Transforming Expectations (Romans 12: 1-8)

Many years ago, I heard about a church that was trying to define the expectations it had for its pastor.  Maybe you heard about it too.

This church expected its pastor to preach for exactly ten minutes; and in his sermons, the pastor was expected to condemn sin roundly, but never hurt anyone’s feelings.

The pastor was expected to work from 8am to midnight, and also be the church janitor.

The pastor was expected to live off of $40 a week, wear good clothes, drive a good car, buy good books, and donate $30 a week to the church.

Ideally, the pastor would be 29 years old, and have 40 years experience.

The pastor was expected to have a passion for youth ministry, and spend most of his time with the senior citizens. 

He was expected to make 15 home visits a day, be out in the community evangelizing the unchurched, and always be in his office so that church members could find him.

We ALL have expectations placed on us – pastors aren’t the only ones – and quite a few of these expectations are unrealistic.  And maybe this wouldn’t be such a problem, except that many of them, we’ve internalized to such a degree that we don’t even realize that they’re there, or that they are completely unrealistic.  We just go along with them, not even aware of how they are shaping our lives.

But if we stop and think about them, many of them will reveal themselves.  What expectations do you live with?  …expectations to live a certain way, to follow a certain lifestyle, to be a certain type of person…?

I wonder if expectations played a role in the apostle Paul’s life.  I mean, listen to what he said to the Philippians:

“I was circumcised on the eighth day.  I am from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin.  I am a Hebrew of the Hebrews.  With respect to observing the Law, I’m a Pharisee.”

The Pharisees placed high expectations on everyone else, but they also placed high expectations on themselves.  Paul was a Pharisee.  Even though he was from a Greek speaking region, he was fluent in Hebrew, the language of the Temple.  He was, in every way, a good and proper Jew.

And he’s proud of all that, except to the extent that it made him a persecutor of those who followed Jesus.  You see, the top-ranking Jewish officials, the highest priests and authorities, were appointed by the Roman government, the same Roman government that had Jesus executed.  Thus the expectation was that anyone who wanted to stay in Rome’s good favor would stand against Jesus and his followers.  And the high priests definitely wanted to stay in Rome’s good favor.  It came with so many perks!

As a Pharisee, Paul was expected to follow along.  And because Paul wanted to be the best Jew, the best Pharisee, he could be, he became a violent persecutor of Jesus’s followers.

Until one day, on that road to Damascus…

This is pure guessing on my part, but maybe Paul had already started to have doubts.  Maybe his heart was telling him something different, something contrary to all the expectations that were being placed on him.  Maybe his soul was already being tormented by thoughts that, maybe, all this wasn’t right, that what he was doing was wrong, that he was living a lie.  It’s so hard to live a life that is contrary to what one knows deep down to be true.

And maybe the reason Paul became so passionate about persecuting Christians is that he was trying desperately to silence the murmurings of his heart.  You see that a lot:  Someone lives in a world where the expectations placed on them are contrary to what their heart tells them, so they work extra hard to fulfill those expectations.  For example, a person who struggles with his own sexuality becomes the most outspoken preacher of anti-gay propoganda. 

But it doesn’t work.  Eventually it all comes crashing down.

Paul was throwing Christians in prison right and left, and was overseeing the stoning of many others.  The expectation was that he was anti-Christian, and by God he set out to prove that he could fulfill all those expectations.

But then, somewhere on that road to Damascus, it all came crashing down.  The Spirit of Christ spoke to Paul’s heart, and he was transformed.  He could no longer conform to the expectations that had been placed upon him.  It was tearing him apart; and he just couldn’t do it any longer.  He had to go in a new direction.

He had to come out as a follower of Jesus.

Years later, when he wrote his letter to the Romans, he gave them this advice:  “Don’t be conformed to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you can figure out what God’s will is.”

Paul knew how hard it was to conform to the patterns of this world, to work to fulfill every unreasonable, unrealistic expectation placed on you, every expectation that goes against what you believe and who you are.  Paul knew how liberating it was to allow the Spirit to transform you into the person that, deep down, you were all along, the person God created you to be, the authentic you.

There is a story about Jesus, in the gospels, that I almost talked about in last week’s sermon on immigration, but it fits here as well. 

It is a difficult story for me to hear.  It involves a woman who Matthew describes as a Canaanite – Mark, in his version, calls her a Syrophoenician – but either way, she is a Gentile, a non-Jew, an “other.”

