Christian Perfection?
Sermon preached By Rev. Ginger Gaines-Cirelli – February 20, 2011
Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18; Matthew 5:38-48
As I was preparing for today, I was struck by this comment from a commentator: “[Jesus teaches that] the Christian response [to personal or national enemies] must be abnormal.”[i] Abnormal! Aren’t there psychological therapies for folks deemed “abnormal?”
Our passage today is a continuation of last week’s teaching. Jesus continues to challenge his followers to live the heart of the law, to go beyond just the letter and consider the deeper call. In verses 38-42, the issue has to do with nonviolent resistance, and in the following verses the focus is on loving neighbors—whether those neighbors are friends or foes. It doesn’t take long to realize that what Jesus is teaching flies in the face of so much of what passes for “normal”—or at least expected—behavior in our world. Seriously, how pervasive are the following kinds of attitudes? – “Don’t get mad, get even.” — “Do unto others before they do unto you.” And the chilling, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” I’ll never forget the sign I saw taped up in the back window of a pick-up in the days following 9-11: “Pray Today, Kick *#% Tomorrow.”
These are common ways of thinking that lead to certain ways of responding. Today we’re challenged by Jesus to be uncommon, to be abnormal, to respond in unexpected ways…
Before getting any further into our reflections together on this passage, I want to say that these verses get brought up most frequently in my experience as a pastor by those who have found themselves the victims of some sort of abuse. The question is often, “Doesn’t Jesus say that I am supposed to ‘turn the other cheek?’ Aren’t I supposed to just keep giving and giving regardless of the consequences?” In response to these questions, consider this: “Matthew 5:38-41 has a tragic history of poor translations and even worse interpretations. This passage is NOT recommending becoming a doormat; nor does it tolerate domestic violence. The translation, ‘Do not resist an evildoer,’ fails to convey the full meaning of the underlying Greek. It would be better translated as, ‘Do not violently resist an evildoer.’”[ii] (bold print, mine) This teaching isn’t advocating acquiescence to violence or evil; it IS advocating NON-violence…it is advocating freedom and self-control…not being determined by others’ behaviors, but instead making a positive, life-giving choice in the face of a destructive word or act. Sometimes what this means (as we considered last week in the case of divorce), is that taking yourself out of a destructive situation is the truly loving thing to do and is, therefore, living the heart of the law.
Having addressed this concern—though certainly in a cursory way—let’s turn together to the teachings and explore what they have for us today. Jesus references what is called, in Old Testament law, “the lex talionis, (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Dt. 19:21), known as ‘an eye for an eye.’ It was the principle of ‘negative reciprocation’: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a stripe for a stripe. While negative reciprocation sounds cruel to contemporary ears, it was designed to set limits on vendettas. Extract the injury that was inflicted on you and it ends there. The eye-for-an-eye principle was not unique to the Hebrew Bible, but was known throughout the ancient world.”
Matthew’s Jesus does challenge this principle—but he is not recommending a blanket policy of non-resistance, say when weak and vulnerable members of a community are threatened with violence. Nor is he dismissing the validity of negative consequences for negative behavior (10:32-33; 6:14-15). He is saying that ‘an eye for an eye’ is not a legitimate motto for his followers when they suffer personal insult. To return violence for violence and to hate those who have hurt us are inconsistent with living by the beatitudes—a life in which one is meek, merciful, peacemaking, and willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake.[iii]
As we learned last week, the underlying point that Jesus is making has to do with God’s desire that we do no harm, that we care for one another. Our impulse may be to make sure that no one takes advantage of us, to guard what we perceive as our pride, to “get even.” Jesus urges us to make a different choice, to be “abnormal” in our response by responding with mercy and care at best and—at the very least—not to strike back in kind. “An eye for an eye” is no longer the guiding principle for those who would follow Jesus’ Way.
But why not?
“Actors often ask directors, ‘What is my motivation in this scene?’” That’s my question…What’s my motivation for non-retaliation when I’m personally insulted? Others have tried to come up with positive, pragmatic rationales for not striking back in kind. I, too, spent considerable time trying to figure out the motivating factor. But I have to say, everything I read and considered myself didn’t completely satisfy. Here are several suggestions that I came across in my research of why we shouldn’t respond to violence with violence:
- Jesus’ advice is a way for the oppressed to recover agency and dignity (somewhat convincing).
