Saturday Night Theologian
5 August 2012

2 Samuel 11:26-12:13a (first published 3 August 2003)

Is an apology ever enough? Sean Patrick O'Malley, the newly installed archbishop of Boston, has issued an apology on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church to all those who were victims of sexual assaults by priests. Other Christian denominations over the past several years have issued apologies for racism or anti-Semitism. In an incident with at least some similarities to the story of David and Bathsheba, President Clinton apologized in 1998 for his affair with Monica Lewinsky and for the lies he told concerning his relationship with her. All these apologies may have been sincere, but there are still people who feel hurt by the offending incidents. An apology in and of itself is good, if it is spoken from the heart, but it is just one part of the act of repentance, which is the proper response to having committed an offense against another person or against a group of people. The first step in repentance is realization, admitting to oneself that a sin has been committed. It could be argued that people know that they're sinning when they do it, and that's certainly true a lot of the time, but there are times when people act in what they consider at that moment to be a perfectly reasonable way of behaving, and it's only later that they realize that they were wrong. For example, someone raised in a culture of bigotry may not acknowledge that racial slurs are offensive, or that treating women as inferior to men is anything other than biblical. Until they are confronted by real people who have been offended and come to the realization that they were the offending party, repentance cannot begin. Furthermore, the act of realization must include contrition, the sense of sorrow for the wrong committed. Without a feeling of sorrow, repentance can become a purely intellectual exercise. Perhaps David felt he was within his rights as king to appropriate the wife of one of his generals to himself, though his subsequent attempts to cover up his sin argue that he quickly came to the realization that he had done wrong. There is a strange ethical limbo that we often inhabit between denial and realization. We can tell we are there when, while denying that we've done anything wrong, we try fervently to hide our actions from others. Only when we stop trying to cover up our sin is there evidence that we've come to a proper realization of our sin, having admitted to ourselves that we were wrong. The second step in repentance is acceptance of responsibility. Even after we've admitted to ourselves that what we did was wrong, we often try to put at least part of the blame on others. In the story of the Fall in Genesis 3, God asked Adam why he had disobeyed and eaten fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Adam pointed his finger at Eve, Eve pointed her finger at the snake, and the snake didn't have any fingers, so he was stuck with the blame. Trying to blame others for our sins is a sure sign that we haven't yet accepted responsibility. Even if others are partially at fault, it's our job to accept our own responsibility, not point out the blame of others. David accepts responsibility for his sins without trying to implicate others: "I have sinned against the Lord." The third step in repentance is an apology, or admitting our sins to others. Public officials often claim that they accept responsibility for their own actions, or for the actions of their subordinates, but if they don't also apologize, then their admittance of responsibility is suspect. After several weeks of finger-pointing, President Bush on Wednesday finally said that he accepts personal responsibility for a misleading statement in the last State of the Union address concerning Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger, a statement now widely acknowledged to have been false. However, he has yet to take the next step and apologize for the statement, so his acceptance of responsibility remains questionable. Whether the American people will demand an apology remains to be seen. Interestingly, President Clinton said recently that the American people should let the whole matter drop. It seems that political leaders, from David to the most recent U.S. presidents, have a tendency to try to avoid public apologies for their misdeeds. The fourth step in repentance is a commitment to change. It is all well and good to admit that you've done wrong and apologize for it, but if, when confronted with a similar situation, you'd do the same thing, you haven't made a commitment to change, and you haven't completed the road to repentance. One is reminded of the cycle of abuse that occurs all too frequently in the relationships between certain men and women. The abuser abuses his victim (more times than not, the abuser is male), feels bad for the abuse, and promises never to do it again. However, when faced with stressful circumstances, the abuser again abuses his victim, and the cycle repeats. Sometimes people can change by dint of their own effort, but often people need assistance from others, such as counselors or twelve-step programs. The level of a person's commitment to change is not measured by that person's willingness to accept strictures or do penance (though these may be helpful) but by the person's ability to resist the urge to repeat the sin when faced with similar circumstances. The final step to repentance, one that is often overlooked, is restitution. It is often necessary for a person who has wronged another to take steps to repay the person offended in some way. It is not that payment (in whatever form) will undo the damage--a murderer cannot restore the life of his victim, nor can a nation unto the offense of those who were persecuted for their beliefs or for the color of their skin--but it can help bring a measure of healing to the victims. Restitution demonstrates that the offender has truly repented and seeks to make amends. When a person or group has truly sought to follow the road to repentance to its end, it is time for those who have been victimized to respond by forgiving their offenders. Forgiving one's offenders is often extremely difficult, and there are many who never forgive--just as there are many who never repent--but if we are to follow the teachings of Jesus, both offenders and offended have important roles to play in restoring broken relationships.

