HAS THE CHURCH LOST ITS MOJO?
Mark 9:50; Matthew 5:13
Rev. Paul Wrightman 7/7/24
WHERE WAS JESUS COMING FROM
IN USING THE METAPHOR OF SALT IN THIS WAY?
JESUS APPROACHED SALT FROM HIS KNOWLEDGE OF ITS USE
IN THE SIMPLE PEASANT OVENS USED IN HIS DAY.
IN GALILEE AND JUDEA AT THE TIME THE TYPICAL OVEN
OF THE POOR WAS BUILT OF STONE ON A BASE OF TILES
AND WAS TO BE FOUND OUTSIDE.
IN SUCH OVENS, IN ORDER TO RETAIN THE HEAT,
A THICK BED OF SALT WAS LAID UNDER THE TILE BASE.
AFTER A LOT OF OVEN USE, THIS SALT WAS LITERALLY “WORN OUT,”
LOSING ITS TASTE AND ITS SALTINESS AS WELL AS ITS ABILITY
TO RETAIN HEAT.
WHEN THIS HAPPENED, THE STONE OVEN WAS DISMANTLED,
THE TILES TAKEN UP, THE WORN OUT SALT LITERALLY “THROWN OUT
AND TRAMPLED UNDERFOOT,” A FRESH LAYER OF SALT
PLACED UNDER THE TILES, AND THE OVEN REASSEMBLED.
JESUS, THEN, USES THIS INSIPID, USELESS, WORN OUT SALT
AS A METAPHOR OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN
WHEN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM COOLS
AND WE FIND OURSELVES GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS.
“GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS” CAN OCCUR
ON BOTH A PERSONAL AND AN INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION.
THIS WEEK WE LOOK AT THE INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION
AND ASK THE QUESTION: “HAS THE CHURCH LOST ITS SALT?”,
OR, IN MORE CONTEMPORARY LINGO,
“HAS THE CHURCH LOST ITS MOJO?”
JESUS WAS CONCERNED THAT THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN HIM AND HIS DISCIPLES WOULD EVENTUALLY
BECOME HOPELESSLY DILUTED.
HE WAS CONCERNED THAT HIS PRESENCE AND HIS TEACHINGS
WOULD NO LONGER SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT
THE ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS
WHO CLAIMED TO FOLLOW HIM –
AND THE INSTITUTIONS THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS CREATED
IN ORDER TO FOLLOW HIM BETTER.
I’LL BE PAINTING IN EXTREMELY BROAD BRUSH STROKES
THIS MORNING, BUT BELIEVE THAT THE FINISHED PICTURE
IS, AS FAR AS IT GOES, AN ACCURATE PORTRAYAL
OF THE GENERAL STATE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH TODAY.
NOT MANY WOULD DISPUTE THE CLAIM
THAT CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANITY HAS, INDEED, LOST ITS MOJO.
I’LL BE LOOKING AT THIS LOSS OF MOJO IN FOUR CRUCIAL AREAS:
THE REPLACEMENT OF MODELING ONE’S LIFE ON THE LIFE OF JESUS TO HAVING TO KNOW THE RIGHT THEOLOGY AND DOCTRINE.
THE ABANDONMENT OF THE EARLY CHURCH’S APPROACH TO INTERPRETING THE BIBLE.
THE LOSS OF JESUS’ VISION OF NONVIOLENCE AND NONVIOLENT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
THE REJECTION OF THE EARLY CHURCH’S SUSPICIOUS ATTITUDE TOWARD WEALTH.
CONCERNING THE PRESENCE OF SO MUCH DIVISIVE THEOLOGY,
THIS POWERFUL CRITIQUE OF HIS OWN NARROW-MINDEDNESS
BY THEOLOGIAN FRED CRADDOCK
CAN APPLY TO TODAY’S CHURCH IN GENERAL.
I’VE USED THIS ILLUSTRATION BEFORE,
AND FIND THAT IT DESCRIBES ME AS WELL AS FRED:
CRADDOCK WRITES:
“I THINK I WAS TWENTY YEARS OLD WHEN I READ
ALBERT SCHWEITZER’S QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS.
