Village Shepherd

Note: There is no content for Proper 5 / OT 10 / Pentecost 3 from The Village Shepherd. This excerpt is a substitute for subscribers of The Village Shepherd.

I was watching an interview on television concerning the ENRON scandal -- a scandal that stole the lifetime savings of workers and investors who trusted the company. It was the week of the deadline for CEOs to sign off on the accuracy of their company's financial reports. Many CEOs had already done so. However, this was the last day required by law. An interviewer asked a panelist a question: "Do you think it will do any good to have the CEOs sign off on this? If these people are capable of fixing the books, what makes you think they'll not also lie to cover it up by signing off on it?" The reply startled me as it brought silence from the interviewer: "Well, evidently there are some people around who still believe that telling the truth is the right thing to do." The silence from the interviewer seemed to suggest that he hadn't even considered that.

Are there any people left who tell the truth? Does anyone tell the truth anymore?

Not long after, Martha Stewart was to be subpoenaed as a witness with regard to an ongoing investigation into alleged insider trading. For a moment, we were spared another potential circus in the courtroom. At the time, a friend sent me a clipping about a new Martha Stewart biography that had just come out. It told about how Martha expects her overnight guests to get up early the next morning and pull weeds in her garden. After hearing that, I didn't know what to expect from someone who thought that was okay. I find it hard to see how that's "a good thing." I've not been invited to stay overnight at Martha's and probably never will after this comment. Martha is back and in good standing after spending time in jail. We Americans love comeback kids, whether they are good or bad, innocent or guilty. It doesn't seem to make any difference as long as they hang in there and persevere.

Does anyone tell the truth anymore? I know that Jesus does. Jesus is part of that long biblical tradition in favor of truth-telling. One of the Ten Commandments has something to say about it. The entire book of Ezekiel is based on the biblical idea of speaking truth to power. Jesus continues this high-prophetic vocation of calling things by their right names. Before we look at what Jesus has to say in this gospel lesson, let's take a look at the foundation laid in the book of Ezekiel.

I have a particular fondness for the book of Ezekiel. Chapter 18 of Ezekiel is one of the most important chapters in the Bible. It's one of those places where we see the Bible correcting itself, setting the record straight. The first three verses lay it out for us.

The word of the Lord came to me: What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge"? "As I live," says the Lord God, "this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel."
-- Ezekiel 18:1-3 NRSV

With the stroke of a pen, a centuries-old tradition is scratched out. Until that time, the Israelites believed that their sins were visited upon them until the fifth generation. Moses had said so. More recently, the book of Lamentations put it like this: "Our ancestors sinned; they are no more, and we bear their iniquities" (Lamentations 5:7 NRSV). That was what the people believed. Now, Ezekiel gets rid of all that. Speaking for the Lord, the prophet says, "Not so," or at least, "Not so anymore."

Then, in what I consider one of the most important verses in one of the most important chapters of the Bible, Ezekiel 18:4, we hear these words, "Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die." What matters is individual responsibility. It's a word we desperately need to hear today.

What made Ezekiel come to this conclusion? What happened to make him say this? What made him so sure that God had given him a new word on the subject? It was a time of a national disaster. The nation of Israel had fallen in 587 BC. It's the period of biblical history we call the Exile. Babylon had conquered Israel. They had actually carried Israel's brightest and best away. And there in a foreign land where many were asking the same kind of question we're asking ourselves today: How can this happen? How can this happen in America? Back then they were saying: "How can this happen in Israel?"

Some of the people at the time were using Moses' five generations of punishment to get themselves off the hook. They were saying they were being punished because of what their ancestors did. Particularly, they had in mind the reign of King Manasseh, during which all sorts of horrible things had transpired. "So," they were saying, "if we have it bad now, it's because of what a former administration did. We inherited all these problems." Ezekiel will have none of this. "No," he says, "the problem is not them; it's us. We're the problem. We can't pass the buck on this one. Stand up and take responsibility for what's going on in your lives!"

To prove his point, Ezekiel spends the rest of the chapter outlining specific examples. He gives three case histories. The first has to do with a good man; the second, with a bad son of a good man; the third, a good son of a bad man. Ezekiel goes into detail showing how each is responsible for only what they do and not for what their fathers or sons have done. Ezekiel's items of concern run all the way from right worship to robbery and not taking care of the needy. It looks like Ezekiel had in the back of his mind a new list of responsibilities based on the Ten Commandments. What we do now is the bottom line: "... such a one is righteous; he shall surely live" (Ezekiel 18:9 NRSV). Furthermore, God wants everyone to be righteous. "Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God. Turn, then, and live" (Ezekiel 18:31-32 NRSV).

The point is that there is no inherited righteousness or inherited sin for that matter. We each are responsible for what we do. We can't blame it on someone else. Just to make it perfectly clear, it also doesn't matter if everyone is doing it. "So what?" says Ezekiel. We each must accept our own responsibility.

