“How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.
“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
- Matthew 9:15-17
There was a problem in Jesus' day that everyone acknowledged. Israel was under occupation by Rome. Israel as a people were not yet free of the sort of behaviours that led to captivity to Babylon. Israel was not experiencing the blessing of the promised land. There was the problem of unfaithfulness among a people called to be faithful. Here in the context of Matthew 9, we are confronted by three different groups who take issue with Jesus. (Teachers of law -v3, the Pharisees v11, and John’s the baptists disciples v14). Each of these groups had a particular way of living out their righteousness and faithfulness to Torah. The teachers of the law practiced a righteousness that was deeply tied to the Temple’s sacrificial system. The Pharisees practiced a righteousness that excluded sinners. And John’s disciples practiced fasting as evidence that they were the sort of people whom were faithful.
Jesus does not solve the problem of unfaithfulness with the same old dusty practices. Rather, he tells three parables with the central point: rethink everything. The question for us is this: Do we have the courage to trust that the Jesus way, is truly that way that brings life? Are we prepared to make new wine skins? Or are we—like the Pharisees, teachers of the law, and John’s disciples— content to look from the outside in?
"The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it." - Matthew 13:10-17
There is no shortage of information in our age. We are surrounded by hashtags, Wikipedia articles, breaking news, fake news, and trending topics. We do not lack the ability to discover what is going on throughout the world. But, do we always fully understand? Do we truly perceive?
This is the challenge of understanding Jesus’ good news announcement about the Kingdom here in Matthew 13. It was trending news! Large crowds gathered (13:2) to hear what Jesus taught! Yet, not everyone who heard Jesus fully grasped what he was trying to say. We discover that Jesus purposely chose to not teach plainly, but to speak in parables. When asked why he did this, Jesus spoke of the crowd saying,
“Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”-Matthew 13:13
This raises all sorts of questions for us today. Are we hearing at the surface, or do we hunger to understand? Are our hearts calloused or soft? Will we— like the disciples— long for deeper meaning? If we do, the promise is that “we will be given more”(v12), and “be healed” (v15)
For more on the purpose of parables, check out this sermon I preached on June 30, 2019 at The Meeting Place located in downtown Winnipeg. (139 Smith Street)
This past Sunday I did something that I had never done before as a Pastor. I preached on the historical reasons for the resurrection. It was not an easy sermon to prepare. There is a lot of material to cover in such a short time. I found myself a bit apprehensive to give a list of reasons why one might believe in the resurrection. (You can listen to that sermon above in the video player) You may ask, "Why the apprehension?" Certainly, that is a valid question. Why should any minister of the Gospel be apprehensive on sharing the historical case for the resurrection? I guess my apprehension could be narrowed to the fact that I did not want to build an entire case on reason alone. I think it's dangerous to base our faith on a post-enlightenment rationalism that declares, "I have empirically proven the answer, thus removing the need for faith." Jason Micheli captures my apprehension perfectly when he writes,
"The Barthian in me bristles at the unexamined assumption that that which is ‘objective’ and true must be empirically verifiable, it’s nonetheless true that the same Barthian in me is allergic to rational apologetics."- tamedcynic.org
And so all of this left me with an uneasy feeling about putting together a sermon that compiled a list of reasons for believing the resurrection. I was apprehensive about a "wooden rationalism" that called for undeniable verification. Thankfully, both Jason & N.T. Wright helped me provide a proper framing of where to put these arguments for the resurrection. Jason Micheili cleverly asserts this dialectical statement:
To say the resurrection of Christ is beyond historical verification is true, for we believe God intervenes from beyond history to raise Jesus from beyond the grave. But to say the resurrection of Christ is beyond historical verification is not also to suggest that the resurrection of Christ is beyond historical plausibility, for we believe God intervenes to raise Jesus from the grave within history. In fact... I do think the resurrection is the best- or at least a compelling- historical explanation for the resurrection of Jesus.
N.T. Wright, in his popular book Surprised By Hope, (and elsewhere) spends endless chapters laying out the historical case for the plausibility of the resurrection. Yet, after tirelessly laying out his through argument, Wright explains to his readers exactly where these rationalistic based arguments belong for followers of Jesus. He writes,
"[T]hough the historical arguments for Jesus’s bodily resurrection are truly strong, we must never suppose that they will do more than bring people to the questions faced by Thomas, Paul, and Peter, the questions of faith, hope, and love. We cannot use a supposedly objective historical epistemology as the ultimate ground for the truth of Easter. To do so would be like lighting a candle to see whether the sun had risen. What the candles of historical scholarship will do is to show that the room has been disturbed, that it doesn’t look like it did last night, and that would-be normal explanations for this won’t do. Maybe, we think after the historical arguments have done their work, maybe morning has come and the world has woken up. But to investigate whether this is so, we must take the risk and open the curtains to the rising sun. When we do so, we won’t rely on the candles anymore, not because we don’t believe in evidence and argument but because they will have been overtaken by the larger reality from which they borrow, to which they point, and in which they will find a new and larger home. All knowing is a gift from God, historical and scientific knowing no less than that of faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love."- N.T. Wright, Surprised By Hope, pg. 74
So this is all to say, that while I find the various reasons for the resurrection compelling, I must always recognize that these reasons alone cannot form the basis of faith and trust in the resurrection. I must go deeper from reason to hope, faith, and love.