I FOUND HIS [UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS] WOEFULLY LACKING –
MORE WATER THAN WINE.
I MARKED IT UP, WROTE IN THE MARGINS,
RAISED QUESTIONS OF ALL KINDS.
AND ONE DAY, ONE DAY I READ IN THE KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL
THAT ALBERT SCHWEITZER WAS GOING TO BE IN CLEVELAND, OHIO,
TO PLAY THE DEDICATORY CONCERT FOR A BIG ORGAN
IN A BIG CHURCH UP THERE.
ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE HE WOULD REMAIN AFTERWARD
IN THE FELLOWSHIP HALL FOR CONVERSATION AND REFRESHMENT.
I BOUGHT A GREYHOUND BUS TICKET AND WENT TO CLEVELAND.
ALL THE WAY UP THERE I WORKED ON THIS
QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS.
I LAID OUT MY QUESTIONS… BECAUSE I FIGURED
IF THERE WAS CONVERSATION IN THE FELLOWSHIP HALL,
THERE’S BE ROOM FOR A QUESTION OR TWO.
I WENT THERE; I HEARD THE CONCERT;
I RUSHED INTO THE FELLOWSHIP HALL,
GOT A SEAT IN THE FRONT ROW,
AND WAITED WITH MY LAP OF QUESTIONS.
AFTER A WHILE HE CAME IN, SHAGGY HAIR, BIG WHITE MUSTACHE,
STOOPED, AND SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OLD.
HE HAD PLAYED A MARVELOUS CONCERT.
YOU KNOW HE WAS MASTER ORGANIST, MEDICAL DOCTOR,
PHILOSOPHER, BIBLICAL SCHOLAR, LECTURER, WRITER, EVERYTHING.
HE CAME IN WITH A CUP OF TEA AND SOME REFRESHMENTS
AND STOOD IN FRONT OF THE GROUP,
AND THERE I WAS, CLOSE.
DR. SCHWEITZER THANKED EVERYBODY:
‘YOU’VE BEEN VERY WARM, HOSPITABLE TO ME.
I THANK YOU FOR IT,
AND I WISH I COULD STAY LONGER AMONG YOU,
BUT I MUST GO BACK TO AFRICA.
I MUST GO BACK TO AFRICA BECAUSE MY PEOPLE
ARE POOR AND DISEASED AND HUNGRY AND DYING,
AND I HAVE TO GO.
WE HAVE A MEDICAL STATION AT LAMBARENE.
IF THERE’S ANYONE HERE IN THIS ROOM
WHO HAS THE LOVE OF JESUS,
WOULD YOU BE PROMPTED BY THAT LOVE
TO GO WITH ME AND HELP ME?’”
CRADDOCK ENDS HIS DESCRIPTION OF THIS ENCOUNTER
WITH SCHWEITZER BY STATING:
“I LOOKED DOWN AT MY QUESTIONS;
THEY WERE SO ABSOLUTELY STUPID.
AND I LEARNED, AGAIN, WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN
AND HAD HOPE THAT I COULD BE THAT SOMEDAY.”
IN THE HONESTY OF HIS SELF-CRITIQUE, CRADDOCK CAPTURES
THE SPIRIT OF THEOLOGICAL DIVISIVENESS THAT CHARACTERIZES
THE CHRISTIANITY OF OUR TIME
AND STANDS IN STARK CONTRAST TO THE THEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
TO SPEAK OVER-BROADLY BUT NEVERTHELESS TRUTHFULLY,
THE EARLY CHURCH WAS DEFINED BY A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
DEFINED BY THE HEART,
WHILE THE CHURCH THROUGHOUT THE REST OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY,
VERY MUCH INCLUDING THE CHURCH IN OUR OWN DAY,
TENDS TO BE DEFINED BY A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
DEFINED BY THE HEAD.
