Part of my Lenten discipline this year is going through The Thoughtful Christian (TTC)“Pausing on the Road to Jerusalem” Bible study and, as part of that, sharing my thoughts with you all based on the Scripture for the week and the study itself. A lot of this is just personal reflection, but I hope that maybe you can gain a little insight into your own faith and how these themes and ideas may apply to you, the larger community, the Christian church, and the world today. Click the following to see my reflections from Week 1 (Part 1 and Part 2), Week 2 and Weeks 3 & 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you see what you are looking for, but I found it really crazy (in a good, albeit bizarre, way) that I just pondered over what we are to do about our devotion to holy places in relation to what we do (or, as I have sometimes seen it, what we don’t do) in devotion to holy people...and then I read this study. Yes, it’s week five and I’m a little behind (which you might have noticed with the bombardment of all my Lenten blog posts; but I really did read most of them on the prescribed week, honest) but I’m glad this timing worked out. My previous post, Fleshing out the Temple, primed me to have questions already swimming around in my brain about the whole issue.
On to the study. Before I start, I want to disclaim that with this post, as with the others, most of the thoughts contained are either directly, or indirectly, from the Thoughtful Christian study which I recommend you look at yourself. I’ve tried to make mention at specific ideas that come from the study, and then note where my own thoughts come in, but I fear I may not have done the best job at it. Any plagiarism that may have arisen is completely unintended; I give credit to the study’s author, Michael A. Lindvall, who really has done an excellent job putting together this six part study. I will be looking to see if he’s done any other studies with The Thoughtful Christian company and I’ll let you know, if you’re interested.
Initial thoughts on the Passage
Basically, my initial thoughts when back to the questions I have pondered before about whether or not there are instances in which we should buy the “expensive perfumes” instead of “giving the money to the poor”. Whether or not Judas is genuine in his care about this issue, he raises a question that I would love answered. Not that throwing money at a problem makes it disappear (holy smokes is that a great topic for another post someday; I say that a lot, don’t I?), but I struggle with the idea of giving more money to our “upkeep” than giving it to those places that need it (and it frustrates me a lot when we argue and get so worked up with each other over the issues of the former, too).
On a completely unrelated note, the story made me wonder about Judas. I’m not saying what Judas did was good, but I often feel he gets a really bad rep. I mean, yes, he betrayed Christ and handed him over to get crucified (or, Satan took over his body; this is all so confusing), but I wonder what he was like before that, in the early days. Of course, the Bible paints him out to be a pretty nasty dude, but then again, you can’t really describe him as a nice guy who just “happened” to kill our Savior, our God. Was he really any worse than the other meanies and sinners in the Gospels? Is he any more to blame for what happened that any of us for our sinfulness?
In trying to grab some answers out of the passage (not that answers always come, but I certainly look for them; don’t we all?), I came to the realization that, even though it may not seem to be the most efficient in my eyes, Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet seems to be an extreme act of faith. She anoints, smears with perfumed oil, the one who is the Anointed One. “Messiah” literally translates as, “anointed one”. In one way, Mary is using all of that perfume to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah.
We Are Kinda Closet-Gnostics
The Thoughtful Christian study begins talking about the early Christian tradition started by the Gnostic community which was refuted by many of our early Church leaders and theologians. Nonetheless, what they had to stay has survived even until today and influences how we view our lives. Based on what TTC study has to say, here is a very simple breakdown of some of what the Gnostics believed and the implications thereof:
-There is a divide between the spiritual and the physical; the spiritual is intrinsically good and the physical is intrinsically bad.
This division leads to some interesting theological conclusions:
-Since a God that is completely good could not have made something intrinsically bad, some other being, supernatural yet lesser than the Supreme God, must have created the Universe. Physical == bad and God =/= bad; therefore, God cannot make the physical Creation.
-A God that was all good would never come into a physical human body; that’s insulting and against this good God’s nature. Therefore, Jesus was not actually physical, but only appeared to have a physical body.
The Gnostics were SUPER spiritual, but “antimaterial”.
