When you wait two days before opening your mouth it can be the smart thing to do. It keeps you from sometimes being too reactionary. As Ryan Braun has accepted without appeal a full season suspension from Major League Baseball for violation of the joint drug agreement a lot of reactions have been flying in the public sphere. Many of them are a bit ridiculous. Time to sift a bit through it and to offer a few of my own thoughts:
What is absolutely ridiculous is how everyone is acting totally betrayed and disillusioned, as if they were on Braun's side the whole time. I don't know how many sports casters gave the "I believed him" or "I gave him the benefit of the doubt" speech to gear up for some personal Braun bashing as if each one was personally hurt by this event. Ok now, come on. Especially outside Milwaukee and Brewers fans, the vast majority of fans had considered Braun dirty since news first leaked of a PED suspension. And the reason most fans did, because most reporters did. Almost all reports not only wrote endless articles about him using (and really a vast majority of them assuming he did), questioning if his MVP should be taken away, and then immediately casting doubt on his entire defense. As a Brewer fan very much caught up in this, I know this because I read most of those articles and very few used the words exonerated (at least after the first 6 hours of the news first breaking that he successfully appealed), most used the phrase "technicality" in more than quotes, and this last year they constantly reported how he was MLB public enemy #1, was going to get suspended, and very doubtful of Braun's defense even after Tony Boesch had originally corroborated it. The bottom line is most writers wrote about how he was dirty, speculated that he was dirty, did not buy into his defense, and ran him through the mud long before he ever finally accepted this suspension. So let's be honest, most people don't get to claim how betrayed and disillusioned they are as if they all spoke up for Braun like Aaron Rodgers or they all were writing MLB conspiracy theories. Most fans outside Milwaukee booed him after that first report, players around the league had been anonymously quoted that they wanted him suspended for some time, and reporters have treated him as guilty until proven innocent from day one.
Next, we need to sort out Matt Kemp's statements. Kemp is quoted as saying he thinks Braun should be stripped of the MVP award. But he also is quoted saying he does not want the MVP given to him. It's kind of a confusing statement. Does it imply that there should simply be no winner of the 2011 NL MVP? Should we strip A-Rod of his award too since we know he used PED's in a season when he won the MVP? This is always the problem with such ideas, how do you draw a clear line? It has tainted the Hall of Fame process and to the BWAA's credit (something regular readers know I'm not quick to give) they have adamantly remained firm that Braun will not be stripped of the honor. Looking at the articles though I would put more stock into Kemp's words that he doesn't want the MVP than he wants Braun stripped. The actual quote sounds like it came from a pretty leading question, and Kemp had said way back in 2011 when news first broke that he did not want the award defaulted to him. So I'm gonna take him on his word. More likely the other quote just comes out of the natural feeling of how one reacts when they realize the odds were not even.
This brings me to who gets to be really pissed: Matt Kemp, the 2011 Arizona Diamondbacks, players Braun beat out for an All Star spot, teammates and friends and Brewers front office folks who stood up for Braun or believed what he told them. Braun's statements to the public have always been somewhat vague and definitely lacking in information and clarity, but you always got the impression that to those close he told more or something firmer, and he told them to their face, he told them with no cameras or public image looming. If he lied to them outright (as many reports suggest), that's the people who get to be really mad. Brewers fans also get to only because they were in general far more loyal (although many had also doubted Braun from day one). But it is those who are personally affronted where I think the true right to express all this disillusionment comes. This especially is the case because since releasing the statement Braun has disappeared leaving these folks to answer for him.