IN THE EARLY CHURCH, THERE WAS AN ABUNDANCE
OF COMPETING THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS,
BUT ALL THESE POSITIONS WERE CONSIDERED SECONDARY
TO THE CALL OF JESUS TO BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND CHURCH
TO EMBODY HIS VALUES IN VERY CONCRETE, HEARTFELT WAYS,
SUCH AS FEEDING THE HUNGRY, LOOKING AFTER THE SICK,
AND WELCOMING THE STRANGER.
INDEED, IT WAS THE HANDS-ON NATURE OF THE EARLY CHURCH
IN CONCRETE ACTS OF LOVING SERVICE TO OTHERS
THAT INSPIRED SO MANY IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
TO BECOME FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST THEMSELVES,
JUST AS JESUS’ OWN ACTS OF LOVING SERVICE
ATTRACTED MANY TO FOLLOW HIM.
LOOKING AT THE STATE OF CHRISTIANITY
IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY –
INCLUDING EVANGELICAL AND MAINLINE PROTESTANTS
AS WELL AS ROMAN CATHOLICS,
WHAT CHARACTERIZES US IS, SADLY,
NOT OUR LOVE OF GOD AND NEIGHBOR
EXPRESSED IN CONCRETE ACTS OF CARE AND CONCERN FOR OTHERS,
BUT OUR THEOLOGICAL IN-FIGHTING.
MOUNTAINS OF BOOKS HAVE REPLACED SIMPLE ACTS OF KINDNESS.
A MULTITUDE OF CONFLICTING AND COMPETING DOCTRINES
HAVE REPLACED THE HEART DIMENSION
OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
WITH THE HEAD DIMENSION OF KNOWING THE RIGHT WAY
TO THINK ABOUT GOD.
AND THINKING ABOUT GOD IS ONE BIG STEP REMOVED
FROM A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.
THE SECOND MAJOR AREA IN WHICH THE CONTEMPORARY CHURCH
HAS LOST ITS MOJO IS IN THE AREA OF
HOW TO READ AND INTERPRET THE BIBLE.
THIS DOES NOT APPLY AS MUCH TO MAINLINE PROTESTANTS
AND ROMAN CATHOLICS AS IT DOES TO EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS.
BUT SINCE EVANGELICALS ARE SUCH A STRONG
AND PUBLICIZED GROUP IN THE STATES,
THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
TENDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE WIDER CULTURE
AS REPRESENTING THAT OF ALL CHRISTIANS.
THE EARLY CHURCH APPROACHED SCRIPTURE THROUGH THE LENS
OF GOD MEETING PEOPLE WHERE THEY WERE.
THUS, EVEN THOUGH GOD’S NATURE WAS UNDERSTOOD TO BE LOVE – AND NOTHING BUT LOVE –
GOD HAD A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO BRING BROKEN HUMAN BEINGS
UP TO GOD’S OWN STANDARDS.
GOD DID THIS BY “CONDESCENDING” TO MEET PEOPLE
WHERE THEY ACTUALLY WERE IN TERMS OF TIME, PLACE,
AND PERSONALITY.
THUS, DURING A PRIMITIVE TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY
CHARACTERIZED BY UNLIMITED REVENGE,
GOD INSPIRED A BIBLICAL AUTHOR TO COME UP WITH
“AN EYE FOR AN EYE, A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH,”
A COMMANDMENT WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO LIMIT
THE EXTENT OF REVENGE.
THE EARLY CHURCH UNDERSTOOD GOD’S MEETING PEOPLE
WHERE THEY WERE
TO BE GOD’S WAY
OF WORKING WITH THEM AND THROUGH THEM
TO GRADUALLY BRING THEM TO HIGHER LEVELS
OF MORAL AND SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE EARLY CHURCH UNDERSTOOD THE HIGHEST LEVEL
OF MORAL AND SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT
TO BE EMBODIED BY JESUS HIMSELF.
THE GOAL OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
WAS SIMPLY TO BECOME MORE AND MORE LIKE JESUS.
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY AS PRACTICED IN THE STATES
HAS DROPPED THE EARLY CHURCH’S EMPHASIS
ON THE GROWTH, OR DEVELOPMENT, OF SCRIPTURE,
IN FAVOR OF A DOCTRINE THAT STATES THAT THE BIBLE
IS EQUALLY INSPIRED IN ALL ITS PARTS.