The Man of Sorrows, Aelbrecht Bouts (c. 1460-1549)
The Cross is not a detour or a hurdle on the way to the kingdom, nor is it even the way to the kingdom; it is the kingdom come.
-John Howard Yoder
There was a time when reflecting on the Cross, I might have tried a 'cold approach'. It's the approach that collapses and restricts my thinking about Jesus' death into Easter Weekend OR WORSE into one specific dominate atonement theory. It's the approach that treats Jesus more as an object than the Lord that I imitate. It's the approach that is cold to the way of the Cross. The 'cold approach' allows me gloss over seeing myself in the story of the Cross. I am guilty of having a 'cold approach'. There was a time when I was more excited about memorizing facts on 'hot-topic' theological issues than about Jesus and the way of the Cross. You can get a lot of energy from theology, but don't try getting life from it. It's a dangerous path that can lead to idolatrous certainty. Get life from Christ.
I've long since given up the 'cold approach' on my reflection on the Cross (and Jesus for that matter). I've shifted my thinking to see that the Gospel writers are not merely recording history, but each author has a rich theology that must be paid attention too! I have opened up shop on the Gospels and I have found a very deep, deep, deep well. I no longer see the Cross as Jesus dying so that I don't have too, but rather I am crucified with Christ.
Identification
Union
Participation
Solidarity
It is important to remember that Jesus first identifies the way of the Cross in the context of being a disciple who follows him. (Luke 9:22-24, Matt 10:38, Mark 8:34) If any person is to follow Christ they must take up the Cross and lose their life in order to find it. I too must take up my Cross and follow the Risen Lord. Christ has bid me come and die. It's a sobering thought... but I can't escape the deep implications of Christ's call to me.
These days I find myself praying Paul's words to be "resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor 2.2) I've never been more cut to heartthan meditating about Jesus on the Cross. It takes a lot out of me. I feel a weightiness about the Cross. It brings me to tears. I endlessly contemplate Jesus' words to, "Take up your Cross and follow me". Prayer for me has often become a time of beholding Jesus on the Cross. I sit in silence and contemplate on the mystery of the Cross as a stumbling block, as foolishness, as the power of God. (1 Cor 1)
I see on the Cross:
The disfigurement.
The Suffering Servant.
The scandal.
The offensiveness.
A humanity driven by fear, pride, and maintaining the axis of power enforced by violence.
The beauty of the Son of God who speaks the words of forgiveness from the Cross of his death.
The Son of man who fully identifies with humanity in suffering.
The Father who has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help. (Ps 22.24)
The Cross and the Crucifix
This video features a short reflection from Morpeth's Anglican Rector, Reverend Simon White, about his infamous Crucifix that hangs on the wall of his office. I thought the story was worth sharing. I've also thrown in some of my favourite paintings and quotes for good measure.
Ideas have consequences. It has been said before that whatever you circulate as accepted thinking will typically result in the creation of accepted culture norms and patterns of behaviour. This is to say (in some sense): You become what you think. The way we might put this in a theological jargon is to say: Our orthodoxy informs our orthopraxis. I believe this to be true, but I have discovered that it is not exclusively true. There was a time where I might have thought that the best, if not the only way to 'teach' (train//disciple//convince) a person would be through extensive appeal to the cognitive approach. This approach to teaching is grounded in what some scholars label the ‘Socratic method’, that is aptly named after its originator Socrates. The Socratic Method seeks to arrive at a solid, tenable conclusions by the use of critical thinking, reasoning, and logic. I get a lot of satisfaction with working out the truthfulness of an idea. It is a strong conviction of mine that change often takes place at the root of an idea. But, as we will soon discover: Logic has its limits. We cannot for instance measure the true impact of teaching on the ability to recite information alone. Observable behaviour should also factor into our teaching methods. This is to say that learning can be manifested by a change in behaviour. Gandhi put it this way: “Your beliefs become your thoughts, Your thoughts become your words, Your words become your actions, Your actions become your habits, Your habits become your values, Your values become your destiny.” I am convinced that the way to discern the effectiveness of teaching is to assess a change in behaviour. Behaviours do matter. Our actions are indicative of how well we have processed the material. This is why good theology must be lived out.
Israel Galindo in his book, The Craft of Christian Teaching, suggests that what we learn will change us in three primary ways: knowledge, attitude, behaviour.
