Sheep without a Shepherd

14 June 2020 – 2^nd Sunday after Pentecost (Green)

Psalm 116:1-7, 12-19; Romans 5:1-8; Matthew 9:35-10:15

St. Paul wrote to the Romans, “We boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint – because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (5:3-5).

“Suffering”.  What does it mean?  I think our modern interpretation misrepresents what is being lifted up as a spiritual virtue for the sake of Christ in the life of the Church.  We think suffering is something to be avoided, no matter what we must do.  After all, if Jesus does not give us a life that is pain-free, what is the point of following Him?  Of course, His assurance is offered only to those who have the faith and the willingness to “endure [persecution and suffering] to the end” (Matthew 10:22).

Yet even though a type of suffering (as we understand the word) can be mitigated through holy means (fasting, praying, the support and fellowship of the Church), the biblical context of suffering is that which “produces endurance” and leads us to a firm and resolute sense of “hope”.  So if suffering is such a bad thing (again, as we understand it), why should we not avoid it at all costs regardless of St. Paul lifting it up as a holy virtue?

Notice when Jesus sent His disciples out, He gave them explicit instructions: “Take nothing with you”.  Knowing there was the possibility of resistance to their message, even hostility, He still instructed them to take nothing with them except the clothes on their backs, His authority, and the Good News of the Kingdom.  Even though they were to avoid the Gentiles and the Samaritans, there was still the possibility of trouble “because of His Name” (Matthew 10:22).  Even then, in the case of trouble, Jesus instructed them to “flee to the next town” (vs 23).

It seems Jesus is instructing them to avoid “suffering”.  What He is telling them – and US – is to leave the trouble zones if possible … after He has assured them the trouble-makers will not avoid being called to account: “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (vs 15).  Retribution and judgment are coming, but these cannot come by our own hands.

“Suffering”, in the biblical context, can be understood to mean “allowing”; i.e., “Suffer the children to come unto Me” means “Allow the children to come to me”.  But if there is trouble for His Name’s sake and we cannot avoid it, what are we “allowing” if we do not fight back, if we do not “return evil for evil”?  To be brutalized?  To be persecuted? 

Not necessarily.  What we are “allowing” for, what we are to wait for, what we must have the faith to see, is that these trouble-makers will face the Day of Judgment – and they will be judged, as we will be, “according to their works” (Romans 2:6). 

Paul wrote that to the Romans, but Jesus alludes to it in His declaration that these who reject, persecute, and brutalize those whom Jesus sends out with the Good News will be judged more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah.  In other words, rather than strike back, we are to have the faith to trust that The Lord will see to it in His Time rather than ours.  He is not asking us to measure it back to those who may be the cause of our suffering; in fact, by instructing them to “flee to the next town”, Jesus actually forbade them from taking any sort of counter action.

Like “turning the other cheek”, this may be the single, most challenging act Jesus charges His followers with.  You may be aware of the street preacher in Seattle who recently tried to enter the so-called “capital hill autonomous zone (CHAZ)” in that city.  From the start, as far as we can see in the video, it was clear he was not welcome.  When he was physically attacked by the mob, it appears he did not try to fight back.

I am sorry he got choked and beaten, and it broke my heart that it appeared there was no one willing to listen, let alone defend the man.  While we may admire his willingness to walk into the “lion’s den” for the sake of the Gospel, he apparently missed the part of Jesus’ instruction: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that … town” (Mt 10:14).

Jesus does not ask, command, or expect us to deliberately walk into trouble.  It is not His desire that we “suffer” in such a way.  Watching the video, I became filled with such a rage that I wanted the police to come in with such force that would overwhelm them and put an end to the nonsense.  Even after the preacher was let go, he appealed to the president to send in forces to deal with it.

Can we not see, however, that there is so much more at play here than just the idea of retribution?  There are a lot of things wrong with this “autonomous zone”; and as a ‘law-and-order’ kind of man, I want this crowd dealt with – by force, if necessary.