THUS THE PRIMITIVE “EYE FOR EYE, TOOTH FOR TOOTH,”
IS CLAIMED TO BE JUST AS INSPIRED AS JESUS’ OWN TEACHING
“DO NOT REPAY EVIL WITH EVIL.”
THIS NOTION OF THE EQUAL INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE
IN ALL ITS PARTS HAS THE EFFECT OF TAKING AWAY ANY NOTION
OF THE BIBLICAL AUTHORS EVOLVING, OR GROWING,
IN THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF GOD.
IT DEMOTES THE TEACHING OF JESUS HIMSELF TO THE SAME LEVEL
AS THE MOST PRIMITIVE OF OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS.
IN DOING THIS, IT HUGELY TAKES AWAY THE INCENTIVE
OF CHRISTIANS TO WANT TO BECOME MORE AND MORE LIKE JESUS.
WHY BOTHER TRYING TO REPAY EVIL WITH GOOD
WHEN ITS SO MUCH EASIER TO GET EVEN,
AND GETTING EVEN IS AFFIRMED BY THE BIBLE ITSELF?
NO WONDER STUDIES HAVE SHOWN
THAT BY FAR THE FAVORITE VERSE IN SCRIPTURE
FOR EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS IS THE PRIMITIVE COMMAND
“AN EYE FOR AN EYE, A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH,”
AND NOT JESUS’ OWN MUCH MORE DEMANDING COMMAND
TO REPAY EVIL WITH GOOD.
THE THIRD MAJOR AREA IN WHICH INSTITUTIONAL CHRISTIANITY
HAS LONG SINCE LOST ITS MOJO IS IN ITS ATTITUDE TOWARD
NONVIOLENCE AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
FOR ITS FIRST THREE HUNDRED YEARS,
THE CHURCH CONSISTENTLY TAUGHT AND LIVED NONVIOLENCE
IN IMITATION OF THE NONVIOLENCE AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
OF JESUS HIMSELF.
THIS RADICAL REJECTION OF VIOLENCE
WAS SO INSPIRING TO MANY IN ROMAN EMPIRE
THAT IT ATTRACTED A MULTITUDE OF FOLLOWERS
AND BROUGHT THEM INTO THE CHURCH.
THIS WAS NOT A CHURCH-GROWTH TACTIC THAT THE INSTITUTION
EMPLOYED TO WIN MORE MEMBERS,
BUT A SIDE-EFFECT OF SIMPLY BEING FAITHFUL TO ITS FOUNDER.
IF THE HISTORICAL CHURCH HAD REMAINED TRUE
TO ITS ORIGINAL VISION OF NONVIOLENCE,
IT WOULD HAVE AVOIDED SUCH DISASTERS
AS THE CRUSADES AND THE INQUISITION.
ALTHOUGH TURNING NONVIOLENCE INTO AN ABSOLUTE
WOULD ONLY SUCCEED IN MAKING IT IDOLATROUS,
THERE IS MUCH TO BE SAID FOR THE CHURCH RETURNING
TO THE VISION OF ITS FOUNDER WHO SAW NONVIOLENCE
AS THE IDEAL TO BE AIMED FOR IN EVERY SITUATION.
IN THE EARLY CHURCH,
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE TO UNJUST LAWS AND UNJUST RULERS
WAS A MATTER-OF-COURSE.
IN OUR DAY, THE CHURCH HAS BECOME SO TAMED BY,
SO COZY WITH, THE POWER OF THE STATE,
THAT IT TENDS TO BLESS ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING
THE STATE WANTS.
THIS EXAMPLE FROM WORLD WAR II APPLIES JUST AS MUCH TODAY
AS IT DID EIGHTY YEARS AGO:
MARTIN NIEMOELLER, A WORLD WAR I HERO IN GERMANY
AS A U-BOAT CAPTAIN,
WAS LATER IMPRISONED BY HITLER ON CHARGES OF TREASON.
FROM 1937 TO 1945, HE SPENT TIME
IN PRISONS AND CONCENTRATION CAMPS, INCLUDING DACHAU.
