Mark 7 v 1-8, 14-15 and 21-23. Trinity 14
At one of our Team Services in August, Russell Cowburn (expounding the first half of Ephesians 4) suggested we can be good churches or bad churches, and what that looks like … good Christians displaying behaviours congruent to that choice in contrast to bad churches … those falling short, made up of people missing the mark and less than we can be. With the start of a new academic year the lectionary used throughout the national church and beyond brings us back to the gospel of Mark. Today the set passage us takes us into excerpts of a dialogue Jesus was drawn into by some Pharisees and scribes, but Jesus soon also invites the onlooking crowd to listen in and learn from what happens. It is a passage that underpins some of the key messages, Russell brought to us about the contrast between good and bad churches.
By way of context, the impression we get from the first 6 chapters in Mark is of Jesus surrounded by crowds hanging on his every word eagerly, hungry for healings and miracles. At the start of chapter 7 the focus and tone changes; we start to see the brief snippet of resistance we find in 3 v 6 erupting into measures of discontent and opposition; Those seeking out Jesus are critics rather than enthusiastic followers; known by their role in the national religious life as Pharisees and religious teachers - wanting to test Jesus, trip him up and critique everything he and his disciples did or didn’t do.
The discussion is ignited by Jesus’ disciples being lax and less than rigorous with the general practice of ritual washing of hands. This prompts Jesus to expand on the distinction between what we people see us doing and how people experience our general behaviour. Whereas the critics are pursuing conformity, Jesus is more interested in integrity. In truth, apart from disregarding custom and practice, the only people who would get hurt by the disciples not washing their hands in the agreed way were the disciples themselves; whereas the people affected by vices conceived on the inside that give birth to damaging external behaviours impact everyone around us or within our orbit of contact and influence. The reading comes to a climax when Jesus lists, v21-23, things conceived in the heart which, when adopted in our actions and lifestyles, are vices that defile - meaning literally they destroy relationships and the possibility of authentic fellowship.
There are 13 vices but seem to fall into a number of convenient categories:
1. Emotions and desires we allow to ferment and translate into behaviour that hurts others > Evil thoughts, covetousness, greed, envy and pride.
2. Brazen actions that damage others badly > Theft, murder, wickedness and folly.
3. How we speak and intend to disadvantage others with our scheming and sleights of hand > Deceit and slander.
Perhaps the most challenging, especially in the western world and church today, is category 4: Jesus identifies 3 different expressions of destructive sexual activity > translated as sexual immorality, adultery and sensuality.
The rub for our generation, I suggest goes like this: outside of marriage between a man and a woman in a legally recognised marriage, Jesus allows no sort of license that says sexual activity is ok provided the participants are consenting adults.
As Jermaine Jenas can confirm - after years of abysmal failures - even the BBC is starting to accept the need for virtue in public, professional and personal life rather turning a blind eye to sexual misdemeanour. In contrast and in my view, tragically, many bishops and so-called theologians (the Pharisees and scribes of our day) are advocating degrees of accommodation in these matters; trying to re-name as expressions of love what is manifestly nothing more than sin.
Finally notice how Jesus makes his arguments. With the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus turns to Scripture which is what we should expect from our bishops also. Jesus interprets the hypocrisy as a fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy about a wayward people of God. When Jesus calls the onlooking crowd into the conversation, in v14, he makes his case (about the root and nature of vice compared to virtue) on the basis of what is readily obvious according to some of the recognised scientific and medical information of the day.
Similarly, debates about virtue and vice are best handled differently today. In the church and in teaching believers, our source of reference and textbook must be the clearly and faithfully interpreted Word of God; whereas in the public square we are likely to be more effective deploying powers of reason informed by accumulated scientific and medical knowledge to demonstrate why God’s ways are best not just for people of faith but because they were designed to help us be most fully and authentically human.
The stark choice becomes, do we pursue and maintain purity of conscience before God or slide into another form of political correctness?
