August 24, 2003 -EleventhSunday after Pentecost
Ephesians 6:10-20
    NRSVKJV
John  6:56-69
    NRSVKJVCEV

“Lord,to whom can we go?”

“So Jesus asked the twelve,‘Do you also wish to go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whomcan we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and knowthat you are the Holy One of God.”

A recent issue of TheChristian Century had an article entitled, “Did Jesus Laugh?” Itexplored religious humor and then sought to analyze the way in which we use itto express a position or to make something serious seem a bit less so. Theauthor used Presbyterians, his denomination, to make the points in theever-funny “light bulb joke,” but I like the original takes. “How manyRoman Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?” “None. They usecandles.”  “How many Amish doesit take to change a light bulb?” “What’s a light bulb?” “How manyEpiscopalians does it take to change a light bulb?” “Six. One to mix thecocktails. One to do it and four to talk about how good the old bulb was.”“How many Presbyterians does it take to change a light bulb?” “Please fillout the form for light bulbs to the session and presbytery committees on lightbulbs and this will be forwarded to synod for a decision.” “How manyCongregationalists does it take to change a light bulb?” “CHANGE!?! Who saidANYTHING about CHANGE – My GRANDFATHER donated that light bulb!” The articlealso talked about how the Jews have honed this ability to use humor to a highart form – a judgment with which I absolutely agree. One of the Jewish storieswent like this:

A traveler arrived in a village inthe middle of winter to find an old man shivering in the snow outside thesynagogue. “What are you doing here” asked the traveler. “I’m waitingfor the coming of the messiah.” “That must be an important job,” said thetraveler. “The community must pay you a lot of money.” “No, not at all.They just let me sit here on this bench. Once in a while someone gives me alittle food.” “That must be hard. But even if they don’t pay you, theymust honor you for doing this important work.” “No, not at all. They thinkI’m crazy.” “I don’t understand. They don’t pay you, they don’trespect you. You sit in the cold, shivering and hungry. What kind of job isthis? “Well, it’s steady work.”

More often than not, for theChristian disciple trying to make sense of what we believe and how we aresupposed to live it out is like the “steady work” of our little Jewishfriend. The account of the reaction to Jesus’ ‘bread of life discourse’certainly seems to have that overtone to it, doesn’t it?

When Jesus talked aboutrelationship to God he used language that seems almost outrageous. He said,“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” He told them that he was the new manna, the “bread that came down fromheaven” and that eating this bread brought one into eternal life.  Whathe was saying is that eternal life isn’t something that’s just a‘hereafter’ thing. Eternal life begins in the ‘herenow’ through theclose communion of the believer with Jesus. If you want to get technical aboutit, as the commentator Raymond Brown did, he’s talking about realizedeschatology – that the end times have their beginning in the life of everybeliever’s intimate relationship with God. When Jesus says, “and I willraise him up on the last day,” he’s talking about final eschatology.

When we hear “eternal life”our temptation is to think of the Wobblies,’ a labor agitation group from theDepression era, critique of the Christian message as “pie in the sky when youdie bye and bye.” Eternal life is something far off, intangible and onlyvaguely comforting, but Jesus appears to be saying something entirely differentabout it. He says that the one “who abides” (the Greek word is meneoh)in him has that life right now. So the Christian remains, abides, in Jesus andJesus in the Christian and this is eternal life, because it is a participationin the intimate communion between Jesus and the Father. What’s happening hereis very important and it’s not at all apart from the continuum of unfoldingrelationship that the Father has been offering from the moment of Creation.

From Adam forward we see Godseeking intimacy with God’s creation, humanity. Again and again, God reachesout to humanity to draw us closer and closer to divine life. What we hear inverse 57 – “Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of theFather, so whoever eats me will live because of me.” – is the most forcefulexpression of a tremendous claim that Jesus gives humanity a share in God’sown life.[1]It is a claim that will be echoed by Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the earlyteachers of the Christian faith, who exclaims, “God became man so that manmight become God.” The invitation we hear, then, is no less than theinvitation to become one, to be a part of God’s intimate life and to allowthat life to live in us. This isn’t the stuff of dry dogma, of creedalformulas, because it requires more of us than simply offering intellectualassent. It talks about sharing in a covenant relationship that expresses itselfin the transformation of the Christian into someone who sees life and everythingin it in a wholly different way – as Jesus did. There is not a whole lot that is more intimate than eating and, Ibelieve, this is why Jesus uses this kind of language. The great Biblicalcommentator Raymond Brown wrote, “. . . while the Synoptic Gospels record theinstitution of the Eucharist, it is John who explains what it does for theChristian. Just as the Eucharist itself echoes the theme of the covenant(“blood of the covenant” – Mark xiv: 24) so also the mutual indwelling ofGod (and Jesus) and the Christian may be a reflection of the covenant theme.Jeremiah xxiv: 7 and xxxi: 33 take the covenant promise, “You will be mypeople and I will be your God,” and give it the intimacy of God working inman’s heart.”[2]

The people heard Jesus’ wordsand weren’t happy about it. The translation may say “complained,” but theGreek says gongyzo – grumble. Theygrumbled about it, just like we often grumble about the things that are said ordone around us. Rather than bringing them out into the open, laying thediscussion bare, these disciples just grumbled. In the Ruleof Saint Benedict “murmuring,” grumbling is one of the cardinal sinsthat destroys the experience of community. Benedict may have lived in the sixthcentury, but he had a good grasp of the human psyche – nothing will destroy arelationship or a community faster than the kind of grumbling John described.

