Confrontation
– that is what is at the heart of our gospel lesson today and there is possibly
no more difficult skill to master than to confront others well and to be
confronted in turn. As human beings we
rather despise confrontation, indeed, psychologists have discovered that
confrontation can activate the same portions of the brain as actual physical
pain. If someone has ever confronted you
and you suddenly feel as if you’ve been physically hit, it is because our
brains interpret having our beliefs or our actions confronted in the same way
it interprets a physical assault. First
there is shock and then there is the fight or flight reflex. The adrenaline begins to pump, the senses
heighten, and the heart begins to beat hard and fast so all the cells in your
body will have the oxygen they need to either do battle or to runaway quickly
to safety. If after being confronted you
felt yourself falling away into anger or tremendous fear, this is why. It is your fight or flight reflex. You see, your body considers your
psychological health just as important as your physical health and so when you are being confronted; when your
upbringing, your politics, all the ideas that you have absorbed into your
identity, when they are being called into question your body reacts to them in
the exact same manner as it would a physical threat. It is a phenomenon called Identity Protective
Cognition.
The problem
is, of course, that as sinful and broken human beings we often need to be
confronted. We need to have our
understandings questioned and our behaviors challenged. Left to our own devices, human beings are an incredibly
dangerous species. We are the only
creature on the planet that acts as our own population control, and as such we
pose a danger not only to ourselves but even the very world around us. Now, I don’t personally have a problem with
evolution, but in my forty years of life I have never understood how professors
and doctors of biology can look at such a willfully ignorant and wantonly
selfish organism as humanity and dare to call it “evolved”. If survival of the fittest was the only rule,
if it was the only force acting on creation’s behalf and not Divine Grace, then
quite frankly a naked ape that can’t run, isn’t very strong, and doesn’t climb
trees well should have been first on the evolutionary chopping block.
But that is
the nature of the human species. Lazy,
undisciplined and blissfully stupid is in fact our preferred state most of the
time. The only time when we aren’t that
way is when the situation forces us to be otherwise. When was the last time any of us learned
something when we didn’t want to? When
something came up that we really wanted and nobody was around to see us, what
happened? We did what we wanted! Right or wrong! That is who we are. If we don’t have to learn something we often
won’t, and unless our actions will net us punishment we will often do as we
please regardless of the consequences. We
all inherently know that we are this way; it is why most parents don’t have to
be told to discipline their children.
They know quite well the public consequences of unleashing a human being
with no discipline, no empathy, and no understanding of consequences upon the
world. We inherently know that the human
creature is not rational by its own volition; its only hope is to be raised and
constantly confronted with the understanding that it has the power of choice,
but that power must be used wisely and to the benefit of more than just the
self.
None of this,
however, makes confrontation any easier; indeed, confrontation is such a stress
that societies often develop unwritten rules of confrontation, little informal
statutes about who may confront whom and when.
Most of the time these rules are benign.
If Mom does something wrong, for instance, you just live with it. That’s the unwritten rule. Not only should you respect the fact that you
aren’t perfect either, but on a practical level the stress that the
confrontation causes just isn’t worth it – and so the confrontation is
avoided. Most of the time these
unwritten rules are benign, but there are plenty of instances when they most
certainly are not. Our culture can very
much use things like shame to control the kinds of confrontation its willing to
deal with. 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men
will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime in our country, and a third of
those women will be victimized before they even reach adulthood. And yet for both the men and the women our
culture has much the same response: what’s wrong with you? What were you wearing, how were you acting,
would he have thought you were being flirty. These are questions our appointed
justice system asks of our assault victims, and for the men it can be
worse. The men can be laughed right out
of court because it was obvious he wasn’t manly enough to defend himself. This is just one way that our culture uses
control and shame to say who may be confronted and who not.
This is who
we are: A people that desperately hate
confrontation, are in dire need of it nonetheless, but at the same time exist in a culture that
will deeply control who will get confronted and who won’t. All of these things you will find very much a
part of our gospel lesson today – except, of course, when it comes to Jesus.
So what is
going on in our gospel lesson, exactly?
You may not know it, but these passages are almost a perfect example of
the religious politics of Jesus’ day. You
see, both Jesus and John the Baptist would have been very controversial. John was not only offering repentance away
from the Temple and its sacrifices, but he was specifically offering it through
baptism in the river Jordan – something that only gentiles converting to
Judaism would have had to do. The
religious leaders of John’s day did not appreciate that, and if John rubbed
them the wrong way then Jesus would have had them screaming at the very top of
their lungs. Teaching people that there
were more important concerns than keeping the Sabbath; telling people that all
foods are clean; freely touching lepers and hanging out with tax collectors and
sinners, all while calling yourself a rabbi: the fact is all this would have
upset more than a few people. Jesus’
ministry was very confrontational.
Indeed, while in his youth he was understood as Joseph’s biological son,
in his adulthood and ministry it was understood that Jesus was fatherless, born
out of wedlock but got lucky. The writings
and sayings of the Pharisees that have been preserved universally call Mary a
harlot and no small amount of time and effort was spent trying to find Jesus’
real father. Not only was Jesus’
ministry inviting of confrontation, his very life was an affront to polite
society.
So when the
chief priests and the elders approach Jesus, asking him by what authority he is
doing these things, teaching at the temple, this is not a random question – it
is a direct, political attack. In this context, “by what authority are you
doing these things,” is a demand of not only of diploma but also pedigree –
both of which they know Jesus does not have.
“By what authority are you doing these things? How are you not the
uneducated son of harlot posing as a rabbi that these people should listen to
you on holy ground? Show us where you
graduated, introduce us to your human father – O right, you can’t”
It was
berating, it was shaming, and it was a direct attempt to control the
confrontational message that was the heart of Jesus’ ministry - that love is more
important than the law. Jesus was
confronted in the most public and humiliating way possible. Any one of us at this point would have our
blood pumping, our muscles growing tight, but not Jesus. Jesus does not do that. Indeed, his response is nothing short of
brilliant. Jesus confronts also, but he
does not confront to attack. He
confronts to reveal, and so he poses a question of his own. “I will also ask you one question; if you
tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these
things. Did the baptism of John come
from heaven, or was it of human origin?”
And so the
elders and the chief priests then immediately reveal their mindset, the very
motivation for asking Jesus their question.
They could have answered Jesus honestly, they could have even answered
individually, but what do they do? They
huddle together and try to cook up an answer.
Now if you are in the crowd and you see politicians make a jab and then
huddle together to discuss, you know this is not going to be about truth, you
know this isn’t going to be an honest attempt to understand, it’s gonna be
about what – POLITICS. Posing the
question that he does, he not only deflects his opponents attempt to control his
ministry but He also reveals their own selfish and political motivations for
even asking it. “We don’t know” they all
say in unison. And Jesus said unto them,
neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. A dishonest question does not warrant an
honest answer.
Do you see
what Jesus did there? He didn’t fight,
he didn’t flee, he didn’t pose the berating question that attacked his
opponent’s identities but rather he posed the revelatory question, the question
that instead unveiled motives and brought the listener to the very heart of the
matter at hand. That was Jesus’ method
of confrontation, and unfortunately we don’t have a lot of experience with it,
do we?
But we were
confronted with something else this week, weren’t we? Indeed, this kind of confrontation we have
all too much experience with. Not only
we as a congregation but all of America was confronted with it last Sunday
night, in Las Vegas, when a white retired millionaire name Stephen Paddock
opened fire upon an unsuspecting crowd at a country music concert from his room
on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay resort and casino, killing 50
and wounding almost 500. And just like
the thousands of times before it, the various factions in our country will
lobby for their own political ends, confronting the issue and each other after
the ways of fallen human beings, berating each other and using dead mothers,
fathers, and children as an excuse to attack people they don’t like. Both sides will do this. But we’re not going to do that today, not in
here. Today we are going to confront the
issue at hand, but we are going to do so after the way of Jesus, by asking the
revelatory question.
And we’ll
start with this one: How long can this pulpit avoid the issue of gun violence
and maintain its integrity? How many
dead bodies DO we need before its okay to talk about it? Is the issue of Gun
Violence and Gun Control so divisive, that members of a church cannot discuss
it without ruining friendships or breaking fellowship? Is political party more important than
Jesus? Is the wish to own a firearm for
home defense irrational? For poor
families that need to hunt in order to eat, does owning a firearm make them
evil? With that said, is it unreasonable
to screen people mentally, morally, and physically before they are allowed to
purchase a firearm? Is the 2nd
Amendment of the American Constitution Divinely Inspired Scripture? Were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin
Apostles? Every Amendment to the
constitution has never been seen as absolute.
If someone yells fire in a movie theatre, their freedom of speech will
not protect them. If a Classic-Satanist
ritually sacrifices a human being, their freedom of religion will not protect
them. Why is the Second Amendment
suddenly any different?
I can’t tell
you how to answer these questions, and indeed I never will. But as Christians, don’t we owe it to our
present and future dead to at least have asked them?