I stopped watching TV news three or four years ago. But you have to know what's going on, somehow, so there are a few sources I've come to trust. But guess what? They're just as depressing as TV news. Because what is actually happening is worse than what you might imagine if you stayed ignorant. It used to be that the central theme was always money. Harry Truman said that any politician who leaves office richer than he was when he started is a crook. What do you see when you look at our political class? Just listen to the hearings in Congress. And our corporations are no better. U.S. companies don't indulge in principled stances regarding Hong Kong's independence or Uighur genocide; as long as Chinese money rolls in, companies roll over. International drug and human trafficking are the biggest businesses around - and the U.S. is their best customer. Recently the goal seems to have changed: from going green to Bud Light, ideology looks like the motivator. But if you look closely enough, even these can be compromised if money gets in the way. How many corporations that boycott states whose policies they don't like cheerfully do business with countries that execute homosexuals?
Whatever your issue, whether it's crime or corporate greed, public immorality, racial inequality or political corruption, the source of the problem is always somewhere else. Or someone else. Let’s not look at facts or figures or any kind of verifiable claim because - after all - it’s the system. Or the structures. Or the history. Or the other party. Or - you name it. It's just not - never - my fault.
But it is not the system that is corrupt. Because systems do not act, they merely provide a framework within which individuals act. And money and power cannot corrupt anyone except those who trust money above honor or integrity, trust in money or even worship it, or the power or security it can buy. And passing more laws, strengthening more rules, regulating more activities, will not change that fact.
One hundred forty-seven years ago the statesman Henry Clay was due to vote on a controversial measure - what it was no longer matters today - and was warned by a colleague that if he voted for the bill he would lose his chance to be president. Senator Clay replied, “Sir, I would rather be right than President.”
Can you imagine many - if any - of our politicians saying such a thing today?
On the contrary. What we hear is “I have to raise money - no matter how - to prevent the bad guys on the other side from ruining the country.” Or "I have to keep the profits up - no matter what moral principles I compromise." Or "I have to force others to adopt my vision - because I cannot be wrong."
Excuse me, Mr. Politician, Mr. Chief Executive. If you break the law, or even bend it a little, you are one of the bad guys. The system is not to blame for your actions. You are.
You are a moral agent. And if you are for sale, do not blame the purchaser.
We are all moral agents. And no matter how we may want to squirm and point fingers elsewhere, we must each accept responsibility for our own actions. And that is one of the duties of the Church - to shine the light of God’s truth even into the murky little shadows of our excuses and rationalizations. But it isn’t welcome.
The poet T. S. Eliot wrote, at the beginning of this century,
“Why should men love the Church? Why should they love her laws?
She tells them of Life and Death, and of all that they would forget.
She is tender where they would be hard, and hard where they like to be soft.
She tells them of Evil and Sin, and other unpleasant facts.
They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.”
Since he wrote those prophetic words the Church has to a large extent bought into the myth, by talking about sinful structures instead of about sinful people, and focusing on economic justice rather than personal holiness.
But agitating for more and better laws serves mostly to keep us too busy to tackle the more painful and necessary examination of our inner condition. Because the fact is that law does not eliminate corruption. Don’t get me wrong. There is a difference between good law and bad law. But good law cannot fill an ethical vacuum.
There is no law on earth - not even God’s law - that can immunize society against moral corruption. If good laws could make good people, why didn't the Israelites - with the Ten Commandments right in front of them - create a perfect society?
There is no law on earth that can absolve people from individual moral responsibility.
But what has this to do with today’s text?
Today’s text is about identifying the causes of sin, and dealing with them honestly. We are always trying to blame our sin on something else - on someone else, on society, on circumstances.
"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands and go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell." [v. 43-48]
This is one of those passages of Scripture that people like to gloss over, because it’s pretty brutal. In fact, Jesus uses the harshest possible language in order to capture his disciples’ attention. The fact of the matter is that Judaism prohibited self-mutilation. So we are not meant to take this literally, any more than we are to take Jesus’ statement in Luke 14:26 that you must hate your mother and father in order to follow him literally. But what we are to take literally is the idea that what makes us sin is part of ourselves. And we are to take very seriously indeed the importance of renouncing whatever is causing us to sin.