But aside from Jesus’ explicit instructions under just such circumstances, there is another parable which comes into play.  In Luke 20:9-16, Jesus told the story of a landowner who planted a vineyard and then leased it out to tenants.  When the landowner sent servants to collect what was due him, they beat the servants and sent them away.  When the landowner finally sent his own son, believing the tenants would not hurt him, the son was beaten and killed.

Jesus used this parable to highlight the nature of the conflict between Himself and the religious leaders, but we can see in such a parable another certain reality; though it was the landowner’s right to call in state authority (the ‘king’s sword’ as in Romans 13:4-5) to reclaim what was rightfully his, the conflict was – and still is - much deeper and more sinister and diabolical than violation of the “law of the land”.

In Seattle WA, in Miami FL, and at every point in between, including Murfreesboro AR, the “law of the land”, though necessary for the sake of order, is not even the point at which Christians must take notice.  If we seek retribution or vengeance in any form, we are refusing to suffer for the sake of righteousness.  And we most certainly refuse to “wait for The Lord”.  Our sense of suffering only means we are not getting our own way.  And if we are not getting our own way, someone must be to blame.

So we attack.  We gossip privately.  We slander and defame publicly.  Even as we call ourselves “Christian”, it becomes very clear to those on the outside looking in that we are not Christ followers; we are not disciples of Jesus.  Then they notice they are about to enter a “hostile area”.  We go to church on Sunday, and renew our attacks on Monday because we are so self-absorbed – even if we really have been done wrong – that we cannot see Jesus and will not hear Him.

It is written in Matthew’s Gospel, “When Jesus saw the crowds, He had compassion for them because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36).  There was surely His Holy Compassion for those who were suffering needlessly, but there may also have been a sense of Compassion for those who were needlessly – yet perhaps very intentionally – causing the suffering only because they had their minds made up they had been done wrong.

This crowd going this way, that crowd going that way, demanding what they think they are due, and trampling on those caught in the middle.  It can surely be said The Lord has Compassion for those caught in the middle, “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” … suffering through no fault of their own. 

Those who are the cause of so much suffering, however, are no less “sheep without a shepherd” because they refuse to heed and obey the Good Shepherd.   Regardless of which side we are on, if we are the cause in any way of someone’s suffering, we are left with two options … and ONLY two options: we will repent of our actions and our hateful words, or we will be condemned by our actions and our hateful words.  There will be no in-between.

We need a shepherd.  More than this, we all need The Good Shepherd.  I pray – as we all must – that The Good Shepherd will gather us once again and bring us back to a righteous state of mind and being before we destroy ourselves, one another, and everyone in between.

“Come soon, Lord”.  Amen.

Name it, Claim it, Face it, Get Rid of it

It was taught to me at any early age, as I was preparing to make my first confession (Roman Catholic), that a generalized confession of sin can be a good start toward reconciliation with The Lord.  It was also told to me that if I could not or would not name a specific sin (not just a commandment I had violated), then it could be that I had thrown a shade over that sin and am refusing to confront it or even acknowledge it as sinful.

This was the day of behind-the-curtain, anonymous confession; the priest could not see the confessor, and the confessor did not have to look the priest in the eye.  In a large parish, one could do this.  In our small parish, however, there was no way the priest would not know to whom he was listening; and given the layout of the small church, not only would everyone be able to see that someone is going into the confessional, it could well be that those confessions could be overheard by someone other than the priest.

It soon came to be that the practice of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) faded away.  I can recall very few who actually went into that confessional.  I don’t remember ever going back myself even though Catholic doctrine teaches that one must not receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion while knowingly in a state of sin (1 Corinthians 11:27); and the only way to be absolved of that sin is to confess.

Even many Catholics (my former Catholic self included) don’t really understand the nature of the confessional.  Protestantism insists it is sufficient to make one’s confession directly to The Lord and thus be forgiven.  The discipline of the confessional, however, is not strictly the idea of priestly authority to absolve one of sin even though a biblical argument can be made (John 20:23, for instance).  The discipline of the confessional is to acknowledge our sinful nature, do an honest self-examination, name the sin(s) aloud, and face the harm that specific sin has caused or can cause.  Only then can we really know of our genuine sorrow, and only then can we really get rid of it.

