delivered 28 June 2009
by Rev. Dr John Evans
2 Samuel 1:1, 17-27
Psalm 130
2 Corinthians 8:7-15
Mark 5:21-43
It might depend on the weather; or could be if I have drunk too much coffee – but my love of or frustration with the church as an institution waxes and wanes.
Some days I think it is important to have the church, with all its processes, committees and rules; even all of its historic properties. It is how the followers of Jesus in the 21st century get a voice and role within our society. We have to be like that to be taken seriously by government and the community. We are an organisation with a bit of clout and history.
Then other days, when I see all this institutional stuff becoming an end in itself, and not just the means for people to hear and experience the promise and the hope of the gospel. I despair and think, why? What a waste of energy. This is not what Jesus would have imagined or hoped for his followers. After all, isn’t our relationship with God the real issue and all this institutional stuff is a hindrance?
I am not telling you much that when I say that community organisations are struggling today. People are not committed to organisations like they once were, and all organisations, from sporting groups, political parties, trade unions, service organisations, community organisations and churches are finding it difficult.
In general terms this could just be a sign of the times. We are all very much focused on the individual, on ourselves and not the community. But it could be also we find these old structures and ways of doing things a hindrance. It is far more satisfying to run up the flag about some issue on a social networking website and instantly receive affirmation and see action, than deal with other people face to face and have to maintain the institution . . . and thereby kill off your passion.
Jesus was also hard on institutions: the scribes, Pharisees and temple authorities all got severely criticised by him. He always favoured how it was within our hearts, rather than putting on a show for the sake of an institution or an expected custom.
Then perhaps it is always like that – the visionary and charismatic leader can be just that; visionary and charismatic and they do not need a structure because they can issue instructions or solve disputes. But as Sociology 101 indicates, when charismatic leaders die or leave the scene, for their message and insights to continue there has to be some structure.
The Christian church sees this happening through the gift of the Holy Spirit – the spirit of Christ lives on within some definable group or organisation that remains faithful to the original vision – or as Jesus called it, the kingdom of God.
Perhaps at the end of the day, the key is that one has to get the balance right: passion for the gospel and love of the institution. And that could be the end of the story, and the key message of this sermon. However, when you come to worship, when you hear sermons all about the pious stuff; sin and hope and the love of God. The rest of our life in the church is then about the institution and committees, budgets and buildings and nothing, or very little, about the grace and wonder of God. (No wonder the institution is failing, we think.) There are not many sermons about the blocked plumbing in the church hall, or latest program we might have, or dare I mention it – money. Of course the canon of scripture seems to have selected out such writings and we are left with a Bible, not an institutional handbook.
A Roman denarius
This is why 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 (of which our lectionary reading for today is a part) and some other references in Paul’s writings are so interesting and, to a certain extent, out of place. Paul is writing about money. He is running his very own ‘Winter Appeal’ for the saints in Jerusalem: for the poor of the Jerusalem Church. He needs the Corinthians to give more money. . . to him, now – for the sake of mother church back in Jerusalem. Dig deep folks – this is important.
There is no denying money has a spiritual dimension. Jesus spoke extensively about money. Money, or more specifically the love of money, can corrupt people’s lives. Jesus was blunt: money had this power. Remember camels and eyes of needles?
"Victor Gruen may well have been the most influential architect of the 20th century," wrote Malcolm Gladwell in 2004
Paul here, however, wants his troubled community in Corinth to give money and, as we will see, some of his arguments have some spiritual dimension about them, but otherwise most of his arguments come from 21st century marketing theory. We have here Paul’s version of The Gruen Transfer: that theory developed in the 1950s by Victor Gruen as to how you can organise a shopping centre so that customers would willingly, and almost unknowingly, be parted from their hard-earned money.
So what are his techniques?
The first technique is envy. Paul, prior to this letter had been to Macedonia. He had there requested they contribute to his Jerusalem appeal, and they had done so in bucket loads. Now we don’t have this in our lectionary reading (ever noticed how the interesting bits get cut out?), but at the beginning of Chapter 8 Paul writes:
“For during a severe ordeal of affliction, their abundant joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. … they voluntarily gave according to their means, even beyond their means [and now laying it on a bit thick] they were begging us earnestly for the privilege of sharing in this ministry to the saints.” (vs 2-4)
So you have the picture: these Macedonians have made this fantastic response so, and here is the punch line (verses 7 and 8): “so we want you to excel also in this generous undertaking”. Now this is not a command, “but I am testing the genuineness of you love against the earnestness of others.”