It is important for each of us to look around ourselves and to see what situations tempt us. The father of a dear friend of mine had a very effective outreach ministry to prostitutes. He had a combination of personal warmth and integrity that made them trust him, and listen to him, and he also had a practical streak that enabled him to help them make the connections they needed to get out of the trap of their lives. But my friend - who incidentally is a pastor, and a very godly man - said that he couldn’t do it. He couldn’t trust himself in that environment, at least not as a young man, which is when his father was active in this particular ministry. He knew that it wasn’t the women and their stories that were tempting him to sin, it was in himself. So he cut himself off from that area of temptation. He focused on different areas of ministry, where he thought he’d be safe. And he found that there were pretty women out there as well, and available, too, and his thought life still needed constant patrol. So he set some personal boundaries and shares his thoughts regularly with his wife to make sure he stays accountable.
An early theologian named Origen took things quite a bit further and castrated himself to keep from - if not feeling temptation, at least from acting on it. This is really excessive, although it did work as far as that particular temptation went. But did this rather drastic step eliminate all sin from Origen’s life? I don’t think so. Well, we know that Origen overdid it. But we have, I think, gone a bit too far in the opposite direction.
It used to be that many Protestants didn’t dance or go to movies, because such things were “worldly.” Of course we want to avoid the kind of rigid legalism that setting that kind of boundaries leads to, but they did have a point. I suspect that most of us can make a pretty good guess as to why dances were considered too tempting for the average hormone-enriched young person to be exposed to. Not to mention us so-called grownups. And movies! Why, even if you ignored the sexual content, and the violence, isn’t envy a problem? It is for me. Wouldn’t you like to look like Angelina Jolie or George Clooney? Or have a house ... or a car ... or clothes - or the life - of the people we see on the screen?
There is no place we can go where we will be free from temptation, and setting rules that single out only one or two of the more blatant forms leads us to ignore other kinds of sin as if they weren’t important.
That same pastor friend of mine (whom I’ll call Tom) told a story of a conversation he once had with a member of his congregation who self-righteously boasted that he never went to movies, and his family didn’t either. Tom asked him what the Biblical justification for his abstinence; the answer was from Psalm 1:1: “Happy are those who do not ...sit in the seat of scoffers.” When Tom asked if he hadn’t seen him at a hockey game the previous week, and weren’t there scoffers there as well, the answer was, “Well, that’s different.”
You see, every time we try to create a neat little system that will protect us from ever sinning as long as we follow the rules, we don’t have to examine our hearts, and we will go wrong, sometimes tragically. While we’re busy carefully following one law, there’s another on the far side that we’re probably breaking. If we major in purity, we may be flunking charity; a gift for mercy may hide a failure of stewardship. There are not enough rules in the world to keep ahead of the stubborn, devious, and inventive human heart.
So what do we do?
Do we dismantle all the laws, because some are poorly kept?
Do we redouble our efforts, checking off our performance on an ever-lengthening score-sheet?
Do we throw up our hands and say, “Well, can’t be perfect so why try?”
Do we perform a sort of ethical triage, picking a few favorites and tossing out the rest?
I think we can look to the same passage of Scripture that gave us the dilemma we’re wrestling with to get our answer. And the first thing that strikes us is that Jesus is primarily concerned here about our effect on other people. That shocking passage about cutting off hands and feet is tucked right in between one story and two principles relating to how we impact our world. Context always makes a difference as to how we interpret Scripture. In today’s Scripture text we find that there are three principles we can establish.
The first is the principle of inclusion.
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For truly, I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose the reward." [v. 38-40]
The disciples didn’t want anyone but the varsity team to play, even if they weren’t getting in the way. They weren’t willing to believe that God could work through someone who hadn’t come up through the system. But Jesus’ reaction to the disciples shows that he expects his followers to accept the ministry of others - even if they’re a bit unorthodox - as long as they’re working in his name, as long as what they are doing is not directly opposed to Jesus’ gospel of redemption and salvation. In other words, Jesus expects us to welcome Pentecostals and Catholics alike, as well as all of those in between, in all healing and helping ministries, whether we agree with their theology or not. Paul addresses this very issue in Romans 14 in one of my favorite verses: “Who are you to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.” Let’s leave the judging to Jesus; if they’re working in his name, Jesus says, they will not speak evil of him.
