The Eternal Quality

(Mark 10:17-31)

Last week we looked at grace and the abandonment of entitlement in terms of our relationship with God and others. Jesus took the image of children reliant upon their father for their place in the world and reminded us we are to abandon ourselves entirely to God for the outcome of our lives.

 

Living in a modern, comfortable and affluent society such as Australia we may find this to be most difficult step to take; to completely give up any claim we have on our lives and to trust entirely, without reservation on God and God’s grace may ask just a little too much for us. Reputation, bank balance, possessions, children and public image take the place of God, ever so slightly, until we simply do not need God nor include the faith and God in our day to day life.

 

"We have all we need, without God. And anyway all God would ask of us is to share it with others who are lazy, won’t work, sneak into our country through the backdoor and more. We deserve everything we have because we worked for it, scrimped and saved, studied hard, got promoted and put our career/wealth/image before anything else. As a self-made person I simply have no need for God. What more could God have given me than what I already have?"

 

An earnest and keen person runs up to Jesus. He has some questions he wants answered; actually he has one question above all others that needs to be answered:  “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

 

Jesus looks at him and chastises him for over familiarity and presumption, providing a reminder of the condition of all human beings; we are flawed, not perfect and therefore not good. Only God, the creator of all, is good.

 

Whyatt, a veritable bundle of uncontrollable energy, bound up and said ‘Hello Father Glenn.” Hello Whyatt, how are you?  “I am good Father Glenn”. ‘Whyatt’s good or well?” “Good, Father Glenn”. “Does Whyatt know what good means?” And referring to this text I reminded him of what it means to be good, half way though he looked at me and said, “Whyatt’s well!”

 

Not only do we sometimes have a rose coloured opinion of ourselves, we have the same for others. The earnest man was appealing to the public image of Jesus; Jesus questioned the validity of such an opinion. "How well do you know me? Are you not being a little overfamiliar? And how do you judge what is good?"

 

Jesus doesn’t allow him to answer. Jesus has seen all this before and goes straight for the jugular. "I know, you have kept the letter of the law while amassing economic riches and moral brownie points for good behaviour and shrewd business acumen, but that is not enough.  What was the purpose of your astute business dealings and your proper attention to the law? What were you trying to achieve? Did you think that being successful within the constraints of the law excuses you from the sacrifices that goodness will extract from you?"

 

He knew the earnest man would have tithed, given alms, supported all the appropriate funds and appeals and practiced his faith strictly within the guidelines set. This was no part-time religious person. Faith and religion were the pillars holding up his life. Those around would have known that too.

 

There was a fair chance they would have looked up to his upright and devout citizen and striven to emulate his behaviour and practice. If wealth and right practice were not sufficient to enter eternal life, then the must have wondered what they had to do? If this pillar of society had not done enough, what about them?

 

Jesus understood the power money and possessions (wealth) has over human beings. We fear being without possessions, without money, without the resources to participate in the consumer society we live in. While we do not have the resources of  a Bill Gates, Gina Rinehart, James Packer, Andrew Forrest our even our Prime Minister, we often perceive that what we have is both ours and deserved, and that we are to hang on to it at all costs.

 

Stacey Simpson repositions the question the rich man asks, "What must we do to inherit eternal life? (and suggests) We must let go of all that we have and all that we do that gets in the way of seeing that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves." Gerry Pierse, adds: "The issue here is not so much the acquisition of riches as the attachment to them."

The earnest man was aware something was missing. Life didn’t have the x-factor, that special something which could only be described as eternal, ever-lasting, unfailing, all ways present. With all his wealth, possessions and strict observance, his life lacked that essential something. How frustrating; to be a self made man held in high esteem for his diligence and faith an, all along, being aware it wasn’t enough.

This was not about heaven, life after death. This was about life here and now. Remember, for the Jewish people there was only one resurrection and that took place at the end of time. You could store up treasure there but you had to live out the kingdom of God here and now. Eternal life is a substantive quality, not a destination, and he knew he was missing it.

The answer he receives was not the one he wanted to hear. He wanted affirmation, to hear Jesus say, ‘Well done Good and Faithful friend. You have done it all.” Instead Jesus says let go of your dependency upon self, your achievements and the fragility of wealth. This is about paying it forward, giving it away. It is about a sacrificial involvement in the world that asks us not to count the cost of giving, and not to rejoice in the good our giving may do, but to give until we are at peace with ourselves. That is eternal life.

This is about what we hold onto for ourselves in relationships, partnerships, community, churches and workplaces out of fear that to give up our ownership of self and possessions (the extensions of self we value ourselves by). Mark has Jesus calling us out on this reluctance to commit through the example of an upright and upstanding citizen who so much wanted to be good himself.

What might this look like in our lives:

• Taking the time to reflect on, not on what we give, to the church, our relationships, our communities but on what is out of bounds, untouchable, held in reserve.
• Being honest about our reticence to loosen the purse strings and respond without fear to the ask for funds at church and by those less well off than ourselves;
• Placing ourselves in the position of those who are in poverty and respond as we would like others to do if the situation was reversed;
• Honestly looking at the reasons we give and to accept that it is about fear, we are afraid to give up something in case we might need it later.
• Understanding the dichotomy within us – we say can rely on the God who is within us for our salvation but then we baulk at that very same God providing sufficiently for our daily needs.

Steven Albertin suggests eternal life is experienced because "…. we GET TO be generous and gracious with our lives, pouring ourselves out and giving ourselves away to those in need, (not as charity but as empowerment)."

It’s a shame the earnest man walked away. It would be a shame if we did the same. 