At one of our Team Services in August, Russell Cowburn (expounding the first half of Ephesians 4) suggested we can be good churches or bad churches, and what that looks like … good Christians displaying behaviours congruent to that choice in contrast to bad churches … those falling short, made up of people missing the mark and less than we can be. With the start of a new academic year the lectionary used throughout the national church and beyond brings us back to the gospel of Mark. Today the set passage us takes us into excerpts of a dialogue Jesus was drawn into by some Pharisees and scribes, but Jesus soon also invites the onlooking crowd to listen in and learn from what happens. It is a passage that underpins some of the key messages, Russell brought to us about the contrast between good and bad churches.
By way of context, the impression we get from the first 6 chapters in Mark is of Jesus surrounded by crowds hanging on his every word eagerly, hungry for healings and miracles. At the start of chapter 7 the focus and tone changes; we start to see the brief snippet of resistance we find in 3 v 6 erupting into measures of discontent and opposition; Those seeking out Jesus are critics rather than enthusiastic followers; known by their role in the national religious life as Pharisees and religious teachers - wanting to test Jesus, trip him up and critique everything he and his disciples did or didn’t do.
The discussion is ignited by Jesus’ disciples being lax and less than rigorous with the general practice of ritual washing of hands. This prompts Jesus to expand on the distinction between what we people see us doing and how people experience our general behaviour. Whereas the critics are pursuing conformity, Jesus is more interested in integrity. In truth, apart from disregarding custom and practice, the only people who would get hurt by the disciples not washing their hands in the agreed way were the disciples themselves; whereas the people affected by vices conceived on the inside that give birth to damaging external behaviours impact everyone around us or within our orbit of contact and influence. The reading comes to a climax when Jesus lists, v21-23, things conceived in the heart which, when adopted in our actions and lifestyles, are vices that defile - meaning literally they destroy relationships and the possibility of authentic fellowship.
There are 13 vices but seem to fall into a number of convenient categories:
1. Emotions and desires we allow to ferment and translate into behaviour that hurts others > Evil thoughts, covetousness, greed, envy and pride.
2. Brazen actions that damage others badly > Theft, murder, wickedness and folly.
3. How we speak and intend to disadvantage others with our scheming and sleights of hand > Deceit and slander.
Perhaps the most challenging, especially in the western world and church today, is category 4: Jesus identifies 3 different expressions of destructive sexual activity > translated as sexual immorality, adultery and sensuality.
The rub for our generation, I suggest goes like this: outside of marriage between a man and a woman in a legally recognised marriage, Jesus allows no sort of license that says sexual activity is ok provided the participants are consenting adults.
As Jermaine Jenas can confirm - after years of abysmal failures - even the BBC is starting to accept the need for virtue in public, professional and personal life rather turning a blind eye to sexual misdemeanour. In contrast and in my view, tragically, many bishops and so-called theologians (the Pharisees and scribes of our day) are advocating degrees of accommodation in these matters; trying to re-name as expressions of love what is manifestly nothing more than sin.
Finally notice how Jesus makes his arguments. With the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus turns to Scripture which is what we should expect from our bishops also. Jesus interprets the hypocrisy as a fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy about a wayward people of God. When Jesus calls the onlooking crowd into the conversation, in v14, he makes his case (about the root and nature of vice compared to virtue) on the basis of what is readily obvious according to some of the recognised scientific and medical information of the day.
Similarly, debates about virtue and vice are best handled differently today. In the church and in teaching believers, our source of reference and textbook must be the clearly and faithfully interpreted Word of God; whereas in the public square we are likely to be more effective deploying powers of reason informed by accumulated scientific and medical knowledge to demonstrate why God’s ways are best not just for people of faith but because they were designed to help us be most fully and authentically human.
The stark choice becomes, do we pursue and maintain purity of conscience before God or slide into another form of political correctness?