She comes to Jesus with a request that he heal her daughter. 

Jesus ignores her at first, according to Matthew. 

And then, in both versions, after she persists, Jesus insults her by saying, “I came for Israel; it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

This image of a Jesus who ignores a request and then hurls a derogatory insult at the one making the request bothers me. 

“Was Jesus just having a bad day?” as one commentator wrote…  “Did he get up on the wrong side of bed?”

That’s kind of what I’m wondering.  He insults this woman.  But she persists, and eventually she wins the argument.  It’s the only time in the Bible that Jesus ever lost an argument.

What to make of that?

Well, I know that what’s more important in scripture is not the literal meaning, but the deeper meaning.  This makes me wonder:  what purpose did Mark and Matthew have in telling this story?  How does this unflattering story of Jesus fit into the larger story that Mark and Matthew tell?

And I have several answers to that.

One:  being a non-Jew – and a woman – who, through persistence, is eventually ministered to by Jesus, this woman shows how the movement in scripture goes from being localized to globalized.  It goes from Jews to all nations.  It goes from men only to people of all genders.  This story fits in very nicely with this movement.

But if this is the movement of the Bible narrative, shouldn’t Jesus be ahead of that movement, leading it along, not trailing behind and catching up to it?

Yes… unless part of Matthew and Mark’s purpose is also to show how the tendency to conform to expectations plays a role.  Maybe what they are trying to say is:  Look – even Jesus had to overcome the expectations that were placed on him.  In this case, the expectation to treat all non-Jews like dirt.  In some cases, those expectations are so a part of you, so a part of the society in which you live, that you aren’t even aware of them.  They’re like the air you breathe.  They’re like the water in which a fish swims.  You don’t think about them.  You aren’t aware of them.  But they’re there.

This is how racism persists today, even though most people say they are against it and insist that they themselves are not racists.  Let’s say you are interviewing candidates for a job.  You’re not a racist, but in your mind you do have a picture of what the ideal candidate looks like.  And unless you’ve been really intentional about how that picture is created, it will likely be based upon the prejudices and expectations of society, even if you aren’t aware of it.  And typically, if this is a high-ranking position you are trying to fill, that picture of an ideal candidate is going to be white, male, not too old and not too young…it’s not that you are intentionally racist or sexist, but you live in a society in which the idea of what a successful leader in your company looks like is pre-determined. 

And you’re not going to question that, unless you have had some training in recognizing and overcoming racism, or have spent some intentional time in the wilderness,  questioning your own assumptions and expectations.  Only then can you be transformed.  Only then can your eyes be opened.

Even Jesus – this story suggests – had to deal with that.  With this woman’s help, he was able to overcome it.  He was able to see how society’s expectations had influenced him and prejudiced him, and was able to transform his way of thinking and move beyond it.

There is another story in Matthew in which Jesus is talking about various types of behavior.  “You need to love God,” he said; “it’s not enough just to believe in God.  Even the tax collectors and Gentiles do that.”

It’s a little more subtle, but here again is a derogatory comment directed (this time) toward tax collectors and Gentiles.  And yet, repeatedly, Jesus is shown in the gospels displaying great and unusual compassion toward tax collectors and Gentiles.

So either Matthew fabricated this response and attributed it to Jesus, or Jesus said it with a wink in his eye, knowing that he was voicing a common sentiment – knowing that he was playing in to society’s expectations of how one should regard tax collectors and Gentiles – even though it was clear, by his actions, that this was not his own opinion of tax collectors and Gentiles.

I don’t know.  I’m still wondering about these things, and I may not arrive at a definitive answer.  To what extent did society’s expectations influence what went on in the hearts of Jesus and Paul?  How exactly did they wrestle with those expectations?  I don’t know.

But I do know that those expectations were there.  I know that they were strong and powerful.  And I know that Paul and Jesus, somehow, at some point, were able to overcome those expectations and be the person who God created each of them to be. 

And I know that we are called to do the same.  We are called to allow the Spirit to so completely transform us, so that we can be who God created us to be. 

The expectations placed on us are many.  Expectations to live a certain lifestyle, to drive a certain car, buy the latest versions of our technological gadgets and electronic devices, and not go too crazy when it comes to living a life of faith.

I don’t know what expectations burden you.  Maybe you aren’t aware of them, either.  To escape from them, it helps to engage in spiritual practices: prayer, worship, Bible reading… practices that help open your mind to the Spirit – the Spirit that has the power to transform.