The best remedy for grumblingis openness and honest exchange. Jesus shows insight into human nature when hechallenges their doubt and the rejection of his teaching directly. He throwsdown the gauntlet, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Sonof Man ascending to where he was before?” When he does this he’s pointingtoward the Easter Event, which includes the scandal of the cross. The real coreof the challenge, however, is Jesus’ life and teaching. Just like as eternallife begins right now and continues to unfold in our lives everyday, so Jesus’challenge, “What if…” is also open-ended. Each one of us hears theinvitation to divine intimacy, hears the hard words and difficult teachings andhas to make a decision about what these events mean and whether or not they’regoing to make any difference in our lives.

John Shelby Spong, an Episcopalbishop, certainly has grappled with the hard sayings over the years. He haswrestled with everything from the basic doctrines of the Christian faith to howto approach the Bible to sexual morality. To say that Bishop Spong is a“controversial figure” is to be guilty of understatement. I’m not a hugefan of his – I’m just being honest – and save for one or two times, I havetended to content myself to read reviews of his books rather than the booksthemselves. However, while I was in Boston as one of the teachers in theCongregational History and Polity Seminar, I came across his book A New Christianity for a New World. The title intrigued me, as didthe table of contents. So I checked it out and read it on the plane on the wayhome.  Let me say that I find him tobe an engaging writer and he appears to me to be a sincere and gentle man. Ifound his book a good read and there are some passages with which I mostcertainly agree.

Long story short, I stilldon’t agree in general with Spong. I think he plays intellectual games withsome of the doctrines, like setting up a definition that isn’t really thedefinition, as he does with ‘theism,’ but only his take on it and thenknocking it down. In debate we used to call that a “straw man.” However, inhim I see someone who is trying to wrestle with the hard sayings and that’sworthwhile. As I said, my disagreement with him is that he doesn’t seem toconfront what Jesus claims. He proclaims himself a passionate believer in Godand says that he still calls Jesus his lord, but his proclamation and hisloyalty all seem to be on his own terms. I think, I believe, that Jesus came tochallenge us to think and to live not on our own terms, but on God’s terms.

The preconceptions we have andthe limitations that we are inclined to put on God’s actions, what we think isor isn’t possible, will keep us from experiencing the fullness of life thatGod offers us. For us to experience that fullness we simply have to keepourselves open, remain as partners in the ongoing dialogue, encounter with theliving Word. For me, one of the beauties of the Congregational Way is that wearen’t left at one set place, as many of the Reformers left their followerswith rigid confessional statements and elaborately worked-out theologies. PastorRobinson told the Pilgrims as they departed for the New World, “Follow me onlyinsofar as I follow Christ . . . The Lord hath yet more light and truth to breakforth out of his Holy Word.” God continues to speak and we continue to grow,unless we get derailed by those difficult teachings. I believe that those hardsayings are the challenges God issues to our preconceptions of God, humanity,the world, even of our selves. The ultimate challenge is not to limit God and,for that matter, not to limit ourselves, because God is willing to share lifewith us. It’s a question of whether or not we “get it” or not and thedecision is ours to make.

What we’re seeing throughthis whole sixth chapter of John is the theme of God extending the invitation torelationship and humanity’s response. It’s a question of divine initiativeand human response and it mirrors what all of us experience when we enter thetensions of life in relationship – every day we live it’s a matter of“getting it,” how we respond to the choices and the situations set beforeus. What we see in John’s Gospel is what we see almost everyday.

The large crowd of hangers-onwas disappearing over the hill as Jesus looked at his little band of followerson that long-ago day and asked them, “Do you also wish to go away?” Thatquestion is for every one of us, it’s for everyone who has ever said, “I’ma Christian.” And what it asks is, at root, “Do I get it? Do I buy it? WillI let it make a difference in my life and in my world?” It’s easy to reducethis to a set of propositions – and here’s one of the places I agree withBishop Spong – it’s not so easy to put it into the context of a livingrelationship with the God who both desires and longs for the companionship ofthe fruit of creation. What this is about is how I answer God’s invitation toshare in the task of unselfish love with my very life – that’s hard.

Peter, as usual, acts as thespokesperson and blurts out the answer, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know thatyou are the Holy One of God.” They had heard and they had learned and realizedthat no one else had ever offered the possibility of relationship quite as Jesusdid – and no one has ever since. It’s almost like Winston Churchill’sdescription of democracy as the worst form of government except for every otherform that has ever been tried. What Jesus invites us to is often difficult, butI have yet to find something that challenges me to enter into lovingrelationship as he does. I came across something by the ethicist Lewis Smedesthat seems to summarize what I’ve been trying to say fairly well. He writes,“This is where the trolley stops . . . Without Jesus we are stuck with twooptions: utopian illusion or deadly despair. I scorn illusion. I dread despair.So I put all my money on Jesus.” 

[1] Cf. Raymond Brown Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John I-XII (New York:Doubleday & Co., 1966), p. 291-292.

[2] Brown, p. 292-293.