Racism is the big sin of the day, and no one – NO ONE – is confessing.  The recent death of George Floyd at the hand (or knee) of an apparently overly aggressive police officer has renewed the persistent national rage to the point of boiling over.  The nation is aflame, literally and figuratively.  The flames of righteous anger are in the streets, marching peacefully and in great numbers, demanding that racism be acknowledged and the sin confessed so real social reconciliation can happen.

Here is a hindrance to confessing racism as a sin (by my own admittedly limited observation); there are many who insist they do not see color when they look at another person.  I know they mean well and I’m pretty sure they honestly do not quickly judge a person they see based only on the color of that person’s skin.  However, if these non-racist persons have eyes and the gift of sight, they cannot help but to notice the physical characteristics of a person.  White or black or anything in between, we all clearly see physical attributes.  Depending on our state of mind or biases, we also take special note of certain physical attributes.

With George Floyd, then, it is clearly seen by a certain social narrative that a black man was taken to the ground by a white police officer.  Racists note the contrast; white or black or anything in between, the outrage comes in noting the contrast and immediately jumping to conclusions. 

The video which has been shared (the one I saw with my own eyes) only shows us the restrained man on the ground with an officer’s knee on the back of his neck (I’ve seen this technique many times on the TV show “Cops”).  If we watch the video without sound, we see the restrained man struggling.  Without sound, we see perhaps a criminal suspect resisting arrest, which is a crime itself.  On sight alone, then, we see a police officer doing what he has been trained to do with a suspect who physically resists.  The officer is not only trained but charged to gain control of a situation.  Only when we turn on the sound can we hear the restrained suspect saying he cannot breathe (I’ve heard this on “Cops” many times as well).  Though many have said bystanders were pleading with the officer to get off his neck because Mr. Floyd could not breathe, I didn’t hear those pleas on the video I watched and listened to.  It could be I’m hard of hearing, the sound quality of the video, or the speakers on my computer.  That I did not hear it does not mean others could not hear it.  I only say I didn’t hear it.

What we do not see – and this, I think, is big – is what happened prior to this video being shot.  We do not see any sort of physical exchange that would have compelled the officer to restrain Mr. Floyd and put him on the ground.  Though the crime Mr. Floyd was suspected of was non-violent (forgery), had he become indignant and eventually physically aggressive toward the officer even in only resisting (again, a crime unto itself), the officer was left with no choice but to restrain the suspect.

Mr. Floyd’s death is a tragedy, and there is no way to make it less so.  The upgraded charge to second-degree murder only to satisfy political will and demands will become a problem sooner or later because that charge requires proof that the officer in question had “intent to kill” and that the other officers deliberately “aided and abetted” his alleged “intent to kill”.  On the surface, the officer only had intent to contain the situation so everything could be sorted out.  If Mr. Floyd had been putting up a fight, physically resisting the officer’s instructions, the officer was left with little choice. 

I don’t consider myself a racist, but I do acknowledge certain biases.  I don’t look at Halle Berry and think, “What a gorgeous black woman” (she’s just beautiful), and I don’t look at Barack Obama and think, “What an articulate and clean black man” (as opposed to a certain politician who actually said this out loud and supposes himself non-racist).  I also do not presume to say or to even think one “ain’t black” if one supports the president for re-election. 

It may be that the real racists, the ones who unapologetically see and proclaim color especially in contrast/conflict and for political gain, are the ones who used this video to deliberately manipulate public opinion and provoke social outrage.  The real racists are the ones who insist we see color.  The real racists are the ones who demand we take note that a white police officer aggressively restrained a black criminal suspect who may have been resisting.

Few of us, regardless of our race, can fully escape the accusation of racism, and the sin of racism itself is exacerbated by those who seek to use racism toward a political end.  It is this particular and deliberate bias in which “systemic” racism exists in the human mind and soul, not in institutions.  Until these are called out and removed from the public eye, there will always be a “system” by which human beings – regardless of race – are marginalized, diminished, and presented as less than human.  Only when we are honest enough to confess our own biases will racism cease to be a thing.