I Kings

Scriptural Sermons

Old Testament: I Kings

By Rebecca Clancy May 18, 2020
According to my grandmother, the greatest atrocity one could ever commit was, in her words, to “cause a stir.” And she bore this home to her grandchildren in no uncertain terms. I remember once my sister and I were, as was our frequent custom, visiting her for the weekend. It was Sunday evening. My parents never picked us up before 8:00 p.m. so we could watch our favorite show - The Wonderful World of Disney . As I watched I blew bubbles the size of my head with my bubble gum. I saw no transgression there; I was simply, what we now call it, multi-tasking. However, it was irritating to my sister. “Becca, stop!” she admonished. From the other room, I heard my grandmother’s voice, “Becca, are you causing a stir?” I immediately swallowed the wad of gum and sat bolt upright as stiff as Lot’s wife. “No, Grandmother,” I said faintly, hoping there would be no further repercussions for having caused a stir. For my grandmother, life was straightforward. Causing a stir was morally bad. Not causing a stir was morally good. Period. Though this approach to life earns high marks for being streamlined, sometimes it is less than a apropos. I remember once in the 60’s – the civil rights era, I heard my grandmother remark, “That colored man is certainly causing a stir.” She was referring, of course, to Martin Luther King, Jr. Good old Grandmother, God rest her soul. Her posture regarding causing a stir was largely the result of the expectations of her generation and especially her generation with regard to gender roles. Strange then, that is a posture that is still widely maintained today. It is the posture that assumes that causing the stir is the bad thing, and overlooks completely whatever gave rise to causing the stir. I had a dose of this just last week. As you may know, Wednesday was School Walk Out Day to protest school shootings. It was organized at the behest of the Parkland students. Just prior to the event I received two emails, one from the principal and one from the superintendent strongly urging the students not to participate. The emails presumed the unrest was the bad thing, not what gave rise to the unrest. To return to Martin Luther King, Jr., he said this was the real problem of the civil rights era. “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.” The good people didn’t want to cause a stir. In this morning’s gospel lesson. Jesus causes a stir. The scene was the temple of Jerusalem at the time of the Passover, the high Jewish holiday in which the Jews commemorated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. The Jews were now under Roman bondage. There must have been an undercurrent of tension as they drew the obvious comparison. But at the same time, Passover was being observed as it always had been. Crowds drawn from throughout the Roman Empire thronged the temple precincts vying to exchange their foreign currency in order to buy the animals for sale there for sacrifice. There was probably a decent profit to be had – by the commission on the foreign currency; but mostly on the sale of animals. You don’t have to be an economic genius to understand the law of supply and demand. During the Passover, the supply of animals was lower than the demand, therefore their sellers could charge many times what they could get for them under normal circumstances. But this was little cause for concern for the buyers. Everyone expects to get gauged a bit at big commercial centers around the time of a holiday. You don’t go to Disney World at Christmastime if you’re planning to pinch pennies. The bottom line is no one was really out -- everyone was ahead. But then Jesus caused a stir. A big one. A nasty one. He overturned the tables of the money changers and drove away the animals. Utter chaos must have ensued. So why did Jesus do it? Why did Jesus cause a stir? The pat answer is that he was angry that the Temple was being profaned because Passover had become so secularized and commercialized; and there is some truth to this pat answer. It was Solomon who built the first Temple. At its consecration he declared, “Will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this temple that I have built. Regard your servant’s prayer and his plea, O Lord my God, heeding the cry and prayer that your servant prays to you today; that your eyes may be open night and day toward this temple.” Solomon had the right idea. God was too lofty and majestic to be contained in a temple, but it was, at least, the site where God would cast his eye when his people approached him there in faithfulness and uprightness of heart. But for Jesus faithfulness and uprightness of heart were not exactly in view, nor was God for that matter. And Jesus felt the outrage all the more, because it was his father’s temple that was being profaned. But I think there is an additional reason why Jesus caused a stir. It is that the travesty taking place was being sanctioned by the religious authorities. In fact they orchestrated it. They presided over it. It was within their power. In short- they