2 Samuel 11:26-12:13a (first published 3 August 2003)
Is an apology ever enough? Sean Patrick O'Malley, the newly installed
archbishop of Boston, has issued an apology on behalf of the Roman
Catholic Church to all those who were victims of sexual assaults by
priests. Other Christian denominations over the past several years have
issued apologies for racism or anti-Semitism. In an incident with at
least some similarities to the story of David and Bathsheba, President
Clinton apologized in 1998 for his affair with Monica Lewinsky and for the
lies he told concerning his relationship with her. All these apologies
may have been sincere, but there are still people who feel hurt by the
offending incidents. An apology in and of itself is good, if it is spoken
from the heart, but it is just one part of the act of repentance, which is
the proper response to having committed an offense against another person
or against a group of people. The first step in repentance is
realization, admitting to oneself that a sin has been committed. It could
be argued that people know that they're sinning when they do it, and
that's certainly true a lot of the time, but there are times when people
act in what they consider at that moment to be a perfectly reasonable way
of behaving, and it's only later that they realize that they were wrong.
For example, someone raised in a culture of bigotry may not acknowledge
that racial slurs are offensive, or that treating women as inferior to men
is anything other than biblical. Until they are confronted by real people
who have been offended and come to the realization that they were the
offending party, repentance cannot begin. Furthermore, the act of
realization must include contrition, the sense of sorrow for the wrong
committed. Without a feeling of sorrow, repentance can become a purely
intellectual exercise. Perhaps David felt he was within his rights as
king to appropriate the wife of one of his generals to himself, though his
subsequent attempts to cover up his sin argue that he quickly came to the
realization that he had done wrong. There is a strange ethical limbo that
we often inhabit between denial and realization. We can tell we are there
when, while denying that we've done anything wrong, we try fervently to
hide our actions from others. Only when we stop trying to cover up our
sin is there evidence that we've come to a proper realization of our sin,
having admitted to ourselves that we were wrong. The second step in
repentance is acceptance of responsibility. Even after we've admitted to
ourselves that what we did was wrong, we often try to put at least part of
the blame on others. In the story of the Fall in Genesis 3, God asked
Adam why he had disobeyed and eaten fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
Adam pointed his finger at Eve, Eve pointed her finger at the snake, and
the snake didn't have any fingers, so he was stuck with the blame.
Trying to blame others for our sins is a sure sign that we haven't yet
accepted responsibility. Even if others are partially at fault, it's our
job to accept our own responsibility, not point out the blame of others.
David accepts responsibility for his sins without trying to implicate
others: "I have sinned against the Lord." The third step in repentance is
an apology, or admitting our sins to others. Public officials often claim
that they accept responsibility for their own actions, or for the actions
of their subordinates, but if they don't also apologize, then their
admittance of responsibility is suspect. After several weeks of
finger-pointing, President Bush on Wednesday finally said that he accepts
personal responsibility for a misleading statement in the last State of
the Union address concerning Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from
Niger, a statement now widely acknowledged to have been false. However,
he has yet to take the next step and apologize for the statement, so his
acceptance of responsibility remains questionable. Whether the American
people will demand an apology remains to be seen. Interestingly,
President Clinton said recently that the American people should let the
whole matter drop. It seems that political leaders, from David to the
most recent U.S. presidents, have a tendency to try to avoid public
apologies for their misdeeds. The fourth step in repentance is a
commitment to change. It is all well and good to admit that you've done
wrong and apologize for it, but if, when confronted with a similar
situation, you'd do the same thing, you haven't made a commitment to
change, and you haven't completed the road to repentance. One is reminded
of the cycle of abuse that occurs all too frequently in the relationships
between certain men and women. The abuser abuses his victim (more times
than not, the abuser is male), feels bad for the abuse, and promises never
to do it again. However, when faced with stressful circumstances, the
abuser again abuses his victim, and the cycle repeats. Sometimes people
can change by dint of their own effort, but often people need assistance
from others, such as counselors or twelve-step programs. The level of a
person's commitment to change is not measured by that person's willingness
to accept strictures or do penance (though these may be helpful) but by
the person's ability to resist the urge to repeat the sin when faced with
similar circumstances. The final step to repentance, one that is often
overlooked, is restitution. It is often necessary for a person who has
wronged another to take steps to repay the person offended in some way.
It is not that payment (in whatever form) will undo the damage--a murderer
cannot restore the life of his victim, nor can a nation unto the offense
of those who were persecuted for their beliefs or for the color of their
skin--but it can help bring a measure of healing to the victims.
Restitution demonstrates that the offender has truly repented and seeks to
make amends. When a person or group has truly sought to follow the road
to repentance to its end, it is time for those who have been victimized to
respond by forgiving their offenders. Forgiving one's offenders is often
extremely difficult, and there are many who never forgive--just as there
are many who never repent--but if we are to follow the teachings of Jesus,
both offenders and offended have important roles to play in restoring
broken relationships.