There is one name on my list that is notably missing. Dino Laurenzi the tester who became the target of Braun's appeal and his defense to the world of his innocence. His name is usually the first most people lift up as wronged and among the apologies people call for, his name comes up first. But I am leaving it out for several reasons: the first is that if memory serves correctly, Braun did not bring Laurenzi's name into any of this. It was actually someone from Laurenzi's camp or the company he worked for that in speaking out against Braun's public defense revealed who he was. Braun's statement I thought never actually named Laurenzi, it really is not Braun who put him specifically into the limelight and dragged him through the mud. Braun put the tester through the mud, Braun challenged the work of the "tester" but if I'm correct (it has been a year and a half so forget this if I'm wrong) he's not the one who gave the tester a name. No one would have put Laurenzi through anything or thought anything of him had someone else not connected the dots. Braun did insinuate that there were things about Laurenzi's character or intent that were in question, truth be told that may still be true (but how can we believe it and does it matter?), remember other players (I believe Chris Narveson was one of them) verbally shared sentiment of issues with the testers. But he didn't throw Laurenzi under the bus in quite the way many folks seem to paint it. Also, we should remember that Braun successfully appealed his suspension off of Laurenzi's handling. No matter who says it would not affect/tamper with the sample, the proper procedure laid out by MLB's policy was not followed, since that was the defense Braun had to put Laurenzi out there. In that sense Laurenzi put himself into that situation, and people who wanted to know Braun's defense should not then be clamoring for Braun to apologize for telling them. It was after all, a legitimate defense (although as the media was quick to point out, not proof of innocence). I understand how with the media attention once Laurenzi was found how it would have played bad for him, I realize that when you are challenged it is personal and hurts. But Braun's use of it was not personal, and he really did not use it as a personal attack even if it came out that way.
This gets me now to what I would like to see going forward. An apology to Laurenzi isn't necessarily one of them, or at least not quite the way most people think it needs to be. Braun does not need to apologize for Laurenzi's name being brought into it or using him in his defense. At most it would be his insistence on the tainting of the sample after he gave it that needs to be apologized for. That is the place where he changed the blame. Giving an account of his defense is ok, swearing (on his life) to have not taken it and insisting it had to have come afterwards is not. But this also comes to another issue, to know more about who needs apologies we need to know more about what all happened. Braun has used the same tactic Jason Giambi used years ago when he basically did not outright say what he did but only admitted to making a mistake (as opposed to say Andy Pettite who came out and said it was HGH and explained when and why). Braun needs to say the words. He needs to say what exactly he violated and when. He needs to spill every instance too. It can not be like A-Rod who seemed to have come clean only for us to now learn that he had been doping long after he claimed to have stopped. Braun needs to say what years he used, what he used, why exactly he was suspended. He needs to say the words because until he is clear about it, he is simply "guilty", his whole career (with its accomplishments) is in doubt, and he is simply the liar. He needs to now give truth. Better late than never. This is where sports writers are right when they say he needs to get in front of this. The complete honesty will also make clear who all needs apologies and what apologies they need. But until people hear genuine apologies and some open honesty this just does not bode well.
Braun has twice made the mistake of thinking this is "behind him". When he successfully appealed he made a statement once and then always said it was behind him, never giving the further information people felt they needed to believe him. In his most recent statement released to the press again it was how glad he was to put it behind him. Does he honestly think that? Taking a suspension and vaguely admitting guilt (more admission by omission of appeal than by saying "mistakes") hardly clears this up or puts it in the past. It's hard not to notice how ideal this suspension was for Braun: allowing him to take it immediately when he's battling injuries, allowing him to take it now to reduce the amount of money lost (since his salary goes way up next season and suspensions are unpaid), allowing him to sit out during the Brewer's abysmal 2013 and be able to play with them next spring when they have a chance at contention again. Not too mention both the union and MLB all of the sudden commending Braun and talking about the bold step he made. This looks really good for Braun. Which just makes his vagueness and insistence that it is over look worse and be utterly naive. it rings of Braun refusing to talk about what needs to be talked about if he wants to move on.
Next I hope Braun comes next year like a rookie. Keeping his mouth shut, not being a leader (since he has little cred with the team), and simply playing at a level that demands respect. He is no longer the face of the franchise, certainly not in the near future maybe never again. He needs to come to the park with that in mind. He needs to sound like a typical ballplayer at interviews saying want people expect him to say, not mouthing off like a frustrated Barry Bonds or talking in uninformative phrases that sound like they were taught to him by his lawyers. It should sound more like his agent is coaching him ("I just care that we won" "Ya know we all made a good effort") than his lawyer is coaching him ("I have nothing new to say" "I already made a statement and nothing's changed").
Finally, Braun needs to make bold steps to win the public trust. Most people don't bear forgiveness easy for public figures. Fellow players are all sick of him if you believe the reports. I propose Braun go above and beyond the expectation. He needs to do what no one would think he'd be willing to do and that's put the money he got in a franchise record contract out there. Now it's his money, and no one can take it away. Braun is going to get over 100 million as a Brewer. And that is part of what is really bothering people, that he won that money possibly off of pumped numbers. Therefore, to speak from that will speak the loudest.