(I find the theological conclusions kind of funny because instead of saying that the physical could be good, the Gnostic tradition would need to bring in the need for a sub-god creator, and explaining away the Incarnation. Then again, I have the benefit of many centuries of theologians preparing these thoughts and context for me.)
The solution is...?
So then, while I don’t believe in theory what the Gnostics said about spiritual=good, physical=bad, sometimes I act like it. The paradox still lingers: How do I incorporate my belief that we should enjoy good food, travel, the five senses, etc. with the belief that others should have those same desires (or, whatever they want that is more needed/desired) met?
Conveniently, Lindquist gives three answers for how we can “deal” with the combination of the material and physical. The first two seem to be nice packages tied up with string but not completely filling. An delicious turkey sans stuffing, if you will.
He says first we can deal with the physical by addressing it in moderation (which, as we can guess, is relative to every person; what is moderate consumption in the top economic tier in the States is different than what is moderate in the lowest economic tier in the States is different than moderate for the middle-class in Afghanistan, etc, etc).
Secondly, we need to remember and acknowledge that the physical won’t fill us completely. There is a part of us that will only be complete when occupied with God. Of course, don’t let the physical become our idol. This is nice, but seems somewhat unhelpful.
The third answer Lindquist offers up is the most helpful place for me in this whole discussion, someplace I may set up a tent and stay for a while: offer up what we have and turn it back towards God. Like Mary, we can use what we have and offer it to God. TTC says, “She uses a material loveliness and sensuous act to give glory to God.”
This answer, while the most satisfying for me, still doesn’t answer it all. Even if we offer it up to God, is that what God wants? Does God want my money to go towards this building I use to worship God in (I pick on the use of buildings, but there are many things this could be) or does God want it to go towards that food pantry?
It reminds me of some recent controversy over a charity organization; there was question into what percentage of their budget went towards staff salary, media and public relations, and what went directly to the people they were trying to help on the ground.
I can imagine church leaders reading this now and hoping their fellow congregants don’t take what I’m saying too strongly and stop giving money to their building funds. I’m not calling for that! I’m just saying we should question how we steward our money, even if it ends up being that we use it in the same way. Obviously, there has to be time and resources put into keeping an organization running if that organization plans to produce anything. It's like pastoral care- as a pastor, you can't always give 100% without taking time to refuel, relax, and fill up your own emotional and physical reserves. It seems a bit similar with money, I suppose: we can't give 100% of it away and then expect it to just keep coming in without any organization behind getting it there.
I’ll end by quoting the study directly, as it explains some ways in which the material can give glory to God:
Do the material things in your life turn you away from the Creator or toward the Creator? Enjoyed in moderation, material things, objects of beauty, art, even the strange fruit of technology--automobiles, computers, toasters, and iPods--can give God glory if you mean that they should. Music, for instance, can glorify the performer, or it can glorify God. Lovely things, objects of art, should not glorify the artist, much less the owner, but should glorify God, the First Artist. Rightly cooked and carefully enjoyed, good food glorifies the God of Earth and Harvest, not the cook. Good architecture glorifies God, the Great Architect. A new organ--all those material pipes and valves and electromagnetic connections--can glorify God, the Music at the Heart of the Universe. Central Park on a glorious day can glorify God. Good design gives God glory. Good coffee glorifies the Creator. Thoughtful office furniture, a whimsical pair of shoes, all rightly fashioned and graciously received, can glorify God. Even sex, faithfully expressed, can glorify the God who seems to have devised it.
What material, physical items or acts do you use to bring glory to God?
I've become increasingly more interested in ideas such as Fair Trade over the past few years, and while sometimes I think it gets pigeon-holed, and then sometimes written off, as as super progressive, or liberal-minded, I don't think that's a fair conclusion. If you have qualms or critiques of the Fair trade movement, that's fair. Let's talk about that. But we can't throw the baby out with the bath water. For me, considering where what we consume comes from (food, clothes, or other items) and what effect it has on not just ourselves, but other people, is a Christ-like way of approaching how we care for our sisters and brothers.