February 14, 2021 Mark 8:26-9:13

            There is a saying that if at first you don’t succeed… destroy all the evidence that you’ve tried!

            As I’ve been teaching our confirmation class this year about the Bible I’ve pointed out a number of times that while most cultures tend to minimize or deny their failures, the Jews, our faith ancestors, did not.

            Often when people read the Old Testament they are upset that God seems so harsh and demanding.  Indeed, in many places in the Old Testament God does come across that way.  But that misses all of the grace filled passages.  It also misses what is perhaps a bigger message.  The Jews were not afraid to remember that they failed and failed and failed again.  They do not hide their mistakes.  For them it is a deep part of their relationship with God.  They are confident that God will hold on to them through thick and thin.

The same attitude of recognizing mistakes and failures carries over in the New Testament somewhat too.  Certainly in Mark’s gospel the disciples do not come off looking good.  Is Mark setting them up as buffoons?  Did Jesus really choose such an idiotic bunch of followers?  Is this a historically accurate portrayal of the disciples?  Perhaps they aren’t exactly at the level of slapstick comedy but they seem to be not much smarter!  Are we to laugh at them so we can feel good about ourselves?  Hmmm… Perhaps.  Though Mark’s gospel has long been criticized for its rough style and its simplicity, I hope as we’ve been going through it you’re coming to discover that Mark’s gospel is actually the product of a literary genius.

Commentator Pheme Perkins says this about the way Mark portrays the disciples, “One of the most endearing features of Mark’s [gospel]… is the evident weaknesses of Jesus’ disciples.  They seem to become more bewildered and frightened as the story unfolds.  For many [people] that depiction lends a consoling air of reality to Mark’s vision of Christian discipleship.  No ordinary person can be like Jesus, but Mark’s description of Peter sets a standard that is within reach.”  (New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 8, Pg. 513)

            It appears as if within the twelve disciples Jesus regularly picks three that are particularly close.  They are Peter, James, and John.  All three of them get invited into things the other nine are not.  All three get extra special insight.  And all three make some absolutely idiotic statements and requests.  In today’s gospel Peter is the focus.

            Our first encounter with Peter shows him flying high.  Jesus has just asked the disciples who do people say that he is.  They reply that some say he is John the Baptist or Elijah or one of the prophets.  Then Jesus asks, “But who do you say that I am?”  Peter replies, “You are the Messiah.”

            We want to praise Peter for his great insight here!  He’s got it right.  He’s seen what Jesus has been doing and he understands.  But then it all comes crashing down.

            Jesus begins to teach what is coming to him.  Notice a subtle but very significant shift in what comes next.  Jesus does not go on to say what being the “Messiah” means.  This is very important in Mark’s gospel.  Jesus goes on to say what being the “Son of Man” means.  8:31-32 reads, “Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.  He said all this quite openly.”  This is indeed cryptic in Mark’s gospel.  Son of Man and Son of God have a lot of similarities in Mark’s gospel.  They aren’t identical, and again, Son of Man is cryptic.  Just notice that Jesus makes a subtle shift from Messiah – which Peter has some concept of – to Son of Man.

            Peter is lost.  You know the scene.  Peter takes Jesus and rebukes him.  He does it in the same way as someone trying to drive a demon out of someone who is possessed.  But Jesus replies with his own exorcism of Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!  For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

            It is always so important for us to note that Jesus puts the human point of view on par with Satan’s point of view.  Let that be an interpretation of evil for you.

            Jesus goes on to explain more to the disciples and the crowds.  Let’s also note that the transfiguration account comes right after this.  Despite what happened with Peter he is still allowed in this innermost circle of Jesus’ followers.  He gets to witness the transfiguration.

            Of course, in the transfiguration Peter continues to show the human point of view.  He misunderstands completely.

            You probably know the story of the gospel well enough to know what’s in store for Peter.  By the time we get to Jesus’ arrest Peter is denying that he ever knew Jesus.