had a vested interest in it; a vested interest that was entrenched, as vested interests tend to be. Yes, his father’s temple was being profaned through the secularization and commercialization of Passover, but behind that was the fact that his father’s temple was being profaned by those who had exploited it for their vested interest. This is really why Jesus caused a stir. But you can’t go up against a vested interest. It won’t let you. Vested interests do not cede themselves voluntarily or by any civil means. This is an inviolable law, like the law of gravity. If you try to destroy a vested interest, it will try to destroy you in return. This is why after Jesus caused the stir, the religious authorities “kept looking for a way to kill him.” Jesus, of course, knew that they would. He had come to Jerusalem to die. Jesus caused a stir. So what is the lesson here for us? Is it that we should go around causing stirs? Perhaps. After all, “Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide.” Perhaps there will arise in your life or mine a time when we should cause a stir. Perhaps, but not necessarily. But what is necessary is that we make ourselves astutely aware, astutely aware, that stirs are not in and of themselves morally bad, because the bottom line is that the truth causes a stir. It always has, and it always will. The truth causes a stir - whether it is the truth of Jesus Christ, or the truth of those like Martin Luther King Jr., who followed after him. So when the truth causes a stir, that stir must not be subdued or suppressed by calls for patient, decorum, legalities, proper procedure, or any other excuse. What is necessary is that we stand fast for the truth, no matter how much of a stir the truth happens to be causing. After all, after Jesus cleansed the temple, the religious authorities “kept looking for a way to kill him,” but they were afraid, “because the crowd was spellbound.” The crowd knew the truth. For all the falsehood they had just been party to, after Jesus cleansed the temple the crowd then knew the truth. And so the religious authorities were, for the time being, deterred. Of course, Jesus was determined to die, and die he did. The whole point of his life was his death, after all. But that fact remains, when we stand fast for the truth, we at least give it a fighting chance over against its enemies. Amen.
By Rebecca Clancy May 18, 2020
Growing up, each summer my sister and I spent two weeks visiting Grandma Dorothy and Grandpa Jake in small town Ohio. We were young enough so that everything about the countryside seemed charmed -- from the drug store soda fountain where we ordered banana splits, to the trips to a nearby farm when a litter of baby pigs was born, to our visits with Aunt Wilma. Aunt Wilma was Grandma Dorothy’s sister. She’d lived in the house where she was born for almost eighty years. It was the house that time had forgotten -- complete with a butter churn, a well, and a horse and buggy. One summer as we were leaving to visit Aunt Wilma, Grandma Dorothy asked Grandpa Jake if he’d like to join us. “I’ll leave you to deal with Mary.” he said. “Mary?” I asked. “Is that Aunt Wilma’s real name?” Grandma Dorothy shot Grandpa Jake a look of reprimand, but Grandpa Jake continued undeterred. “Have you heard of Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary?” Grandpa Jake asked. “Well that’s Aunt Wilma -- Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary.” I found his disclosure to be highly stimulating. Grown ups didn’t usually dish about other grown ups to children. When we arrived at Aunt Wilma’s, I was en guarde to see if Aunt Wilma was indeed Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. “What a lovely day,” Grandma Dorothy remarked as we took our places for tea. “A lovely day!” Aunt Wilma expostulated. “The breeze must be out of the east, because every bone in my body aches!” Grandma Dorothy changed the subject. “Jake and I are taking the girls to the State Fair tomorrow.” She ventured. “The State Fair!!” Wilma again expostulated. “Are you going there to get your pockets picked? Had my own pocket picked at the State Fair.” “Now Wilma, Dorothy said gently, "that was way back in 1932.” “Grandpa Jake was right,” I thought to myself. Aunt Wilma was indeed Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Grandma Dorothy changed the subject again. “Girls, go out to the car and get the pecan pie that we made for Aunt Wilma.” We did as we were asked and set the pie on the table before Aunt Wilma. Aunt Wilma suddenly grew stiff as a ramrod. Her face donned a mask of impassivity. I could sense though that, as the prophet Amos put it, there were “mighty tumults” within her. She was struggling with self-mastery. Aunt Wilma wanted that pie. I could tell by the way she eyed it. But Aunt Wilma could only be contrary. If she was contrary, however; if she said something like -- “You know that pecans always get stuck between my teeth,” she risked losing the pie. She picked up the pie and secured it in the icebox. Only then did she say, “It beats me why anyone would want to spend the whole day