Difference between revisions of "Sermon for November 20, 2011"

Revision as of 19:42, 19 November 2011

Growing up, my Mom and my Dad had two very different ways of organizing things. My Dad would divide everything into categories, organize them by color, size, shape, or purpose. Everything had a special home, and everything lived in its home. My Mom, on the other hand, would gather everything into one big pile...and then put the pile somewhere. Like a drawer, or a closet. Or on top of her desk. My Dad was a divider, and my Mom was a piler. Which one are you?

The fact that I've just divided my parents into two categories and placed each one in their respective place...should probably clue you in to which one I am.

Dividers and pilers--Which is better, though? There are plenty of ways we divide or pile things together in the world. Some good, some not so good. Racism and sexism are, essentially, ways of dividing people by ethnicity or gender. On the other hand, "stereotyping" is the practice of piling different people together under one label. All blonds are airheads, or all lawyers are crooked. I thank God for libraries, which pile together books, periodicals and other information resources from every corner. But I also thank God for the Dewey decimal system that divides them into categories so I can find the right one.

Dividers and Pilers--which one is God? To read today's passage from Matthew, you'd think God is a divider: Dividing left hand from right hand, sheep from goats, blessed from cursed, eternal life, from eternal fire. But in the passage from Ezekiel, God is the good shepherd, who gathers sheep together, heals their injuries, strengthens them and brings back those who wander too far from the pile. Definitely a piler.

So how do you reconcile those two images of God? Is God simultaneously a divider and a piler? Or in some cases one, but in differing circumstances the other? I think we want God to be a piler...until someone gets added to the pile who we think doesn't belong. Or we want God to be a divider...but only if get put on the right side. This is, of course, a problem. A very old problem in the world of Christian doctrine. And too often, this very verse from Matthew 25 is at the root of the problem.

If I've learned one thing at Seminary, it's this: The scriptures are always more complicated than they seem. People who say "just read the Bible and do what it says" are usually neither reading the Bible very deeply, nor doing what it says. There are a number of problems that arise from this particular passage, and I've divided them into three categories: Problems of interpretation, pro blems of translation, and problems of doctrine.

We'll start with interpretation. By this I mean literal interpretation, vs. figurative interpretation. Is Jesus using metaphor in this passage, or is he speaking literally? I don't know anyone who actually thinks he's talking about real sheeps or goats here--that's an obvious metaphor--and yet many people seem to think that the part about eternal life or eternal fire is quite literal. Is Jesus dividing his approach here between literal and metaphorical? And what does the metaphor mean, anyhow? "He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

I admit, I had to do a little online research to learn more about sheep and goats for this one. Why would a shepherd separate his sheep from his goats? Well, apparently they don't get along so well together. The goats are more aggressive and tend to dominate the sheep. Conventional wisdom for this passage is that sheep are good followers and obedient (and therefore good) while goats are independent and strong-willed (and therefore bad). I found lots of sermons online that took things in this direction -- be a good sheep and follow Jesus! Don't be a stubborn goat! But I've got a problem with that: There are other places in both the Old and New Testaments where God's people are called sheep...as an insult. Stupid sheep, who followed the wrong shepherd. Docile obedience can sometimes get you in trouble, too. Conversely, how many of the great biblical heroes of the faith could we label as "independent and strong willed?" And God uses them. Often. So being like a sheep can be either good OR bad, and being like a goat can be either good OR bad.

Another problem I have with the metaphor: Let's say you're the good shepherd, and you've just finished dividing your sheep from your goats, which as we've said, is probably a good idea. What do you do now? Burn all your goats to a crisp, apparently. Because they're bad. Seriously? Both sheep and goats have equal value to the shepherd. No self-respecting shepherd would divide his flock only to kill half of it.

One last problem with the metaphor of the Good Shepherd. Whether you're a sheep or a goat, in the end, is the shepherd really your friend? He leads you beside still waters for a few months, but then it's off to the market where he sells you for money so you can be eaten for dinner. Metaphors only extend so far, and this one in particular ought not to be taken to its logical conclusion.

Moving on to problems in translation: All translations are interpretations, influenced by the biases of the translators. Especially the NIV, which is a product of good old American individualism--it's all about me. Or, to be specific, the emphasis on "me and Jesus" and having a personal, private relationship with God, independent and detached from the larger community. Verse 32 is a case in point: "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Only in the original Greek, it doesn't say anything about "he will separate the people one from another." The King James version actually gets it right here: "And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another." Them. The nations. Or, in Greek, the "ethne" -- the tribes or groups of people. In other words, groups are being separated from groups, not individuals within groups. That means you get to be judged as a tribe or a nation or a community, corporately. Hope you're in the right one!

The next translation issue is with the words for sheep and goat: Probata and Eriphon. Probata, according to Strong's, is "any four footed, tame animal accustomed to graze, most commonly a sheep or a goat. Uh oh. The word we're using for sheep could also mean goat. What about the word for goat, then? Eriphon comes from the word Erion, which means "hairy." Eriphon is, then, and little or young hairy creature. Jesus is separating the sheep or the goats from the little hairy creatures. Now we're really in trouble.

But all of these little problems are minor compared to the huge problem this passage raises in relation to basic Protestant Christian doctrine for the past 500 years or more since the Reformation. Most Protestant churches in America today strongly emphasize that we are not saved through our works, but rather through our faith. You can't earn your way into heaven by doing good things, but rather you must believe a certain way, confess certain things, and then God, through Jesus, does all the heavy lifting, so to speak. Good works are still a part of the picture, but we do them out of obedience, and as an effect of our salvation...they are not the cause of our salvation. But what is Jesus saying here? It seems pretty clear what the cause and effect is: "Come take your inheritance FOR I was hungry and you..." "Depart from me into eternal fire, FOR I was hungry and you..."