Here is what I propose: first is Braun gets a lot more liberal in his charity. That is, he needs to be willing to give money away to good causes, more than people would expect of a ball player. But next he should take a bold step in the future of major league baseball. He needs to voluntarily have his contract reworked. He should make some of the money he had guaranteed turned into a more incentive based deal - to show he is confident in his ability to still play at an elite level. Now I'm not thinking too unrealistically, that is we're not talking some 50% cut into incentives. But if the last 15-20% was no longer guaranteed money, that would be a sign in his ability to keep playing elite baseball and a genuine gesture to fans and the Brewer's franchise that he is sorry and that they should not feel they were misled in the contract he has. Of the roughly 120 Million he still has guaranteed put 20-25 million on the line. It's not like he won't be making money still, but it would mean a lot to the team.
But here is the really bold thing he can do. While that will help amend things with fans and franchise, this is the move that would help turn his image in the history of baseball. Braun willingly and groundbreakingly works a steroid clause into his contract. Some months ago I proposed that if teams could void money it would deter big name players from using drugs. At the time I suggested voiding the contract altogether, particularly in light of guys like Alex Rodriguez who are in albatross of a contract past their prime where teams would happily void their contract and the guaranteed overpay if they could. Let me take it a step further. Braun should work a clause that if he suffers another suspension for violating the joint drug agreement - along with the money lost during the time of the suspension the Brewers have the right to A) decrease his remaining salary by 40% or B) void Braun's contract altogether. Money talks, and more than suspensions losing significant amounts of money will deter players. Braun by willingly taking on such a clause would set a precedent for future free agent mega-deals (similar to how the face of free agent negotiations changed with the start of no-trade clauses and incentive laden deals). Such a step by Braun would be worth the commending of the league, it would be the "bold step" the players union rep spoke of, it would start a trend that would hopefully help decrease the use of PED's in the game.
How would this change the course of media reactions and Braun's image? Does it seem the right thing to do to you? Now do I think Braun will do it? No (would you put millions on the line to reshape your public image?), but he should.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Bridging Luke 9 and Luke 10
Working on the sermon for this week, I was rather stunned when I noticed the rather plain connection between last week's gospel reading and this week's (which continues right where last week's left off). Surprisingly, none of my commentaries truly looked ahead when examining last week's text (Luke 9.51-62), yet this week I cannot help but see the connection. So for those thinking about the texts or going to listen to them tomorrow, let me lay out for you precisely what I mean.
First this Sunday's Gospel reading (last Sunday's can be found here):
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. 2 He said to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. 3Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road. 5 Whatever house you enter, first say, "Peace to this house!' 6 And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you. 7 Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house. 8Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; 9 cure the sick who are there, and say to them, "The kingdom of God has come near to you.' 10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 "Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.'
Now let's notice some key connections:
-The first is that these readings are following one another in the Gospel. Prior to the addition of chapter and verse numbers and perichope sectioning they would perhaps even more naturally than now simply flow together within the narrative of Luke. Luke separates them with as the NRSV translates it "after this" which on one hand does mark a new episode but at the same time does not mark transitions such as when Jesus changes locations or there seems a more certain/implied time difference. Particularly because our translation actually hides a conjunction of the two texts. It more literally reads "and after this" or "but after this". While I am admittedly not familiar enough with this construct to say much about it, the presence of de [and/but] not only marks the new event, but marks it in particular distinction from the prior event. As I will show, to say "and after this" is probably a more appropriate translation than simply "after this" because what Jesus does really illustrates/follows precisely what he said in the preceding reading. The immediate relation suggests a more immediate transition: Jesus was calling and challenging these would-be disciples "and after this" he appointed seventy others.
