Is potential talent enough ... or do you need to have demonstrated your ability? [1] Is steady play over a long period of time sufficient ... or do you need to have done something spectacular? (On the other hand, does spectacular play at one point make up for mediocre play the rest of the time?) [2] How much does popularity count? (Remember, we’re talking sports here ...) How much does sportsmanship count? [3]
The occasion for this sermon is the MLB All-Star game on Tuesday, July 10th. I used to be a big fan of the All-Star game, but I had the misfortune of rooting for the American League during a time when the National League team seemed to always win (between 1963 and 1982, the NL won 19 of the 20 All-Star games). Now I rarely, if ever, watch the All-Star game, since it has become less of a contest to see which league is the best and more of a pageant (i.e. expanded rosters, the compulsion to play the entire roster, recent lackadaisical play, the tie game in 2002, & extraneous events—like the Home Run Derby).
The question for today is: What makes a baseball star, a star?
The sermon texts for today appear to give to very different—and contradictory—answers to how we are to live our lives: Are we supposed to let others see our faith at work or not?
Matthew 5:14-16 versus Matthew 6:1-4
Sermon ideas come from strange places sometimes! Rachel Ferland was looking at alleged contradictions in the Bible, and the above pair of verses is cited on an atheist web site as a contradiction.
Is it?Commentary
In order for the pair of verses to contradict each other, the "acts of righteousness" in 6:1 must refer to the same thing as the "good deeds" in 5:16. Regrettably—for those looking for a contradiction—they don’t ... not exactly, anyway.
The NIV editorialized a little bit in translating 6:1—the words "acts" doesn’t appear in the Greek. A better translation for 6:1 might be: "But take heed your righteousness not to do in front of men in order to be seen by men. Otherwise, you have no reward in heaven with your Father." Righteousness—not acts of righteousness—becomes a little vaguer, a little more abstract. It’s not a specific deed, although almsgiving is certainly mentioned in the next three verses. The Hebrew and Greek words for righteousness both generally refer to "conduct in accordance with the requirements of a particular relationship" (Scott McKnight). Bruce Waltke, Old Testament professor at RTS, goes even further. He says that righteousness means to, "disadvantage yourself in order to advantage others in God's kingdom" (http://www.rts.edu/quarterly/fall00/waltke.html). By this logic, doing the right things for the wrong reasons is still wrong. McKnight would say your relationship—with God or with others—must be preserved regardless of what good you are trying to do. [4] Waltke would say that attempting to gain an advantage in a relationship undermines whatever good you are trying to accomplish.
As a minor translation issue, you must decide whether "in heaven" in 6:1 refers to your Father or your reward. Given the rest of chapter 6—esp. v 5, 16, and 19-21—I think Jesus is talking about heavenly, i.e. spiritual, rewards. (The tendency is think of these rewards as the ultimate retirement account: one day I’ll go to heaven and collect my reward. However, the verb is present tense—for good or bad, you have your reward right now. You either have an earthly reward right now or a spiritual reward right now. When we over-spiritualize verses like these, we can conclude, "Well, I’m not happy right now, so I guess I’m earning a reward in heaven." This logic flies in the face of martyrs, who say, "I’m not happy with my circumstances right now, but I see God at work all around me, and therefore I can be content." Maybe—maybe—if you are always unhappy then either you’re really working on earthly rewards (which cannot satisfy) or you still have lessons to learn about trusting God during adversity.
Application
So how do we make sense of this in Matthew? Matthew 6:1-4 is just the beginning of a series of examples that Jesus gives as to how to seek righteousness within the context of divine and human relationships.
The hypocrites in Matthew 6 are playing to an audience of one: themselves. [5] They have lost their willingness to be disadvantaged; they are no longer content with being less than number one; they have lost their humility.If the goal is holistic relationships, then giving assistance to the needy in a way that keeps them feeling downtrodden and beholden is evil (Matthew 6:1-4).
