mean-spirited bombast and hot air. Think of the acrimonious words generated by wagging tongues in the nation's capital. Think of how easily anger can control our own tongues.
I have heard a lot of mean things whispered in the nooks and corners of churches. So had James apparently. I think he would heartily commend the prayer of the psalmist: "Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord; keep watch over the door of my lips" (Psalm 141:3).
Mark 8:27-38
Mark makes it quite clear in his gospel that Jesus had problems of communication with his disciples. Is this an ongoing problem? Three times in Mark's narrative Jesus will try to tell his disciples about the suffering he sees ahead of him. Three times they will just screen out his words.
This first incident is prefaced by Jesus' questions, first about who others say he is, and second, about who they say that he is. Peter is first to answer this second question and he answers in terms of the traditional expectation. "You are the Messiah." Then Jesus quite openly starts to talk about events awaiting him in Jerusalem. Peter assumes the posture of teacher, takes Jesus aside, and rebukes him. Peter would impose upon Jesus his own definition of his person and mission. The severe reply of Jesus reveals that Peter and the others have been interpreting Jesus in terms of the values of pomp and power that prevail in their own culture.
Jesus must have anticipated this kind of an answer, else why did he forbid them to mention Peter's answer to anyone? Mark certainly wants us to get the point that there is only one way to understand Jesus and that is in terms of the cross. Mark certainly wants us, the readers, to see ourselves mirrored in the presumption of Peter and the propensity of the disciples to see Jesus in terms of the values and presuppositions of their own culture. The Jesus Bruce Barton wrote about in the 1920s looked very much like a successful corporate executive. Look through the picture file of your church school and see how many pictures show him as quite middle class.
Check out John Bowden's provocative book, Jesus, the Unanswered Questions. In chapter four, "The Kaleidoscopic Christ," he reviews the dazzling variety of ways Jesus is seen through the eyes of Christians around the world. There are subtle ways in which cultural values and even psychological needs can shape one's image of Jesus. Is this the Satanic influence that Jesus perceived?
The convenient deafness of the disciples to the cross talk of Jesus is also suggestive. We do not hear what we do not want to hear. Is their non-understanding as simple as that? Why are Christmas Eve and Easter services the most heavily attended and Maundy Thursday and Good Friday services much less popular? Is Mark assaulting disciples who proclaim a triumphalist message of cheap faith and easy victories?