-In 9.51 Jesus sends messengers ahead of him, now he continues this sending disciples to every place he intends to go. In the backdrop here is also how last week marks the beginning of his path being intent on going towards Jerusalem. Our NRSV translation is a bit ambiguous in the language of "he intended to go" which could mean where he intended as in this is where he is planning on going or intended as in this is where he planned on going until he set his face towards Jerusalem. Other translations leave less doubt "where he was about to go" and this understanding is more likely given these heralds are sent out "ahead" of him. The verse therefore continues the clear intent on Jesus' journey to fulfill what was written in the prophets and psalms about him (a major theme in Luke's Gospel), it also continues the pattern set in the previous chapter when messengers were sent to Samaria. It is interesting to have him send messengers, and then after Samaria send seventy "other" messengers. But what we see is the end of chapter nine becoming a backdrop to the entire sending story here in the start of chapter ten. It first is mirrored in basically the same commission happening in Samaria - Jesus sending people ahead of him as he journeys towards Jerusalem.
-"the laborers are few" this is after Jesus just found the responses of three would-be laborers inadequate and he challenges each response (it might be going too far to assume none followed him, but the harshness within their call and their apparent hesitations indicate precisely what Jesus is referring to). This would be akin to when Jesus following his rebuke to Peter turns to the rest of the disciples and says "if any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves..." (Math 16.22-24). Granted however this is a looser connection.
-It might be best now to look at each of the three would-be disciples of the previous chapter and how their conversing with Jesus immediately shows up in this story:
The first is an eager "I will follow you wherever you go" and is met with a warning that there is no place to lay one's head. They are on the move. Immediately they are sent out now - more than that, they are sent with rejection being a real possibility. While they are not to move house to house (v.7), they are completely at the hospitality of others. There is no home set for them, no place prepared. They are to go without any certainty of a house which will receive their peace (v.6). And ultimately this is going ahead of Jesus, not settling anywhere, it is part of the Jerusalem movement and it entails not simply going where Jesus is, but going ahead of Jesus.
The second disciple asks for time, time to bury his father (which commentators for various reasons all note this may be a longer request than it sounds like, especially if the father is not even dead yet). He is met with the earnestness of mission. Jesus tells him "let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." The call to spare no time in proclaiming also surfaces in this commissioning. Jesus says "Go on your way" (v.3), take nothing and greet no one (v.4) - acts which emphasize wasting no time, particularly ignoring the common Jewish custom to greet people on the way. Not going from house to house or being picky over food given likely is tied to this earnestness too, don't waste time getting settled: accept what is offered (even rejection) and follow instructions. What are the instructions? The same as Jesus told this man: say to them "The kingdom of God has come near to you" (v.9). They are told to go and proclaim the kingdom (and do acts which mark the kingdom's coming such as healing). Even to those who reject, the instructions for rejection also waste no time and yet include this instruction to say "Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near to you" (v.11).
The final disciple wishes to follow, but must first go home to say goodbye. Jesus particularly challenges looking back. Here now he sends them "ahead", away from home into strange places, and likewise there is no second-guessing in the message. People can either receive the message or not, it comes more clean cut than we would see our lives and all experiences within it. Our lectionary skips some scary verses that emphasize this including a promise of things worse than Sodom (remember what happened when Sodom was being destroyed and Lot's family was instructed not to look back? if not read Genesis 19.17-26 here) and woes for cities that do not repent. Our reading picks up with these words "whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (v.16), these words also emphasize that there can be no confusion in loyalty and answering a call. Even rejecting those Jesus' sent is a rejection of this message. We should also emphasize the plow metaphor which as commentators notes, if one looks back they won't plow straight. Yet this entire sending is set within Jesus' clear intent. Each place must be prepared ahead of him, there are no detours even for family and goodbyes.
-Now if I can back up a bit, in the last chapter when Samaria refused the disciples wanted to rain down fire from heaven (another Sodom connection too by the way). First from this we notice the transition in their faith: that is, they transition from trusting in their ability to bring God's judgment to their ability to even cast out demons (v.17), they experience a transition in what they are doing when they prepare a city - perhaps this comes with both the commission to preach the kingdom and with the judgment Jesus makes for those who reject them. Either way the transition is notable. What it also shows is that following this fiasco over judgment Jesus gives them clear instructions now on how to handle rejection - not by raining down fire from heaven, but to dust off your sandals and proclaim the kingdom of God anyways (v.10).