True Love (Romans 12:9-20, 13:8-10)

I don’t do it very often, but it seemed fitting today to break away from the normal lectionary readings, and to preach a special sermon on the topic of love.  I do this for several reasons:

1.      Valentine’s Day is this week.

2.     Despite the fact that Valentine’s Day is this week, there is a lot in today’s world that passes for love that isn’t true love.  There is a lot of cheap sentimentality as well as a lot of sexual stimulation in society and in the media, but neither of those are true love.  Maybe you saw Beyonce at the Super Bowl, or that Calvin Klein ad, and said, “Oh my God, I love his body!” or “I love her body”  but of course, that’s not love.

3.     This year our congregation is discerning what it means to be open and affirming in regards to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Christians.  This year at the General Assembly, the Disciples of Christ will consider a resolution on open and affirming at the denominational level.  While most in our congregation and in our denomination support being open and affirming, there are good people who have some concerns.  I always want to take whatever concerns anyone has seriously, and today seems like a good day to do that.

To begin this sermon on love, I will remind you that in Greek – the language of the New Testament – there are three different words for love, representing three different types of love.

One of these words is eros.  During a speech he gave at U.C. Berkeley in 1957, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Eros is a sort of aesthetic love.  It has come to us to be a sort of romantic love and it stands with all its beauty.”  I did not hear the speech and I don’t know if there is an audio recording of it, but in reading the transcript it seems to me that King is, perhaps, just a little embarrassed to be talking about eros love – we preachers often are – and he quickly moved into the second kind of love.

He said: “The Greek language talks about philia and this is a sort of reciprocal love between friends.”  It’s the kind of love that many of us here have for one another.  You’ve heard that Philadelphia is the “city of brotherly love,” and that’s not just a motto; it’s actually what the word Philadelphia means in Greek.

Then King said: “The Greek language comes out with another word, and it is agape.  Agape is understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill for all… It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return.” 

In other speeches and writings, King pointed out that agape love recognizes that all humans are interrelated, that there is some of you in every person, and it recognizes that both you and that other person are created in the image of God.  That’s why agape is a love you show even to your enemies.

All three types of love are powerful.  All three types of love are good.  All three types of love have the power to change lives.  But I think it’s safe to say that only agape love has the power to change the world.

All three types of love are discussed on the pages of scripture.  Agape  is talked about more than the other two, and it is the type of love usually preached about.  Agape love is universal.  Jesus made it clear that God’s love is for everyone.  Some people were so offended by that idea that they tried to kill Jesus by dragging him to the edge of town and throwing him off a cliff.  They wanted God to love all the people they loved, and they wanted God to hate all the people they hated.  They wanted God to save all the people they cared about, all the people who were like them, and they wanted God to condemn all the people they cared nothing for, all the people who were different from them, all the people who threatened their sense of security because of their “different-ness.”

But God’s love is for everyone.

It is agape love that the scripture speaks of most often, but much of what can be said about agape love can also apply to the other two types of love.  And sometimes, scripture does talk specifically about philia love and eros love.

The scripture reading we heard a few moments ago from the book of Romans talks mainly about philia love, brotherly love, love among friends, but what it says can also be applied to eros love.  It began with this sentence:  “Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.”

Right here are several criteria for true love.

One is that true love consists of mutual affection.

Agape love is given regardless if the recipient is ready to receive it.  But philia love and eros love are mutual.  A love between friends, and romantic love, are not one-sided.

1 Corinthians 7 speaks specifically of the eros love that exists within marriage; and it agrees that that kind of love is mutual.  The two marriage partners belong to each other; neither partner holds all the authority or power in the relationship.  The relationship is based on mutual affection.

Now some of you who know your Bible well may want to stop me and point out that both Ephesians and Colossians contain verses which instruct wives to be subject to their husbands, and for husbands to assert their authority over their wives.  Where’s the mutuality there? 

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that we have in scripture passages that are so contradictory, so opposite?

I’ll tell you what I know, and then you can decide how best to interpret.  I know that scholars who have studied and examined the books of the New Testament have determined that some of these books, like the letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, claim to have been written by the apostle Paul and very likely were written by the apostle Paul.

But other books that claim to have been written by the apostle Paul – like Ephesians and Colossians – contain such a different vocabulary and writing style, and address such different issues, that they were most likely written by someone else, someone who used Paul’s name because they believed they were writing in the spirit of Paul, presenting his ideas to a new generation or a new location.