baking!” When we got back home, I rushed to Grandpa Jake. “You were right! Aunt Wilma is Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary.” Grandpa Jake replied, “Those are the lenses through which she sees life.” Those are the lenses through which she sees life. It turned out to be a formative moment, because going forward, I noticed the lenses through which people see life. No doubt you’ve noticed the same thing I have. There are the lenses of those we could call scapegoaters. Scapegoaters blame some marginalized group for all that is wrong with the world. Something’s not right? It can only be the fault of those blacks, or those Jews, or those refugees, or those Muslims, or those homosexuals, or those immigrants. Then there are the lenses of those who have been wronged -- whether they have been betrayed, cheated, fired, snubbed, abandoned, what have you. They have been victimized, and this becomes their identity, their explanation, their excuse. Then there are the lenses of those out for themselves. They measure themselves and others according to their money and possessions, their status and connections. Those who don’t measure up do not exist for them. The lenses through which people see life. They’ve always been around. They go way back to the biblical period, though the lenses they wore back then can seem a bit strange to us. Take Bathsheba from our Old Testament lesson. Her lenses were, “What will advance the cause of my son?” As I said, a bit strange to us, but less strange if you think about it. Women in the biblical period didn’t have much power in their own right. What power they had they had they acquired through the men in their lives. Initially they acquired power through their husbands, but after their sons were born, their husbands soon became yesterday’s news. They were of the past, after all, and their sons were of the future. The bottom line is that what advanced the cause of their sons, advanced their cause as well. So Bathsheba’s lenses were, “What will advance the cause of my son?” And Bathsheba’s husband was the most powerful man of his day. Bathsheba’s husband was King David. Even so, once her son Solomon was born Bathsheba had but one focus: that someday Solomon would occupy King David’s throne. Not that he had any claim upon that throne. He had none whatsoever. That throne was by right his elder brother Adonijah’s. That didn’t stop Bathsheba. Her lenses firmly in place, at the end of the day Adonijah was dead, and Solomon occupied King David’s throne. Now the stakes with regard to the lenses through which we see life may not be, as they were with regard to Bathsheba and Solomon, a matter of life and death, but there are still stakes involved. Because for one thing, the lenses through which we see life, ironically, distort our vision. We can’t see reality rightly, and therefore we can’t act rightly toward it. We can’t contribute to reality in any intentional or productive or truthful way. Just the opposite: We “contribute” to reality in an unintentional, unproductive, and untruthful way. And this is particularly pronounced when it comes to relationships. Relationships, real relationships anyway, are only possible between those who see reality rightly and in that light establish bonds of mutual understanding and concern. When we have lenses through which we see life, this is not possible. All we can do is grind an axe. And no one desires to be the sounding board of another grinding an axe. At family reunions with Grandma Dorothy and Grandpa Jake, everyone knew to steer a wide berth around Aunt Wilma. No one wanted to be the sounding board of Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Through the years I would look across the room to some fresh meat she got her teeth into. In the eyes of Aunt Wilma’s prey I could see a desperate look, as if to say “Someone save me!” But of course there was never a rescue. With Aunt Wilma it was every man for himself. The lenses through which we see life. It couldn’t possibly make any sense for them to be the lenses of Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary, or a scapegoater, or those who have been wronged, or those out for themselves. It only makes sense for them to be the lenses of Jesus Christ, who as the Son of God saw life through God’s eyes. He saw reality perfectly, acted perfectly toward it, and perfected all of his relationships. Not that this resulted in harmonious relationships. Reality encompasses much evil. His relationships reflected this -- with rejection and repudiation towards those who co opted religion for their own ends, those who exploited the vulnerable, those who cast their lot with the powerful; those who practiced hypocrisy or hardness of heart; but with caring and affection towards those who sought him, those who practiced justice and mercy, and those who bound up the broken hearted, those who practiced integrity and love. These are the lenses we should strive to put on. The apostle Paul had his own way of saying it. “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” he commended. And so I commend you. Amen.
Share by: