|
[This sermon is also available in MS Word format]
And in Jesus Christ … (Mark 8:22-33)
Rollins Chapel
September 30, 2004
Richard R. Crocker, Ph.D.
For those of you attending for the first time this term, I should explain that the sermons for the term are based on the Apostles' Creed, the oldest and shortest Christian creed, dating from the second century. A creed is a summary of belief. As we consider the whole issue of Christian faith in a pluralistic world, I thought it wise to begin with a summary of what Christians throughout the ages have said they believe.
Last week we began with the first article: "I believe in God the Father Almighty" If you don't remember what I said about that, or if you weren't here, you can read the sermon on the Tucker website (http://www.dartmouth.edu../rsl/chapel.html). Today, "and in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord."
While belief in God characterizes many religions, the specific claims that Christians make about Jesus are distinctive. For the next few weeks, we will consider some of those claims. Today, we have enough for theologians to talk about for endless ages. I shall do it in the next seven minutes. Forgive me for being sketchy. Here are the claims. Jesus. Christ, only Son, our Lord. There are four claims here, and I suggest that they get increasingly difficult and demanding.
Jesus. While there are a few skeptics who believe that the man Jesus never existed, they are very few indeed. The existence of the man Jesus is as historically certain as almost any ancient person. But what we know about Jesus is almost entirely contained in the writings of the New Testament. And while the picture of him that emerges is interesting for anyone and compelling for many, these scriptures raise as many factual and historical questions as they answer. Look for example at the passage we read today from Mark's gospel - the passage that occurs at the very center of that gospel, containing Peter's confession of faith in Jesus. It begins with Jesus healing a blind man - in a most mysterious fashion, using saliva. Then Jesus asks his band of disciples (generally thought to be twelve, but their names differ) who people say that he is. We get a list of candidates, reflecting the religious atmosphere of the time, ranging from John the Baptist who just got killed (so how could Jesus be John the Baptist?) to one of the prophets - an easier thing to accept - something that many Jews and all Muslims and even most secularists at Dartmouth would concede) to Elijah - the prophet traditionally thought to be the one who would return from heaven to proclaim the coming Messiah. Then Jesus asks them, but who do you say that I am? And Peter says - you are the Messiah- by which he means - you are the anointed one, the long awaited King sent by God. That is what messiah meant. Now this gospel doesn't say how Jesus received this confession except to say he immediately began to teach his disciples that he would undergo suffering and be rejected and killed - in other words, this is the very opposite of what they expected. Peter protested, and Jesus called him Satan - the rebel. Wow. Powerful, disconcerting, perpetually interesting stuff. A similar account occurs in Luke, but it is different in some important details. These differences in the gospel accounts remind us that we are reading accounts motivated and filtered by different concerns. But their unifying point is to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the awaited one, the ruler sent by God.
Christ is the Greek work for Messiah. So the second claim is Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the awaited one. Christians who make this profession place themselves squarely in Jewish history, for it is only in Jewish history that the term even makes sense. Yet, as we know, though all his early disciples were Jews, the claim that Jesus is the messiah was not accepted by many Jews, and so the Christian church today is separate from Judaism - with a history of antipathy that has been bloody, tragic, and persistent. Those who do not see Jesus as the Messiah have their reasons. Those who do can not believe otherwise.
Only Son. The creed calls Jesus the "God's only Son." This is obviously a faith claim of the highest order. The son of God is a fairly strange term for most of us, but it would not have been for inhabitants of the ancient world, where Roman emperors and other rulers were regularly called gods and sons of God. The claim that Jesus is the son of God is one that most Romans would have understood - not necessary agreed with, but understood. What would have appalled them is the addition of the word only. What Christians said was that Jesus was the only one - not one among many, but the only revealer of who God truly is - superceding all rulers, all emperors, and all prophets. This claim, the essence of Christianity for many, was then and continues to be a scandal in a pluralistic culture, which is quite willing to recognize Jesus as one among many, but which is scandalized by the claim of his uniqueness. Many would say that the claim that Jesus is "the only son of God" is the hardest claim in the creed. I would say not. It's hard, it's potentially divisive, but not the hardest. The hardest is the last one - "Our Lord."
Why is "our Lord" the hardest? Simply because it is intensely practical. If one says that Jesus Christ is God's only son, that is a claim that no one can disprove or discredit. It is an intellectual metaphysical claim. It may be very important to metaphysicians, but, in pragmatic terms, it is a claim that carries few pragmatic consequences. Calling Jesus Lord, on the other hand, carries intensely practical consequences. In the late Roman Empire, subjects were required to make a confession each year that "Caesar is Lord." If they made that claim, they could practice any religion they wanted, as long as they proclaimed that Caesar was the ultimate authority whom they obeyed. To refuse to make that confession was to risk execution. Early Christians refused to make it. They insisted that "Jesus is Lord." And so they were, some of them, thrown to the lions.
The claim "Jesus is Lord" still carries risks and consequences. It is still an affirmation that has meaning and sets people in opposition to other authorities. Thus, for example, the world has a right to expect people who say "Jesus is Lord" to act as if they believe that Jesus is their boss. And when we look at what Jesus commands, we see that he imposed no ritual commands at all. There are no words of Jesus commanding his disciples to go to church, or to carry out a ritualistic version of the last supper. But there are explicit commands that disciples of Jesus - those who call him Lord - should practice non-violence, radical hospitality, and radical generosity. Anyone who says Jesus is Lord is held to that standard - or else revealed to be a liar. That's why it is the hardest claim.
People in the academy - people at Dartmouth - can argue all day along about whether God exists, or whether Jesus is the Christ, or whether Jesus has unique authority. Those are all intellectual arguments. But when and if people start acting like Jesus is Lord, there is no argument. Only open mouths. Consternation. Much of Christianity seems to be just talk. This part is about action. And, unfortunately, as Jesus himself said to his disciples then, and now, "Why do you call me Lord Lord, and do not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46)
Amen.
Sermon © 2004 Richard R. Crocker. All rights reserved.
|
