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.