And in our zeal to maintain doctrinal and personal purity, do we sometimes reject people who don’t live up to our standards? The current argument within the denomination about acceptance of homosexuals centers around this very question. As I expect many of you probably know, I do not favor ordaining non-celibate homosexuals, nor do I favor celebrating same-sex partnerships. But I do believe that the church in the past has been wrong in denying fellowship to those who struggle in this area of their lives. I thank God that this is not a temptation I face. To offer friendship, healing, and forgiveness to those who struggle with - or have given in to - temptations that we have never had to face does not in any way compromise our standards. Fellowship is not leadership; forgiveness is not endorsement.
We sin when we deny fellowship in the body of Christ to those whose virtues and sins aren’t like ours. Sexual sins may indeed be uniquely damaging to our souls. On the other hand, it may be that the sins we tolerate in ourselves are more dangerous to a relationship with Jesus than the more obvious sexual ones. Let’s not be so focused on avoiding the obvious sins that we sin by exclusion; none of us dares to assume that our virtues are the most valuable ones. What causes us to sin in this area? Probably pride. Cut it out. We can maintain standards without demonizing those who don’t meet them.
The second principle is that of impact.
"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung round your neck and you were thrown into the sea." [v. 42]
Who are “these little ones” that Jesus is talking about? Is it the children that the disciples were to pay attention to in last week’s text? Probably. But it’s also those who are young or weak in faith, like the exorcist wannabes in this chapter that the disciples had tried to stop. Some translations render this verse, “whoever causes to sin,” rather than “whoever puts a stumbling block.“ This is a double-barreled injunction. Jesus is warning the disciples, and us, that we will be judged also by the influence we have on other people. First he rebukes the disciples for restricting access. Then he underlines this reprimand by telling them that ANYTHING THEY DO that keeps a new believer away, or prevents a weak believer from growing in faith, is a really, really, serious sin. We don’t live to ourselves alone, but to one another, as well as to God.
We sin when we forget that others are looking to us to provide an example of what it means to be a Christian. Don’t assume that your behavior doesn’t influence others. And Jesus isn’t just saying, “Don’t set a bad example.” He’s saying, “Do set a good example.” Do we set a good example in the way we control our time? Our money? Our tempers? Our tongues? What’s your particular failing? Greed? Anger? Sloth? Envy? You’re being watched, and you’re being imitated. Cut it out.
And the third principle is one of endurance.
"For every one will be salted with fire. Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it?" [v. 49-50]
My goodness! What on earth does that mean? “Everyone will be salted with fire.” It sounds pretty unpleasant. Well, both salt and fire represent purification. On top of that, salt was used for preservation, and fire indicated suffering. So what this passage is almost certainly saying is that Jesus’ disciples will be purified as they persevere, even through suffering. It’s a passive verb, “to be salted,” implying that we don’t accomplish our own purification. Which we already know, or ought to. In other words, we’re not to spend a whole lot of time worrying about each individual misdeed.
If we follow the gospel single-mindedly, welcoming strangers, cutting out those things in our lives which might drive people away from Jesus or keep them from growing in their faith, picking up and starting over when we slip, not being intimidated by disapproval or temptation or the sheer impossibility of the task, our purification and preservation will be taken care of for us. It will happen while we are not looking, if we are obedient in the other things Jesus requires of us. And through us, then, we can become salt and light for the world, as Christians are meant to be. Salt preserves. Salt purifies. Christians are called to be a force for moral good in our society. If we let Jesus through the Holy Spirit preserve and protect our souls, we are then enabled to influence our world.
We sin when we are so worried about our sins - and our sisters’ and brothers’ sins - that we forget that Jesus is the only sinless one. We sin when we worry so much about our weaknesses and failures that we become paralyzed in our service to Jesus and his church. We sin when we focus on ourselves, instead of on Jesus Christ and our neighbors. What causes this kind of sin, do you suppose? Could it be fear? Cut it out.
So, as Jesus said, we are to be ruthless in cutting out whatever it is that causes us to sin. It’s not something outside ourselves, that we can deal with by passing laws and following rules. It is, instead, something that’s part of our very selves. There is pride. There are all kinds of self-centeredness and self-indulgence. There is fear. Seven sins are classified as deadly, but that doesn't mean that other ones are harmless. Which one - or two - are your particular weaknesses? We have to be willing to cut them all out - but only Jesus can do the surgery.
Let’s invite him to do just that, naming our own faults and inviting the Spirit to make the necessary changes; and in exchange ask him to give us open arms, a positive impact, and the strength to endure.