-Finally, note how the two sections end. Chapter nine ends with this scary statement about not being fit to enter the kingdom of God (9.62). Our current one ends with the promise to "rejoice that your names are written in heaven" (v.20). It is an immediate contrast from the last one. It truly wraps up the texts: if discipleship our way on our terms ends in not being fit for the kingdom, being sent out by Jesus - following according to his call, not being weary of homelessness or delayed or torn in proclaiming the kingdom comes with it the promise that your name is written in heaven. We obviously must be careful how we construe that - it does not mean do it right you get in heaven do it wrong not fit for heaven. It means Christ's way is the right way. It means faith in Jesus, trust in him, so trusting one could go without home or long goodbyes, so central it matters more than burying family, following this Jesus to Jerusalem in spite of all this means going then where he makes one fit for the kingdom and writes one's name in heaven. It is salvation on God's terms, not ours, and God's terms are in Christ. The best way to put it might be this: they are told to proclaim the kingdom has come near - they witness it and are in awe and wonder. Jesus tells them to rejoice not just in the wonders they brought about, but in the wonder brought about to them. That message comes when they return to Jesus, that message comes by Jesus. All the wonders of the kingdom which we witness as his disciples, have with it a promise unseen but far greater - that God is saving us.
I found last week a lot of folks took real personally the deep, uncompromising calls of Jesus in chapter nine, so much so it was difficult to hear. Hear with it now chapter ten, which will hopefully make this chapter more personal and carry with it the promise that those aching hearts longed for last week when Jesus called them. Have a blessed Sunday reading.
First this Sunday's Gospel reading (last Sunday's can be found here):
1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. 2 He said to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. 3Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road. 5 Whatever house you enter, first say, "Peace to this house!' 6 And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you. 7 Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house. 8Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; 9 cure the sick who are there, and say to them, "The kingdom of God has come near to you.' 10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 "Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.'
16 "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." 17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!" 18 He said to them, "I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. 19 See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you. 20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
Now let's notice some key connections:
-The first is that these readings are following one another in the Gospel. Prior to the addition of chapter and verse numbers and perichope sectioning they would perhaps even more naturally than now simply flow together within the narrative of Luke. Luke separates them with as the NRSV translates it "after this" which on one hand does mark a new episode but at the same time does not mark transitions such as when Jesus changes locations or there seems a more certain/implied time difference. Particularly because our translation actually hides a conjunction of the two texts. It more literally reads "and after this" or "but after this". While I am admittedly not familiar enough with this construct to say much about it, the presence of de [and/but] not only marks the new event, but marks it in particular distinction from the prior event. As I will show, to say "and after this" is probably a more appropriate translation than simply "after this" because what Jesus does really illustrates/follows precisely what he said in the preceding reading. The immediate relation suggests a more immediate transition: Jesus was calling and challenging these would-be disciples "and after this" he appointed seventy others.
-In 9.51 Jesus sends messengers ahead of him, now he continues this sending disciples to every place he intends to go. In the backdrop here is also how last week marks the beginning of his path being intent on going towards Jerusalem. Our NRSV translation is a bit ambiguous in the language of "he intended to go" which could mean where he intended as in this is where he is planning on going or intended as in this is where he planned on going until he set his face towards Jerusalem. Other translations leave less doubt "where he was about to go" and this understanding is more likely given these heralds are sent out "ahead" of him. The verse therefore continues the clear intent on Jesus' journey to fulfill what was written in the prophets and psalms about him (a major theme in Luke's Gospel), it also continues the pattern set in the previous chapter when messengers were sent to Samaria. It is interesting to have him send messengers, and then after Samaria send seventy "other" messengers. But what we see is the end of chapter nine becoming a backdrop to the entire sending story here in the start of chapter ten. It first is mirrored in basically the same commission happening in Samaria - Jesus sending people ahead of him as he journeys towards Jerusalem.
-"the laborers are few" this is after Jesus just found the responses of three would-be laborers inadequate and he challenges each response (it might be going too far to assume none followed him, but the harshness within their call and their apparent hesitations indicate precisely what Jesus is referring to). This would be akin to when Jesus following his rebuke to Peter turns to the rest of the disciples and says "if any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves..." (Math 16.22-24). Granted however this is a looser connection.
-It might be best now to look at each of the three would-be disciples of the previous chapter and how their conversing with Jesus immediately shows up in this story:
The first is an eager "I will follow you wherever you go" and is met with a warning that there is no place to lay one's head. They are on the move. Immediately they are sent out now - more than that, they are sent with rejection being a real possibility. While they are not to move house to house (v.7), they are completely at the hospitality of others. There is no home set for them, no place prepared. They are to go without any certainty of a house which will receive their peace (v.6). And ultimately this is going ahead of Jesus, not settling anywhere, it is part of the Jerusalem movement and it entails not simply going where Jesus is, but going ahead of Jesus.