Psalm 51:1-12 (first published 3 August 2003)

The title to Psalm 51 associates it with the incident involving David and Bathsheba. The psalm titles were added long after composition of most of the psalms, but this psalm certainly captures the spirit of a person who has sinned and now seeks forgiveness from God. The psalmist seeks forgiveness from God for an undisclosed sin. As with other psalms, this one was purposely generic, so it could be used by people wanting to confess a variety of wrongdoings. In fact, Psalm 51 came to be considered one of the seven Penitential Psalms of the church, and it is the best-known of these. In ancient Israel, worshipers who wished to confess sins would bring a sacrifice to the priest and offer a prayer of confession, like this psalm. Despite its attribution to David, this psalm, at least in its present form, appears to date from after the exile, since it alludes to the need to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (v. 18). The psalm exemplifies the spirit of an individual properly asking for forgiveness from God. It includes confession of sin, a plea for mercy, a commitment to change, and the acknowledgement that the petitioner needs God's help to change his or her life. A couple of passages are potentially problematic. In verse 4, the psalmist says to God, "Against you, you only, have I sinned." While it might be argued from a theological perspective that all sin is an affront to God and that we need to address our relationship with God before we can attempt to make things right with other people, this verse is open to misapplication by those who would try to evade the reality that sin usually affects other people, not just God. It is easy to confess one's sins to God; it is not so easy to confess one's sins to another person. One could argue from this psalm that the only restitution God demands are a broken spirit and a contrite heart, whereas making restitution to other people for our wrongdoings might require much more effort. Certainly contrition is something that is essential to true repentance, but it is only the beginning of what is required. This psalm addresses the proper attitude that one must have toward God when dealing with sin; it does not treat one's dealings with those people who have suffered because of the sin. Both are crucial in true repentance. A second problematic passage is verse 5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." This verse has often been used to support the notion of original sin, the idea that we inherit both a sin nature and the guilt associated with sin because we are descendants of Adam and Eve. This is not the place for a full-blown refutation of the doctrine of original sin, but it may be sufficient to note, first, that the fact that Adam and Eve were literary rather than historical figures precludes the literal transmission of a sinful nature from them to us, and second, that the idea of attributing guilt as a result of birth is not far from the ideas that are used to justify genocide. A closer look at verse 5 itself shows that the psalmist had no concept of original sin in mind. Using typical Hebrew poetic parallelism, he associates iniquity (Heb. avôn) with sin (Heb. chata) and delivery with conception. In other words, the psalmist is not making any statement regarding the sin nature or the imputation of guilt at conception any more than he is making a distinction between iniquity and sin. He is using similar language describing the birth process to emphasize that he has been sinful ever since he was born. The idea is not that he inherited his sin from his mother but that he is and always has been utterly sinful. When interpreted properly, this verse can contribute positively to the process of repentance. When we sin, rather than denying that we have done wrong, or saying that what we did wasn't all that bad, or placing blame on others, it is important for us to accept the fact that we--we ourselves--have sinned, because we have an innate tendency to do what it wrong. Only when we have admitted to ourselves that we are sinners can we approach God with the proper attitude, one that says, "I need to change, but I can't do it myself--please help me!"

Ephesians 4:1-16 (first published 3 August 2003)