If the goal is an authentic relationship with God, then performance—before others or before God—is anathema (Matthew 6:5-15). Go back and look at Waltke says about disadvantaging yourself and then re-read Matthew 6:12-15!
If the goal is becoming disadvantaged for the sake of another, then focusing on one’s material loss (or immaterial gain) is to remain focused on self instead of another (Matthew 6:16-18)
In contrast, what is the focus of those who are called to be the light of the world in 5:14? Superficially, it might appear that we are called to play to the crowd, that our good deeds might win acclaim. However, the assertion is that a city on a hill or a lit lamp simply stands out be being what it is. In the same way, when we live as sons and daughters of God, we should simply stand out.
Most people are pretty shrewd. They’ve been conned by enough offers of HUGE SAVINGS! and FREE GIFTS! and MONEY BACK GUARANTEES! that they know a hustle when they see it. Sadly a lot of bad evangelism sounds like a bait-and-switch to the people who need God the most. We cannot force anyone to follow God, but too often we have tried to sell God like a telemarketer selling free sittings at the photographer’s studio. When we have tried to sell God in this way, we have lost track of the fact that—first and foremost—we are to seek God’s kingdom first in our lives. When we have tried to sell God in this way, we have made our personal intangible gain more important than the relationship with the people we are with.
Matthew 5:14-16 is a call to keep doing what we are supposed to be doing—living transformed lives in the world. People will notice a difference. Some will like it (Matthew 5:16) and want more. Some will despise it (Matthew 5:11-12) and want nothing to do with it. Our job is simply to keep letting God work on us and change us. This is humble work—to live as a Christian without a lot of hoopla, without a lot of fanfare—but it’s the place where transformation takes place in our lives.
Points to Ponder
There was a time (before word inflation) when good journeymen ballplayers were called regulars. Only the rare player was called a star. Nobody was ever called a superstar. A regular was still an accomplished athlete who did what he was called upon to do. Would you be OK with your spiritual life if you were a regular? (Luke 17:7-10)
By this logic, are "Christian stars" steady performers or occasional spectacular achievers?
My suggestion for this week: quit trying to earn God’s love or other people’s approval! God loves you as you are, and as Paul said, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31) Ask God to free you of the compulsion to earn love & ask him to show you what your life could be like if you were free to love others (there’s Waltke’s righteousness for you!).
Two baseball quotes about stardom. (Who is closer to understanding the need to be changed?):
One parting baseball analogy: Historically, the best players have made lousy managers and some lousy players have made superb managers. Tony LaRussa (a .199 career hitter) is 3rd all-time with 2,336 wins as a manager. Bobby Cox (a .225 hitter in two major league seasons) is 4th with 2,216. Sparky Anderson (a .218 hitter in his only major league season) is 5th with 2,194. Earl Weaver, who never played major league baseball, won 58.3% of his games as a manager. On the other hand, Hall of Famer Ted Williams (a .344 hitter for the Red Sox) only won 42.9% of his games as a manager. Hall of Famer Frank Robinson (6th all-time with 583 home runs) only won 47.5% of his games. Hall of Famer Rogers Hornsby (a .358 hitter) only won 46.3% of his games. What if humbler workers are actually the better teachers? Why might that be the case? Do you think it might hold true for spiritual competition as well?Reggie Jackson: "I didn't come to New York to be a star. I brought my own star with me."
Jim Murray (former sportswriter for the Los Angeles Times): "A star works at being a star … that’s how you tell a star in baseball. He shows up nightafter night and takes pride in how brightly he shines. He’s Willie Mays running so hard his hat keeps falling off; Ty Cobb sliding to stretch a single into a double; Lou Gehrig, after being fooled in his first two at-bats, belting the next pitch off the light tower because he’s taken the time to study the pitcher. Stars never take themselves for granted. That’s why they’re stars."