Psalm 51:1-12 (first published 3 August 2003)
The title to Psalm 51 associates it with the incident involving David
and Bathsheba. The psalm titles were added long after composition of most
of the psalms, but this psalm certainly captures the spirit of a person
who has sinned and now seeks forgiveness from God. The psalmist seeks
forgiveness from God for an undisclosed sin. As with other psalms, this
one was purposely generic, so it could be used by people wanting to
confess a variety of wrongdoings. In fact, Psalm 51 came to be considered
one of the seven Penitential Psalms of the church, and it is the
best-known of these. In ancient Israel, worshipers who wished to confess
sins would bring a sacrifice to the priest and offer a prayer of
confession, like this psalm. Despite its attribution to David, this
psalm, at least in its present form, appears to date from after the exile,
since it alludes to the need to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (v. 18).
The psalm exemplifies the spirit of an individual properly asking for
forgiveness from God. It includes confession of sin, a plea for mercy, a
commitment to change, and the acknowledgement that the petitioner needs
God's help to change his or her life. A couple of passages are
potentially problematic. In verse 4, the psalmist says to God, "Against
you, you only, have I sinned." While it might be argued from a
theological perspective that all sin is an affront to God and that we need
to address our relationship with God before we can attempt to make things
right with other people, this verse is open to misapplication by those who
would try to evade the reality that sin usually affects other people, not
just God. It is easy to confess one's sins to God; it is not so easy to
confess one's sins to another person. One could argue from this psalm
that the only restitution God demands are a broken spirit and a contrite
heart, whereas making restitution to other people for our wrongdoings
might require much more effort. Certainly contrition is something that is
essential to true repentance, but it is only the beginning of what is
required. This psalm addresses the proper attitude that one must have
toward God when dealing with sin; it does not treat one's dealings with
those people who have suffered because of the sin. Both are crucial in
true repentance. A second problematic passage is verse 5, "Behold, I was
brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." This verse
has often been used to support the notion of original sin, the idea that
we inherit both a sin nature and the guilt associated with sin because we
are descendants of Adam and Eve. This is not the place for a full-blown
refutation of the doctrine of original sin, but it may be sufficient to
note, first, that the fact that Adam and Eve were literary rather than
historical figures precludes the literal transmission of a sinful nature
from them to us, and second, that the idea of attributing guilt as a
result of birth is not far from the ideas that are used to justify
genocide. A closer look at verse 5 itself shows that the psalmist had no
concept of original sin in mind. Using typical Hebrew poetic parallelism,
he associates iniquity (Heb. avôn) with sin (Heb.
chata) and delivery with conception. In other words, the psalmist
is not making any statement regarding the sin nature or the imputation of
guilt at conception any more than he is making a distinction between
iniquity and sin. He is using similar language describing the birth
process to emphasize that he has been sinful ever since he was born. The
idea is not that he inherited his sin from his mother but that he is and
always has been utterly sinful. When interpreted properly, this verse can
contribute positively to the process of repentance. When we sin, rather
than denying that we have done wrong, or saying that what we did wasn't
all that bad, or placing blame on others, it is important for us to accept
the fact that we--we ourselves--have sinned, because we have an innate
tendency to do what it wrong. Only when we have admitted to ourselves
that we are sinners can we approach God with the proper attitude, one that
says, "I need to change, but I can't do it myself--please help me!"