The second disciple asks for time, time to bury his father (which commentators for various reasons all note this may be a longer request than it sounds like, especially if the father is not even dead yet). He is met with the earnestness of mission. Jesus tells him "let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." The call to spare no time in proclaiming also surfaces in this commissioning. Jesus says "Go on your way" (v.3), take nothing and greet no one (v.4) - acts which emphasize wasting no time, particularly ignoring the common Jewish custom to greet people on the way. Not going from house to house or being picky over food given likely is tied to this earnestness too, don't waste time getting settled: accept what is offered (even rejection) and follow instructions. What are the instructions? The same as Jesus told this man: say to them "The kingdom of God has come near to you" (v.9). They are told to go and proclaim the kingdom (and do acts which mark the kingdom's coming such as healing). Even to those who reject, the instructions for rejection also waste no time and yet include this instruction to say "Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near to you" (v.11).
The final disciple wishes to follow, but must first go home to say goodbye. Jesus particularly challenges looking back. Here now he sends them "ahead", away from home into strange places, and likewise there is no second-guessing in the message. People can either receive the message or not, it comes more clean cut than we would see our lives and all experiences within it. Our lectionary skips some scary verses that emphasize this including a promise of things worse than Sodom (remember what happened when Sodom was being destroyed and Lot's family was instructed not to look back? if not read Genesis 19.17-26 here) and woes for cities that do not repent. Our reading picks up with these words "whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (v.16), these words also emphasize that there can be no confusion in loyalty and answering a call. Even rejecting those Jesus' sent is a rejection of this message. We should also emphasize the plow metaphor which as commentators notes, if one looks back they won't plow straight. Yet this entire sending is set within Jesus' clear intent. Each place must be prepared ahead of him, there are no detours even for family and goodbyes.
-Now if I can back up a bit, in the last chapter when Samaria refused the disciples wanted to rain down fire from heaven (another Sodom connection too by the way). First from this we notice the transition in their faith: that is, they transition from trusting in their ability to bring God's judgment to their ability to even cast out demons (v.17), they experience a transition in what they are doing when they prepare a city - perhaps this comes with both the commission to preach the kingdom and with the judgment Jesus makes for those who reject them. Either way the transition is notable. What it also shows is that following this fiasco over judgment Jesus gives them clear instructions now on how to handle rejection - not by raining down fire from heaven, but to dust off your sandals and proclaim the kingdom of God anyways (v.10).
-Finally, note how the two sections end. Chapter nine ends with this scary statement about not being fit to enter the kingdom of God (9.62). Our current one ends with the promise to "rejoice that your names are written in heaven" (v.20). It is an immediate contrast from the last one. It truly wraps up the texts: if discipleship our way on our terms ends in not being fit for the kingdom, being sent out by Jesus - following according to his call, not being weary of homelessness or delayed or torn in proclaiming the kingdom comes with it the promise that your name is written in heaven. We obviously must be careful how we construe that - it does not mean do it right you get in heaven do it wrong not fit for heaven. It means Christ's way is the right way. It means faith in Jesus, trust in him, so trusting one could go without home or long goodbyes, so central it matters more than burying family, following this Jesus to Jerusalem in spite of all this means going then where he makes one fit for the kingdom and writes one's name in heaven. It is salvation on God's terms, not ours, and God's terms are in Christ. The best way to put it might be this: they are told to proclaim the kingdom has come near - they witness it and are in awe and wonder. Jesus tells them to rejoice not just in the wonders they brought about, but in the wonder brought about to them. That message comes when they return to Jesus, that message comes by Jesus. All the wonders of the kingdom which we witness as his disciples, have with it a promise unseen but far greater - that God is saving us.
I found last week a lot of folks took real personally the deep, uncompromising calls of Jesus in chapter nine, so much so it was difficult to hear. Hear with it now chapter ten, which will hopefully make this chapter more personal and carry with it the promise that those aching hearts longed for last week when Jesus called them. Have a blessed Sunday reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)