Now the next technique is flattery. I am sure you are all aware of this one. We might say it ‘gets us nowhere’, but we all still try it. So in verse 7 Paul quietly says,
“As you excel in everything – in faith, in speech in knowledge,” etc.
‘Well, also we want you to excel in giving this money.’
Paul battles on. His third argument is that you once pledged to do something – then you should follow through on that pledge. Apparently when Paul had last been in Corinth, the church there had committed themselves to his project, but they had not come through on this promise. There had been a falling out in the meantime. So now, sounding like a treasurer of any organisation seeking membership dues, Paul writes:
“It is appropriate for you who began last year not only to do something but even to desire to do something – now finish doing it, so that your eagerness may be matched by completing it according to your means.” (v 10)
And so Paul comes to his last ‘marketing ploy’. In today’s world there would be a photo of the desperate need of the struggling child or family or situation. We do it in our own brochures. We then say, ‘Look, see this need? You can afford to help. You are better-off than these people.’ So Paul says, and here it was read for us:
“I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need.” (vs 14)
In justice and fairness, please give . . . you can afford it.
Now Paul has some other observations, perhaps more spiritual observations, and I would like to come to them soon; but first just stop and think about these hard-edged marketing techniques that are so obviously being used here. Why is Paul doing this?
Circumcision in ancient times: a contentious practice for the Council of Jerusalem, c. 50CE
One of the theories at this point is that this is payback, the side deal, not otherwise recorded, for Paul winning the great Council of Jerusalem debate. (See Acts 15.) This was the early church council in which Paul argued, and it was agreed, that one does not have to be a Jew first, before being a Christian. Jesus’ message was also for the gentiles. Paul became the apostle to the gentiles.
This was a great concession by the apostles back in Jerusalem. It would thus seem that Paul, as might be culturally expected of him, needs to do something in return. Hence this is Paul’s very passionate, almost tenacious, commitment to help the poor of the Jerusalem church. This was Paul’s sign of respect at the resolution of the theological issue that could have split the church right at the outset.
So as we have elsewhere in Paul’s writings (like with the role of women in the church), we have a cultural overlay to what are his insights into the gospel and the role and person of Jesus Christ. And sometimes the cultural overlay is heard perhaps more loudly than it deserves.
Here this cultural overlay is about the importance of this appeal for the poor of Jerusalem. But is it not really for the sake of Paul’s own honour and reputation? Hence his passion and his various ploys!
What I believe is more important, however, in this whole issue of the Jerusalem appeal, is about getting the balance right between gospel and institution; between money and grace; between an individual’s need and their relationship with God and community life.
For Paul it was not only about winning the critical theological argument about the love of God in Christ extending to all; it was also about holding together, even as some sort of loose accountability structure, an institution of the followers of Christ.
He just might have gone over the top with his arguments for this appeal; but then I find it very reassuring that it can happen with the best of apostles.
So money, for Paul was a sign and symbol about the need of the broader network of Christians to hold together and support each other. Yes, the organisation needs money to operate. There are thus arguments of envy, flattery, holding a person to a promise and a sense of fairness – which, are not profoundly theological.
But there are also significant arguments here about how we live our lives, and how money can distort our priorities and direction in life. So Paul acknowledges giving is important for the giver, and not just for those who receive the gift.
Paul is at pains to make sure we give as a response to God’s love shown to us, as we usually say at offering time. This is not out of obligation – as Paul was elsewhere heaping up on the Corinthians. We should give freely – we are not to count the cost; it is a ‘freewill offering’, as we say.
We live in a very selfish world and have perhaps lost this art of giving. We only give because we have a chance to win something in return, or there is a tax deduction or whatever.
And secondly we should give, because ultimately what we give is not really our own – it is all God’s. Just think of this in the context of how we treat and use the environment. I guess this is the stewardship argument; at best we are just stewards of the wonder and beauty of this small blue planet and giving to those who need a gift is a way of providing that care and stewardship.
To conclude, money, appeals and institutions are not all bad. What we need is the wisdom to get the balance right. As we struggle to do this always remember, with perhaps a smile, Paul and his passionate support for the saints in Jerusalem.