End Notes
1 - For example, Hideki Okajima of the Red Sox was the last player voted onto the AL All-Star team this year. He is a rookie, with a 2-0 record, 4 saves, and a 0.88 ERA in 41 innings. By comparison, Kelvim Escobar, an 11-year veteran who has appeared in 397 games in his career, is 10-3 this year with a 3.19 ERA in 107.1 innings; however, Escobar is not an All-Star this year!
2 - Eddie Murray (aka "Steady Eddie") is a prime example. Murray was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame & Museum in 2003; however, many questioned his hall of fame qualities. Despite over 500 home runs and 3,200 base hits, Murray only led his league in any major offensive category during the strike-shortened 1981 season; also, his seasonal high of 33 home runs is the lowest of any slugger with 500 career home runs. Many said Murray’s high career numbers were simply due to longevity (tied for 6th all-time with 3,026 games).
On the other hand, consider Roger Maris, who broke Babe Ruth’s single-season homerun record in 1961 by hitting 61 homeruns. Although Maris was a two-time AL MVP and a four-time All-Star, he has never been elected to the baseball hall of fame. Despite his generally good play and his one great year, the rationale is that he was not good enough long enough. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/marisro01.shtml)
3 - Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire were both about as popular as any players ever; however, their reputations have been tarnished by their alleged use of steroids. Sosa will not be in the All-Star game this year, despite having the 3rd-highest RBI total for an AL outfielder. McGwire was not elected to the hall of fame this spring, and the rumor is that his alleged steroid use was a major factor.
4 - Relationships do vary, and different relationships do come with different ethical demands: e.g. spouse, parent, child, friend, etc. If someone acted the same to everyone, we’d conclude that they had weird boundary issues. For example, I wouldn’t want my wife to treat other men the way she treats me!
5 - Remember, "hypocrite" is a perfectly good Greek word that means "actor"!
3 comments:
Today an example was given that when your in the wrong that saying your sorry for your mistake rather than trying to explain yourself is the better solution. I realized that I often try to explain my actions, but when that was said, it was like a lightblub in my head went off and I understood that in explaining myself I was not disadvantaging myself in order to advantage the other person and that is something I intend to change. Thank you! -Beth
I know that the point about not explainging yourself when saying you are sorry is true, but really hard to follow through on. My question is: If what the person did was really hurtful and the behavior seems to continue, when do you approach that person and work out the problem? How do you totally forgive, but move forward in a healthy way?
Resisting the urge to explain or justify oneself! Argh ... it's so hard.
Let me start by saying I assume we're talking about relatively healthy relationships! You do not ever have to disadvantage yourself in an unhealthy relationship! If you're in an unhealthy relationship, you're probably already disadvantaging yourself in various ways trying to make things work; in this case, setting healthy boundaries will often look like trying to maintain an advantage.
In part, it's hard to follow through on, because all of society says, "Don't give in, don't let anyone take advantage of you etc." When we don't try to argue or justify ourselves, we're making the relationship, or reconciliation, the priority. If you're not arguing, if you're not stirring the pot by trying to explain yourself, normally the other person will quickly tire of taking pot shots at you.
In fact, this is the best indicator as to whether your relationship is essentially healthy or not. In a healthy relationship, if you're not keping things stirred up, if you're working on reconciliation, sooner or later the other person will too. (Hopefully, they'll even wise up & see they're being a jerk!) However, if the other person continually puts you down, or brings up old hurts, etc.--even when you're not fighting back--then there's something not entirely healthy going on. In this case, all I can say is that the other person is rarely really upset at you; rather, they are upset about something in their past that they just can't get over, and you're just the unfortunate target in the present to rail against.
That's not a very black-and-white answer, but does it give you something to work with?
Beth, as far as "disadvantaging myself in order to advantage the other," this was a sermon *I* needed to hear. That morning Kathy & I were having an argument and I caught myself trying to explain myself, and I thought, "Oooh! Look! Here it is: that little 'defense mechanism' that keeps the argument going. It doesn't really defend me at all; it's just about winning the argument ... and what is that worth? Not a thing, usually!"
Post a Comment