From the earliest days of the church, people have had different understandings of the teachings of the Christianity. The New Testament alludes to doctrinal differences between followers of Peter and followers of Paul, and authors are quick to point out the errors of their opponents (e.g., Gal 1:6-7; Col 2:20-23; Jude 4). However, the New Testament itself bears testimony to differences of opinion even within the canonical writings (e.g., Rom 4:2-5 and James 2:21-24; Mark 10:11 and Matt 19:9). Doctrinal diversity flourished in the first few centuries, with groups such as Ebionites, Marcionites, Montanists, Arians, Pelagians, Novatians, Circumcellians, Donatists, Modalists, and Monophysites flitting around the outside edges of an ever-changing "orthodoxy." The same situation prevails today, and the efforts of groups like fundamentalists to define the basic doctrines of the faith once and for all (in this case, in opposition to modernism and in ignorance of post-modernism) illustrate the futility of trying to nail down a fixed set of doctrines. All this is not to say that doctrine is unimportant. Rather, it emphasizes the need for prayerful, intelligent review of beliefs on an ongoing basis in the light of developments in science, philosophy, and history. Today's reading from Ephesians gives some guidance on how contemporary Christians might approach this important task. Beginning at the end of the passage, it is essential to note that Christianity requires both intelligence and love. As we develop and refine our understanding of doctrine, we are to do so as adults rather than children. Young children accept what authorities tell them without argument; adults consider and doubt and question authority, then they arrive at conclusions based on their past experiences and their current understanding of the world. As progressive Christians, we do not need to abandon earlier attempts to define the faith, but we do need to analyze it, refine it, and revise it if necessary. We must do so with an attitude of humility, "speaking the truth in love," for we of all people should be aware that our understanding of the truth is not the same as the truth itself. We acknowledge that there are contradictions and differences of opinion in the Bible, just as there are in life. How do we resolve these differences? If one passage says that women are not allowed to speak in the church and another says that in Christ there is no male or female, which teaching do we follow? If one passage tells slaves to obey their masters and another says that we are all created in God's image, which is more authoritative? Today's reading provides a principle for deciding among the various options that confront us: "let us grow in all things into him who is the head, Christ." Both the Bible and the world must be interpreted according to the "Christ principle" if we are to be true to the name Christian. If Jesus followed the customs of his day and treated women as inferior to men, then we can justify doing so as well. If, on the other hand, Jesus dealt with women as fully competent human beings--as, in fact, he did--then we should cast aside cultural attempts to subjugate women and accept the teaching "in Christ there is no male or female" as prescriptive. Similarly, since Jesus worked with the poor and the marginalized of society, condemning the abuses of all those in power, we too should commit ourselves to upholding the dignity and worth of all individuals, without regard for their nationality, skin color, language, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. To turn to the heart of the reading, it is customary to quote verse 5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," as though it stood alone. The whole passage, however speaks of one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Father-God. The emphasis is on Christian unity, in the midst of diversity. There can be differences of opinion among Christians, just as there always have been, so it is a mistake to try to base Christianity on unity of doctrine. This is the error of fundamentalism, that it seeks universal agreement on something about which there will never be agreement. Instead, Christians should seek unity in those things about which we can agree: the unity of God, the power of faith, the mystery of baptism. These things can unite the church; insisting on unity of doctrine will only divide the body of Christ.

John 6:24-35 (first published 3 August 2003)

In a Peanuts cartoon from the 1960s, Charlie Brown and Shermy are out in a rainstorm with an umbrella, and they see Snoopy sitting out in the rain. Deciding to encourage him, they walk to Snoopy and say, "Be of good cheer, Snoopy!" then they walk away. Their words provided little comfort to a dog that was suffering in the elements. In a similar way, the words of many Christians today offer faint help or hope to those who are in need. Jesus had a way of showing people that his words were not empty platitudes but reflected true compassion. Following the Feeding of the Five Thousand, Jesus has gone to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. When the crowds discover that he is there, they follow him to see what he will do next. When they ask him, "When did you get here?" Jesus realizes that the question is a cover; they really want to get more miraculous food from him. Christians need to be perceptive in the same way that Jesus was. We are confronted daily with news reports, politicians' statements, and opinion pieces that purport to tell us what is going on the world. Sometimes the information is straightforward, but often it is slanted in order to elicit a particular response. There is nothing wrong with presenting information from a particular perspective, as long as deception is not involved, but Christians need to be intelligent and informed enough to be able to discern the facts and apply our own interpretation. Jesus proceeds to tell people that he is the Bread of Life. His statements are not empty because he has already demonstrated that he can provide bread for life. Too often Christians today present the gospel message in reverse. We try to tell people that Jesus is the Bread of Life, but we don't make any attempt to show them that he can provide bread for life first. Jesus appears irrelevant to people, because we haven't shown them that God is concerned about every aspect of their lives, not just their membership in the church. When Jesus encountered people with specific physical needs, he met those needs first. He healed the blind and lame, cleansed lepers, fed the hungry, and healed the sick. Afterwards, he shared his understanding of the kingdom of God, and those to whom he had ministered were ready to listen. Modern "evangelism" programs act in reverse. They tell Christians to confront non-Christians with their need for salvation, without any mention of God's concern for their other, more immediate needs. There are certainly some people who have been struggling with their relationship with God who are ready to hear right now that Jesus is the Bread of Life. There are many others, however, who need to see that Jesus can provide bread for life by meeting what they see as their more immediate needs. Only then will they be open to hearing about issues such as salvation. The word "gospel" means "good news," and Jesus was proficient at tailoring his message, and his deeds, to the situation. Cookie-cutter approaches to evangelism may look good on paper, and they may even deliver some results, but they are not consistent with the testimony of Jesus himself. The world is full of people in need of food, or medicine, or hope, or even a friend. Until they see those basic needs met, in the name of Christ, they will not understand what it means when we say that Jesus is the Bread of Life.