- Non-retaliation turns enemies into friends (but just as often gets you killed).
- Because evil, unresisted, burns itself out (the fire is still burning as far as I can see).
- God will take vengeance sooner or later (I’d prefer sooner to later).
- Non-retaliation is a spiritual discipline designed to mortify the ego. (The ego is already mortified enough when someone backhands your face.)
What’s my motivation for loving my enemies?
Again, I can share with you what I want to hear: “Tell me that I need to love my enemies because hatred and negativity is bad for my mental and physical health. Tell me I need to love my enemies because spending energy hating them gives them power over me. Tell me I need to love my enemies because it proves who the better person is. Tell me to love my enemies because God will reward me for being the better person. Tell me to love my enemies because, as Paul points out in … Romans 12:20, being kind to my enemies is a way to ‘heap burning coals on their heads.’ Now that’s motivating!
But[—even though some of these things may be true—] Jesus doesn’t offer any of these common sense motivators with regard to non-retaliation or love of enemies. This is the only motivation we are given: we are to practice non-resistance when personally insulted and to love our enemies because such behavior is in keeping with the character of God who gave the Law (Mt. 5:45). In obeying the heart of the Law in this radical way, Christians become perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48). Perfect, not in the sense of sinless, but in the sense intended by the Greek teleios, complete, mature.”[iv]
In these ponderings about “motivation” the real question is, “What’s in it for me?” Tell me what I’ll get if I do as Christ is suggesting in these teachings. And, as we have just considered, while we may be able to come up with some reasonably convincing rationales for turning the other cheek and loving those who treat us like dirt, all we get from Jesus is this: do these things “so that you may be children of your Father in heaven…Be perfect…as your heavenly Father is perfect.” It seems, therefore, that our motivation has to do with the opportunity to share in God’s life more fully. To be perfect as God is perfect is quite a statement. In the context we’ve been discussing, this perfection, this maturity and completeness, has to do with love. And the love that is being advocated here is not warm, gooey feelings. The love we’re talking about has to do with actions, choices, responses to others. To love an enemy may mean simply that we acknowledge that even the most cruel and broken individual is still a child of God—and, as a result of that acknowledgement, we make the decision NOT to do violence upon them or to try to get even when they hurt us. To be perfect as God is perfect really means to love as God loves. Love without expecting a certain outcome. Love even when we can’t fix the situation and have to distance ourselves from it. Love even when that love is rejected. And, at that, we may balk and say it’s impossible. No one can love as God loves. And yet that seems to be what Jesus is challenging us to do.
Some of you will have heard me teach and preach about John Wesley’s insistence on the doctrine of “Christian Perfection.” In fact, when United Methodist clergy are ordained, we are asked to affirm that we will teach this—and that we believe ourselves to be “going on to perfection.” This doesn’t mean that we believe that folks who call themselves Christian (or United Methodist) believe they are perfect as compared to other people. It doesn’t mean that followers of Christ will never make a mistake or hurt anyone else. What it means is that we believe that, through the grace of God, we are able to grow in love, we are able to grow in holiness. The image I use is that of a pitcher: as we open ourselves to receive God’s love and mercy—God’s grace!—through living our faith in day to day situations, spiritual practices, acts of service, study, and prayer, we are filled…and just as a pitcher overflows once it becomes filled, so too does God’s love overflow in our lives when we become filled with that love. Wesley believed that this could happen and that it was the goal of those who would follow Christ.
Christian perfection is not about making of ourselves a doormat. It is not about judging others. It is not about trying to act like we’ve got it all together when we don’t. It is not about being in control and fixing ourselves and others. Christian perfection is about giving our lives over to the power of God, to be enfolded in that love so completely that our every thought, word, intention, and action reflects—even in some dim, small way—the perfect love of God. This is not “normal” according to the ways of the world. It is a high calling. It is a challenge. But Jesus seems to think that it is both possible and worth the risk. What do you think?
[i] Douglas R. A. Hare, “Matthew,” Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993, 59.
[ii] David Ewart, www.holytextures.com
[iii] Alyce M. McKenzie, “Sketchy Scenes: Reflections on Matthew 5:38-48,” February 14, 2011, www.patheos.com.
[iv] Ibid.