So to say that Jesus continues the tradition of Ezekiel is to put it mildly. We see it clearly in our gospel lesson. Jesus speaks about the forgiveness of sins and blasphemy and there is forgiveness of every kind, except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Centuries of Christians have debated on just what this unforgivable sin is. As best as I can tell, it has something to do with going against the Spirit of Truth deep inside of us. It has to do with going against our conscience. In other words, it has to do with not telling the truth. If God is TRUTH, in all capitals, as I believe God is, then not telling the truth is sinning against God.

We can see this in the discussion preceding this teaching on the Holy Spirit. The entire discussion centers around what it means to tell the truth and just who is and who is not doing it. As the lesson continues, it becomes crystal clear who's telling the truth. It's also brought to light who the blasphemers are. It's a classic example of what we now call "demonizing the opponent." Not only do the scribes criticize Jesus for what he has been saying and doing, they utter all kinds of false statements about him including the ultimate one: "He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of demons he casts out demons" (Mark 3:22 NRSV). It's the kind of thing we see every day, unfortunately, especially during the weeks and months leading up to a political election. Presidential candidates are compared with everything up to and including Hitler. It's nothing new. Even Jesus, himself, had to go through it.

Jesus did not let it go unnoticed. He did not content himself with thinking that given time it would all just go away. No, he met it head on. He asked the scribes

How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come.
-- Mark 3:23-26 NRSV

In a tour de force, Jesus vividly points out that Satan has more sense than to destroy his own kingdom. What advantage is there in that? Isn't the best way to launch a revolution always from the inside? Far from being on the side of Satan and his demons, Jesus says he's bent on destroying them. If the scribes will just look at what's going on around them, they will be able to see that. The lame walk, the blind see. "But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered" (Mark 3:27 NRSV). But being as blind to the truth as they are, this is exactly what the scribes cannot see. The religious leaders of Jesus' day are blind to the truth, as are Jesus' own relatives. The bottom line is that those who follow Jesus and endeavor to do God's will are the true righteous ones.

That's about as clear as it can be. In the same vein as Ezekiel, Jesus says that we, and only we, are responsible for what's in our hearts and minds -- and what comes out of our mouths. Words are important because they reveal what's going on inside of us. It's important that we tell the truth because that's the only way people can trust what we say. Demonizing others just to get our way only gets in the way of the truth; it does not lead to it.

What was so frustrating about the O.J. Simpson trial was that truth seemed to be twisted this way and that every other day. What also complicated matters was that the race issue was always in the background. Follow-up surveys suggested that, in general, whites felt he was guilty and blacks thought him innocent. Neither could seem to get to the truth or could they? And from the O.J. jokes that are still making the late-night TV shows, even to this day, I don't think we'll ever agree on the truth, regardless of the official verdict.

Does anybody tell the truth anymore? According to Ezekiel and Jesus, it really doesn't matter what anybody else does, it only matters what we do.

By now, I'm sure that most of you have seen the movie, Erin Brochovich. If you can get around the strong language, it's a good movie based on a true story. There is a real Erin Brochovich -- Julia Roberts only plays her in the movie. The real Erin Brochovich took on a $30 billion company in a direct action lawsuit. The real Erin Brochovich has been divorced twice and at the time the movie covers, was an unemployed mother of three. Ms. Brochovich finds herself in a car accident that is not her fault. Since she has no insurance, the medical expenses she incurs puts her $17,000 in debt. When she takes the other driver to court, her lawyer fails to obtain a settlement.

As compensation, she browbeats her lawyer into giving her a job in his office filing. In going about her job of filing real estate documents, she runs upon some medical bills. She begins to question the connection. This leads to the discovery that a big power company, PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric), had knowingly used the chemical Chromium 6 in its compressor plants, a chemical that contaminated water and caused over 600 cases of illness in the community.

Ms. Brochovich has no legal training. Her only claim to fame was that she was once Miss Wichita. Erin can relate to what these people are going through so she begins a passionate investigation, going from house to house, listening to the stories of the families who have suffered, people who trusted that the big company was telling the truth.

There's a scene in the movie that brings it all home. The line between art and reality is blurred when the real judge, Leroy A. Simmons, appears in the movie playing himself. As he reads his decision, his presence adds credibility to the film. Judge Simmons reviewed the case together with the 84 objections filed by the lawyers of PG&E before making his decision. But on a personal note, he added that he lived in the area not far from the locality in question and he was particularly disturbed by the evidence that PG&E willingly and knowingly sent out pamphlets telling the residents that the chemical was harmless. He decided to let the case proceed and to deny all 84 objections.

After Erin secures the 600 signatures required, the direct action lawsuit results in a settlement in which PG&E is directed to pay $333 million without ever admitting they were guilty. At the time, it was the largest direct action lawsuit in American history.

Does anybody ever tell the truth anymore? Evidently. Ezekiel and Jesus would be proud. Amen.