The Myth of Innocence

The innocence of children has become an accepted mantra of modern society, an idea challenged by recent incidents such as the shooting of a man in Sydney by a 15 year old boy. We believe children are incapable of doing or thinking evil in our culture that promotes the idea all children are innocent.

Yet the case of James Bulger showed just how optimistic such an idea is. James was murdered on 12 February 1993, at the age of two. He was abducted from a shopping centre and murdered by two ten-year-old boys. In some ways it woke society out of its slumber but not entirely so. As we often do with gross tragedies society demonises the perpetrators, using words such as monsters, mentally ill, evil, rarely is children, child or other terms used to describe an ordinary person who committed and extraordinary crime.

As a result we see those responsible for such acts as aberrations and continue to highlight the innocence of children as the norm. Anyone who has spent a few weeks in a school playground can assure you this is not so. Bullying, name-calling, interpersonal violence, isolation and other demeaning activities are on show for all to see. And, yes, your children and grandchildren are no more innocent than anybody else’s. They all have the tendency to do evil.

Children are often cute but rarely innocent.

Which brings us to Mark10:14-16 from the Living Bible:

¹⁴ But when Jesus saw what was happening he was very much displeased with his disciples and said to them, “Let the children come to me, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as they. Don’t send them away! ¹⁵ I tell you as seriously as I know how that anyone who refuses to come to God as a little child will never be allowed into his Kingdom.”

¹⁶ Then he took the children into his arms and placed his hands on their heads and he blessed them.

A danger in reading the Bible is to translate the stories directly into our culture. These are stories written to address situations pertinent to a particular place and time. Jesus is not addressing a situation occurring in downtown Ashburton or Glen iris, but in relation to the way young people were treated in his time.

Children were seen neither as innocent or deserving of special treatment. They were not hovered over by mothers and fathers who worked to ensure that their child received the best, became the best and was not discriminated against by others. This story is not about my child being special, more special than anything else.

In Jesus’ time, children were completely dependent upon their relationship with their father for their life and place in the family. The father decided whether the child would even be accepted into the family. Children belonged to their father and remained subject to his authority even as adults. The saying "to receive the kingdom like a child," which most scholars treat as originally independent of the scene about accepting children, must, therefore, refer to the radical dependence of the child on the father for any status, inheritance, or, in families where children might be abandoned, for life itself. It warns the disciples that they are radically dependent upon God's grace -- they cannot set the conditions for entering the kingdom.

Now isn’t that interesting? Jesus takes a practice or a circumstance, common to his age but out of sync with our own, to introduce the concept of grace. Children had no special right to their place in the family. There was nothing they could do to ensure that they received a place or had first place. Birthplace in the family hierarchy, gender or ability did not guarantee them a place. They were simply to be children.

Old Testament stories of the battle for supremacy in families, Cain and Abel, Joseph, Esau and more reinforce graphically the scheming and conniving that went on to gain the father’s favour and to get your hands on the coveted position of power. The Father held the upper hand and unless you were chosen you missed out, and perhaps, were left out of the family all together. You relied completely on the father’s generosity.

Jesus seems to take this patriarchal system and remind us we are dependent on God’s grace for all the good things that come our way, particularly our acceptance into heaven. We cannot connive or scheme our way into heaven. We simply have to be obedient to what we understand is the will of God and to leave the rest up to God. Like the children Jesus referred to who had to trust their father, we are to trust God.

Is this fair or is Jesus out of line by making such a connection? Isn’t this idea disempowering? Why can’t children be whatever they want to be, do what ever they want to do and be entitled to be treated as innocent and precious, someone whose every wish is pampered to?

Is it fair Jesus asks to give up our own wilful decision making processes to rely completely on the grace of God? Shouldn’t we have some say in what we do and how we go about securing our eternal future? Perhaps Jesus response would be: “Well, we did give you free will; so how did that turn out for you?”

Grace is a gift and a decision. It is God’s gift of unconditional empowerment freely given to those who decide to be open to the possibility of unlimited empowerment.

Grace cannot be bestowed if we are looking the other way. If we are committed to doing things our way (thanks Frank), dictating the terms of the relationship (if you do…then I will…), designing what it looks like (God, let me win X Factor or Lotto, or the grand-final), then we block the presence of God’s grace in our lives.

The children Jesus was referring to had to make a decision to trust the Father. The Father was not exempt of responsibility. Jesus was challenging Fathers to give good things to their children. They were not to be tyrants, dictators, and manipulators of the children. This was a relationship of mutual giving and decision-making. The fathers were to be gracious in their treatment of their children. Neither were to abuse the relationship. Both were to respect each other and to allow what would be to be. What happens when they don’t? See the Prodigal son for more details.

What a challenge for us as we reflect on our personal relationships, and particularly our relationship with God; to give ourselves completely to God, open to the unlimited empowerment available to us and deciding to let go of our impulse to control and to manage the outcomes according to our will. This applies to our relationship with partners; children and those we work with as well as the ultimate relationship on which all else is developed.

Are we, as a church able to give up our concerns and our fears, our preferred outcomes and dreams for our parish; and to give ourselves entirely to the grace of God? The children Jesus was referring to trusted the outcome to the generosity of empowerment; are we able to do so here?

It does not mean we are exempt of responsibility of hard work, effort, prayer and obedience. On the contrary that is what is expected of us. We are to work as if everything relies upon our efforts, while at the same time knowing we are completely dependent upon God’s grace.

This is not a story of childish innocence. It is a realistic story of the facts of life. To welcome children and to be welcomed as children is about the gift of mutual respect and responsibility. We are empowered to the doing of great deeds by the fact the outcome doesn’t rely on us. God has got us covered.