Now of those letters that scholars have determined to be authentic letters of Paul, this is where you find the emphasis on mutuality in marriage.  The authentic letters of Paul are also where you find instructions for women (as well as men) who wish to speak or teach in church, and instructions for women (as well as men) who feel called to prophesy.

It appears, however, that these ideas were too radical for the later writers who “borrowed” Paul’s name.  It is these later writers who said that women should submit to their husbands, or that women should be silent in church.  They liked most of what Paul wrote, but the teaching that women and men could speak in church and that they should be mutual partners in love were just too much.

But in the New Testament books that are authentically Paul’s women are recognized as teachers, preachers, and prophets; and, more importantly for our topic today, they were considered equal partners in marriage; loving relationships of eros and philia love were characterized by mutual affection and mutual authority.

Both of these contradictory ideas are a part of scripture.  Both are contained in the book of holy writings that we refer to as God’s Word.  And because they are contradictory, we find that we must choose one or the other to emphasize when it comes to applying the scripture to our lives today.

I don’t know about you, but the insight provided by biblical scholars helps me make that decision.  In addition, the overarching themes of scripture help me make that decision.  In last week’s sermon I talked about the major theme that is present throughout scripture, in the stories of Ruth, Jonah, Job, as well as in the teachings of Jesus, all of which emphasize welcome and acceptance and equality.  The idea of mutual affection and shared power and authority fits well with the larger theme that is present in scripture, while the idea of a more hierarchical relationship, in which one partner is dominant over the other, does not.

So, getting back to our scripture reading for today, from the 12^th and 13^th chapters of Romans… Near the end of this reading, we heard the phrase, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor.”  Other translations render it as “love does no harm.”

I first studied this verse in a workshop I attended many years ago, a workshop on preventing sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. Pretty much all religious leaders, clergy and lay, do what they do out of love for God and love for God’s people.  But as we know from news headlines, a few of them have made terrible mistakes, abusing those they love, or hurting them through inappropriate conduct.

Hardly any of them intended to cause hurt or harm.  But at some point, they neglected to ask if what they were doing was, in fact, harming the people they claimed to love.

The participants in that workshop were told that one of the best ways to make sure we are properly and appropriately caring for those we love is to ask whether or not expressions of love for that person could possibly be doing harm.  If the answer is yes, then its’ not true, genuine love, because true love does no harm.

More positively expressed, the guideline that love does no harm could be rephrased as, love is always concerned with the other person’s well-being.  I always prefer to emphasize the “positives,” the “shoulds,” and not just the “negatives,” the “should-nots.”  So I flip it around to the positive, although in this case, I won’t completely get rid of the negative; it’s too important. 

So now we have two guidelines for true live:  one is that love is mutual; and the other is that love does no harm, but instead looks out for the other person’s well-being.  I think if we can remember those two things, we’ll go a long way to having healthier, more loving relationships.

Now, to address the concerns about whether we should affirm romantic love between people of the same sex.  One of the things I’ve heard is that this might lead to an “anything goes” mentality. 

It won’t.

It won’t, because we have some very important guidelines to prevent that:  one is that love is mutual, and the other is that love does no harm.

Same-sex relationships are just as capable of being characterized by mutual affection and consideration of the partner’s wellbeing as any other relationship.  Nearly all of the gay or lesbian people I know – and, living in Long Beach, that’s quite a few – are, or have been, in stable, committed relationships based on mutual love and a commitment to do no harm.

That cannot be said for all those other situations that come to mind when I hear the phrase “anything goes.”  I won’t spell out what all those situations are; you can use your own imagination to do that.  But those “other situations” are not based on mutual love or concern for another’s wellbeing.  Without mutual love – when authority and power are not shared – it becomes a relationship of abuse; when one partner does harm to another, it becomes a relationship of abuse.

The scriptural guidelines I’ve talked about today, when followed, will prevent inappropriate and abusive situations and relationships, and it is right for the church to continue speaking out against relationships that are unhealthy, inappropriate, or abusive.

But based on my understanding of God’s love, my interpretation of scripture and the themes I see on the pages of scripture, a relationship of mutual love between two people who share power and authority in the relationship and who are committed to one another’s well-being … that relationship is worthy of the church’s blessing, no matter what the gender is of the two people involved.

Love is the greatest power in all of creation.  Love is stronger than any army or any force of nature.  Love is a gift from God, to be treasured, honored, and celebrated.