Ephesians 4:1-16 (first published 3 August 2003)
From the earliest days of the church, people have had different
understandings of the teachings of the Christianity. The New Testament
alludes to doctrinal differences between followers of Peter and followers
of Paul, and authors are quick to point out the errors of their opponents
(e.g., Gal 1:6-7; Col 2:20-23; Jude 4). However, the New Testament itself bears
testimony to differences of opinion even within the canonical writings
(e.g., Rom 4:2-5 and James 2:21-24; Mark 10:11 and Matt 19:9). Doctrinal diversity flourished in the
first few centuries, with groups such as Ebionites, Marcionites,
Montanists, Arians, Pelagians, Novatians, Circumcellians, Donatists,
Modalists, and Monophysites flitting around the outside edges of an
ever-changing "orthodoxy." The same situation prevails today, and the
efforts of groups like fundamentalists to define the basic doctrines of
the faith once and for all (in this case, in opposition to modernism and
in ignorance of post-modernism) illustrate the futility of trying to nail
down a fixed set of doctrines. All this is not to say that doctrine is
unimportant. Rather, it emphasizes the need for prayerful, intelligent
review of beliefs on an ongoing basis in the light of developments in
science, philosophy, and history. Today's reading from Ephesians gives
some guidance on how contemporary Christians might approach this important
task. Beginning at the end of the passage, it is essential to note that
Christianity requires both intelligence and love. As we develop and
refine our understanding of doctrine, we are to do so as adults rather
than children. Young children accept what authorities tell them without
argument; adults consider and doubt and question authority, then they
arrive at conclusions based on their past experiences and their current
understanding of the world. As progressive Christians, we do not need to
abandon earlier attempts to define the faith, but we do need to analyze
it, refine it, and revise it if necessary. We must do so with an attitude
of humility, "speaking the truth in love," for we of all people should be
aware that our understanding of the truth is not the same as the truth
itself. We acknowledge that there are contradictions and differences of
opinion in the Bible, just as there are in life. How do we resolve these
differences? If one passage says that women are not allowed to speak in
the church and another says that in Christ there is no male or female,
which teaching do we follow? If one passage tells slaves to obey their
masters and another says that we are all created in God's image, which is
more authoritative? Today's reading provides a principle for deciding
among the various options that confront us: "let us grow in all things
into him who is the head, Christ." Both the Bible and the world must be
interpreted according to the "Christ principle" if we are to be true to
the name Christian. If Jesus followed the customs of his day and treated
women as inferior to men, then we can justify doing so as well. If, on
the other hand, Jesus dealt with women as fully competent human
beings--as, in fact, he did--then we should cast aside cultural attempts
to subjugate women and accept the teaching "in Christ there is no male or
female" as prescriptive. Similarly, since Jesus worked with the poor and
the marginalized of society, condemning the abuses of all those in power,
we too should commit ourselves to upholding the dignity and worth of all
individuals, without regard for their nationality, skin color, language,
religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. To turn to the heart of the
reading, it is customary to quote verse 5, "one Lord, one faith, one
baptism," as though it stood alone. The whole passage, however speaks of
one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
Father-God. The emphasis is on Christian unity, in the midst of
diversity. There can be differences of opinion among Christians, just as
there always have been, so it is a mistake to try to base Christianity on
unity of doctrine. This is the error of fundamentalism, that it seeks
universal agreement on something about which there will never be
agreement. Instead, Christians should seek unity in those things about
which we can agree: the unity of God, the power of faith, the mystery of
baptism. These things can unite the church; insisting on unity of
doctrine will only divide the body of Christ.
John 6:24-35 (first published 3 August 2003)
In a Peanuts cartoon from the 1960s, Charlie Brown and Shermy are out in a rainstorm with an umbrella, and they see Snoopy sitting out in the rain. Deciding to encourage him, they walk to Snoopy and say, "Be of good cheer, Snoopy!" then they walk away. Their words provided little comfort to a dog that was suffering in the elements. In a similar way, the words of many Christians today offer faint help or hope to those who are in need. Jesus had a way of showing people that his words were not empty platitudes but reflected true compassion. Following the Feeding of the Five Thousand, Jesus has gone to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. When the crowds discover that he is there, they follow him to see what he will do next. When they ask him, "When did you get here?" Jesus realizes that the question is a cover; they really want to get more miraculous food from him. Christians need to be perceptive in the same way that Jesus was. We are confronted daily with news reports, politicians' statements, and opinion pieces that purport to tell us what is going on the world. Sometimes the information is straightforward, but often it is slanted in order to elicit a particular response. There is nothing wrong with presenting information from a particular perspective, as long as deception is not involved, but Christians need to be intelligent and informed enough to be able to discern the facts and apply our own interpretation. Jesus proceeds to tell people that he is the Bread of Life. His statements are not empty because he has already demonstrated that he can provide bread for life. Too often Christians today present the gospel message in reverse. We try to tell people that Jesus is the Bread of Life, but we don't make any attempt to show them that he can provide bread for life first. Jesus appears irrelevant to people, because we haven't shown them that God is concerned about every aspect of their lives, not just their membership in the church. When Jesus encountered people with specific physical needs, he met those needs first. He healed the blind and lame, cleansed lepers, fed the hungry, and healed the sick. Afterwards, he shared his understanding of the kingdom of God, and those to whom he had ministered were ready to listen. Modern "evangelism" programs act in reverse. They tell Christians to confront non-Christians with their need for salvation, without any mention of God's concern for their other, more immediate needs. There are certainly some people who have been struggling with their relationship with God who are ready to hear right now that Jesus is the Bread of Life. There are many others, however, who need to see that Jesus can provide bread for life by meeting what they see as their more immediate needs. Only then will they be open to hearing about issues such as salvation. The word "gospel" means "good news," and Jesus was proficient at tailoring his message, and his deeds, to the situation. Cookie-cutter approaches to evangelism may look good on paper, and they may even deliver some results, but they are not consistent with the testimony of Jesus himself. The world is full of people in need of food, or medicine, or hope, or even a friend. Until they see those basic needs met, in the name of Christ, they will not understand what it means when we say that Jesus is the Bread of Life.