            Over and over again with the disciples, and especially Peter, we see them taking the human point of view.

            I’ve heard it said many times that the real issue is that they could only see the messiah as a great conquering militaristic figure.  They thought the messiah would be a hero who would teach the Romans a lesson they’d never forget.  The Romans would get what they had coming to them.  The Jews would then become a free and independent nation. 

            That is a true assessment, but I think it misses the subtlety of it.  It is so easy to caricaturize the dynamics of other people and then not apply it to ourselves.

            As I quoted Pheme Perkins earlier, the failures of the disciples should console us.  Like them, we are not perfect.  We miss things.  We have our subtle biases that blind us from the truth.  And perhaps those biases are more than just subtle.  I think they can be deep and foundational to ourselves.

            I believe we live with a lot of assumptions about life and the world and we don’t even realize we’ve made the assumption.  Recently there has been a lot of conversation about racism in our country.  February is Black History Month and so racial things continue to be heightened.  I’ve done a lot of self-examination about it all.  In some places I find that my thoughts and feelings are right.  I’d argue that I have meaningful input (and even critiques) to give.  At the same time I realize I have a lot of assumptions that aren’t well founded, or are ill founded.  But issues of race are really hot.  People turn off very quickly and using them would not suit my purposes here.  Let’s took at some other assumptions we live by and may not have ever realized.

            The Men’s Breakfast is continuing through its series on the history of Christianity in America.  In last week’s video the presenter pointed out that Americans tend to have the idea that if something is legal it is okay.  And if it is not legal it is not okay.  We make the courts our highest authority on right and wrong.

            Indeed, hopefully our legal system does reflect a good sense of morality, but I’m sure we can all think of things that are legal that do not reflect Christian morality.  Just because you can do something without legal consequences doesn’t make it right.

            Along those same lines, we Americans have long talked about a separation of church and state.  It’s actually not as deeply embedded in our constitution as we think, but it is a truth we all believe is fundamental.

            I believe it has created an unintended side effect.  For many people it creates a split between faith and politics.  People say the church should stay out of political things.  Oh really?  The church has a lot to say about political things!  Now this is a Lutheran church and we always say that you do not have to agree with what the church says, but the church has every right to say it!

            A faith/politics split is an artificial divide we unintentionally make.  People see faith as a private thing and politics as a public thing.  Again, a mistake.  Faith is not, and should not be, private.  Indeed faith should be respectful – at least Christian faith is.  But it is not private.

            Here’s another example.  A lot of people create a distinction between faith and science.  Why?  Where did people get that idea?  For centuries faith and science worked hand in hand.  Indeed the medieval church did nothing to help keep them together.  And certainly Christian fundamentalism in America has widened the gap even further.  But faith and science (or maybe I should say ‘faith and critical thinking’ should not be a split at all.   Just like faith should inform politics.  So also faith should encompass scientific thought. 

Perhaps politics shouldn’t frame faith, but politics should give us real world living applications of faith.  Politics should make us wrestle with our faith.  The same goes for science.  Science should inform faith.  Science should open our minds ever more widely to what God is up to and how God works.

            Do we misunderstand the messiah?  No.  We get it.  The disciples did not.  But do we have the same tendency to see the world through limited lenses – and be so limited that we can’t even see our limitations?  Oh yes, indeed we do.  You know Jesus saying that you should take the log out of your own eye before trying to take the speck out of someone else’s.

            The truly good news is found in our gospel.  Peter was flying high.  Then Peter failed.  Nevertheless Jesus took Peter with him on the mountain and Peter got to witness the transfiguration.  Peter messed up again, but Jesus kept him.

            James and John will mess up too.  But Jesus will keep them.  And of course Peter’s greatest bungles are yet to come.  But Jesus will forgive him and keep him.  The same goes for us.

            I think the key is not so much to be perfect as to recognize that we are hopelessly imperfect.  That attitude will keep us turning to Christ.  He is indeed our Savior.