Learning creates changes to our cognitive, affective and effective abilities. Galindo believes that, "Knowledge is the easiest to change." We can assimilate facts, data, and concepts with relative ease and subsequently allow new information to inform and correct old information. The hardest area to change, according to Galindo, is our attitude (emotional//affective). Good teaching, according to Galindo, must seek to address our knowledge, attitude and behaviours. This will result in ‘different’ hopefully better persons. All learning, according to Galindo, should result in change. Learning is change!
A recent research paper published by Dr. Dan Kahan, a Yale Law School professor, appears to have confirmed Galindo's hunch about attitude being the most difficult area to effect change.
In Kahan’s experiment, some people were asked to interpret a table of numbers about whether a skin cream reduced rashes, and some people were asked to interpret a different table – containing the same numbers – about whether a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns reduced crime. Kahan found that when the numbers in the table conflicted with people’s positions on gun control, they couldn’t do the math right, though they could when the subject was skin cream. The bleakest finding was that the more advanced that people’s math skills were, the more likely it was that their political views, whether liberal or conservative, made them less able to solve the math problem.
Dr. Kahan demonstrates in the study that, "partisanship (emotional attachment) can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills." Kaplan commenting on Dr. Kahan's study asserts, "We want to believe we’re rational, but reason turns out to be the ex post facto way we rationalize what our emotions already want to believe."
It would appear that teachers (those who desire to effect change) really do have their work cut out for them! Galindo admits this when he writes, "Change is difficult, sometimes painful, and often resisted." I believe that Dr. Kahan's research has proven that teaching must address more than just the cognitive faculties. Teaching is not merely the relaying of data. Or as Galindo puts it, "receiving new information is not a sufficient definition for learning." Successful teaching needs to have a holistic commitment to every faculty and component of learning. As Kaplan asserts, "When there’s a conflict between partisan beliefs and plain evidence, it’s the beliefs that win. The power of emotion over reason isn’t a bug in our human operating systems, it’s a feature." This means that teacher's everywhere must ask afresh the question, "Am I teaching to effect change in all domains of learning?"
Guidelines to help teach for change:
Determine the change in the lives of your learners that your teaching will call for.
Write a learning objective that focuses on that change in the domains of knowledge, attitude, or behaviour.
Teach one thing. One thing only per lesson
Teach to effect change in one domain. (knowledge, attitude or behaviour)
Use learning methods that will help the students reach that objective
Determine how the student will demonstrate that learning has taken place.
In order for someone to believe (holistically learn), four components must be operative to some degree:
Affective (feeling, emotional)
Cognitive (Knowledge, understanding)
Behavioural (Action, conduct)
Volitional (will, conviction, passion)
"Knowledge plus feeling leads to a volitional conviction that is evident in behaviour." - Galindo
Did Jesus subscribe to the idea that learning equals change? Did Jesus address the cognitive, affective, and behavioural in his teaching? Yes, I think so. There is a case to be made that the Sermon on the Mount is the culmination of effective teaching. Attitude ("don’t even hate your brother/sister", "do not judge", "do not worry"), Knowledge("you have heard it said", "those who hear these words of mine", "therefore I tell you") Behaviour("turn the other cheek", "pray for those who persecute you", "put this into practice"). Jesus does not let us off the hook. Christ’s teaching is meant to apply to the domains of knowledge, attitude and behaviour. The call for a disciple is to follow Jesus. It is important to note that Jesus ends his body of teaching on the Mount with the example of the wise and foolish builders. The wise builder is the one who "hears Jesus' words (meaning the previous body of teaching) and "puts them into practice". Jesus expects his disciples obey and to enact the teaching of the Sermon. Jesus does not appear to regard the discipleship of the Sermon as an 'impossible ideal'. (Luther) Jesus' last words in Matthew's Gospel are a reinforcement of the Sermon. " When they saw him, they worshiped him (attitude//behaviour); but some doubted (attitude). Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (attitude//knowledge). Go (behaviour) therefore and make disciples (behaviour) of all nations, baptizing them (behaviour) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them (knowledge) to obey everything (behaviour) that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always (attitude), to the very end of the age." - Matthew 28:17-20 The early church took the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles so seriously that potential converts to Christianity were expected to practice that teaching before joining the church or having been taught the Sermon on the Mount. Alan Kreider comments:
This may seem severe and legalistic to us today, even perverse. How could a community rebuff people as potential members for not living according to the standards of the group before they had been taught? But the early Christian catechists were attempting not so much to impart concepts as to nurture communities whose values would be different from those of conventional society. Christian leaders assumed that people did not think their way into a new life; they lived their way into a new kind of thinking. [1]
The early church recognized that inhabiting a new way of thinking (indeed, a new way of living) is essential to full reception of the teaching of Jesus and genuine conversion to the way of the cross. Potential converts to Christianity were coming for baptismal instruction having their thinking already conformed to the scheme of the age. What would change in the church today if we "lived our way into a new kind of thinking"? (Check this video out)
May you be challenged to love the Lord your God
With all your heart
With all your soul
With all your mind
With all your strength!
Works Cited 1. Alan Kreider, The Change of Conversion and the Origin of Christendom (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), p. 23.