STILL, HITLER REALIZED MUCH OPPOSITION WOULD COLLAPSE
IF THE INFLUENTIAL NIEMOELLER,
A LEADING FIGURE IN THE GERMAN CHURCH,
COULD BE PERSUADED TO JOIN HIS CAUSE,
SO HE SENT A FORMER FRIEND OF NIEMOELLER
TO VISIT HIM IN PRISON.
SEEING NIEMOELLER IN HIS CELL, THE ONETIME FRIEND SAID,
“MARTIN, MARTIN! WHY ARE YOU HERE?”
NIEMOELLER’S RESPONSE:
“MY FRIEND! WHY ARE YOU NOT HERE?”
A FOURTH AREA IN WHICH IT COULD BE ARGUED
THAT THE CONTEMPORARY CHURCH HAS LOST ITS MOJO
COMPARED WITH THE EARLY CHURCH
LIES IN ITS RELATION TO WEALTH.
IN BROAD BRUSHSTROKES AGAIN,
THE EARLY CHURCH WAS MATERIALLY POOR.
IT EMPHASIZED RELATIONSHIPS, NOT BUILDINGS.
BEGINNING IN THE YEAR 325, WHEN THE CHURCH
RELINQUISHED ITS EMPHASIS ON NONVIOLENCE
AND ITS BISHOPS BECAME SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS
IN THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT,
THERE CAME TO BE A WHOLE NEW EMPHASIS
ON FANCY CLOTHES FOR THE CLERGY,
EXTRAVAGANT BUILDINGS FOR THE LAITY,
AND STOCKPILES OF GOLD AND SILVER
TO SUPPOSEDLY INSURE THE SURVIVAL OF THE CHURCH ITSELF.
THE MEDIEVAL THEOLOGIAN JOHN DUNS SCOTUS
WAS VISITING ROME, AND THE POPE TOOK HIM INTO
THE VATICAN TREASURIES.
RUNNING HIS HANDS THROUGH THE SILVER, THE POPE SAID,
“NO LONGER DOES THE CHURCH HAVE TO SAY,
‘SILVER AND GOLD HAVE I NONE.’
THE THEOLOGIAN SCOTUS REPLIED:
“THAT’S TRUE, BUT ALSO NO LONGER CAN WE SAY,
‘IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH,
RISE UP AND WALK.’”
TO GET ITS MOJO BACK, THE CHURCH NEEDS TO RETURN
TO THE “NEW MANAGEMENT” OF THE ORIGINAL JESUS.
NOT JESUS AS TURNED INTO DOCTRINE,
NOT JESUS AS TAMED BY THE STATE,
BUT THE JESUS WHO LIVES AND BREATHES
IN THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
HOW CAN THE CONTEMPORARY CHURCH GET ITS MOJO BACK?
BY RETURNING TO THE VISION OF JESUS AND THE EARLY CHURCH,
EFFECTIVELY PLACING IT “UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT.”
SPECIFICALLY, THE CHURCH WILL BEGIN TO GET ITS SALT BACK:
BY TONING DOWN THE DOCTRINE AND STARTING TO MODEL
ITS OWN LIFE ON THE LIFE OF JESUS;
BY RE-EMBRACING THE EARLY CHURCH’S UNDERSTANDING
OF THE BIBLE AS A BOOK WHICH GROWS IN ITS UNDERSTANDING
OF GOD;
BY RETURNING TO JESUS’ VISION OF NONVIOLENCE
AND, IF NECESSARY, SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
IN NONVIOLENT ACTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE;
BY BRAVELY SHARING SOME OF ITS VAST WEALTH
WITH THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST.
WHO COULD DOUBT THE ‘SALTINESS’, THE MOJO, OF A CHURCH
THAT ACTUALLY MODELS ITSELF ON ITS FOUNDER,
EMPHASIZES MORAL AND SPIRITUAL GROWTH,
EMBRACES NONVIOLENCE AND SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER,
AND WHICH GIVES UP ITS OWN RICHES
FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OTHERS?
AMEN.