What kind of leadership do we want?
Commentary
After following Moses for many weeks, we come to the end of the line. The single text from Deuteronomy gives us a taste of a book in the Pentateuch that is different from the others. It has been suggested that Deuteronomy is to the Pentateuch what John 13-17 is to the four gospels. Here we meet a more tender God, a loving Lord who endures patiently the disobedience of the people of Israel. The appeal is as much to the emotions as to the mind.
Even the difficult word that Moses cannot set foot in the land of promise is couched in gentle and loving tones. Though faithful in his leadership, he is so much a part of the people that he must share in the consequences of their errant behavior. It has been called "accepted disappointment." Here we encounter realism. This is no "happily ever after" ending to the story. The word is restrained and sober. Better this than the empty fluff and superficial rhetoric that often characterizes a farewell event.
But no matter the consequences, this chapter rightly concludes with legitimate praise for a man who stands out singularly in religious history. It would be hard to overestimate his importance. He combined in himself the rare gift of compassion and administrative skill. One often sees one or the other; seldom is it found in one person. Coupled with his persistence, his visionary leadership, and his oratorical skills, every word of praise is deserved.
The so-called "Mosaic faith" has now been established: God is one who works in the events of history; God is the one who takes the initiative, especially in calling these people to be light to the world; there is but one God and no other. Moses' task is complete. They can never forget him. He has no need to cross the Jordan. It is time for new leadership.
1 Thessalonians 2:1-8
After heaping such praise on the Thessalonians for their exemplary faith and witness, it comes as somewhat of a surprise that Paul needs to launch into a defense of his ministry as we find it here in chapter 2. No doubt it is prompted in part by criticism from fellow Jews in the synagogue at Thessalonica. They would not have taken kindly to the work of Paul and no doubt did everything possible to discredit him as soon as he departed. He needs to reassure the Thessalonians that he is no charlatan.
But it is also helpful to know that the pattern Paul uses here was very common among public speakers in the first century. One needed to spend some time in a speech establishing one's credentials -- even as politicians do today. That being the case, this section may be no more than Paul's way of setting down reasons why they should trust him and not take into account the judgments leveled against him by his detractors. As other public speakers made their credentials known before giving advice, so Paul wants the believers in Thessalonica to know who he is before he moves on to share his concerns with them.
What is compelling in the text is the gentle, non-defensive way in which Paul makes his case. As with Moses, the words are tender, straightforward, and sober. He recalls for them that he took advantage of them in no way when he was with them, pursuing his trade in order to be no burden for them. The use of female imagery -- "like a nurse caring for her children" -- may startle those who see Paul only as a male chauvinist. Though Paul can be tough, he can also be gentle. Are such qualities in conflict with each other? No, on the contrary, this is exactly what we look for in any effective leader.
Matthew 22:34-46
The text from Matthew has a different setting in both Mark and Luke. Here it is a part of the ongoing conflict with the Pharisees. In the other two gospels the same question is asked in a non-adversarial context. It may be that the question was asked in both settings. That would not be surprising since the issue under consideration is so fundamental to religious life.
The reply of Jesus that one should love God above all and one's neighbor as oneself is not original with him. The fact that he lifts up the command to love God alone from Deuteronomy 6:5 and the command to love neighbor as oneself from Leviticus 19:10 had been done before. But in previous tradition the two commands had been seen as separate from one another, like two streams running side by side. What makes the reply of Jesus revolutionary and radical is that he joins them. One cannot separate love for God from love for neighbor. It is as though the Pharisees are asking Jesus to name "the" law that stands over all others. He refuses to do so. Jesus understands that love for God, when isolated from love for neighbor, can evolve into an egocentric love that is not necessarily lived out in love for neighbor.
It must be recalled in light of what Jesus has said earlier in other settings that love for neighbor includes love for one's enemy. This is where he would have raised the greatest resistance from his listeners. To love one's own kind, that is one thing. But to love one's enemies is quite another. Indeed, the cross looms larger and larger. And it is on the cross that some will come to understand what he means when he speaks of love for one's enemies.
Attempting to "grade" anything is risky, whether it be kinds of sin or varieties of law. Yet, this exercise serves the good purpose of forcing one to grapple with the question: Why law at all? Most everyone would agree that we need law and order. There are certain fundamental agreements that hold society together. What Jesus wants us to see, however, is that the "law of love" calls us to that kind of life which makes society not merely bearable, but of superior quality. He does not want us merely to tolerate one another, like factions in a neighborhood who do no harm to each other, but who also ignore each other. Christ wants our love to be active -- the second mile, the other cheek, the cloak as well as the coat. In this sense, we would agree that there are "higher laws," imperatives that drive a people to live above the least common denominator.
Suggestions For Preaching
With general elections now only days away, this could be another opportunity to speak about the kind of society we should be. All three persons in our texts today -- Moses, Paul and Jesus -- set forward characteristics we would want our leaders to emulate. In both Moses and Paul we see good, honest administration, coupled with love for those they serve. Both sense a call from God to their work. Is it out of order to suggest that we would like to see in elected leaders some indication that they see the office as a way to serve others? Paul says he is "not in it for the money." At a time when it costs a fortune to run a political campaign, is it asking too much to want leaders who seek no personal gain in public office?
Most of all, should we not call for the kind of attitude that is summarized in the command to love? Given the importance of the separation of church and state in our society, we might be hesitant to call for a statement of personal faith from candidates for office. Yet, would we not agree that the command to love neighbor as oneself is the bedrock foundation for a democratic society?
And it should be apparent to all that leadership is not enough. Like the people of Israel, we are all called to responsible living. In a culture where we see neighbors and their needs to be as important as ourselves and our own needs, there is hope for the future.
Even the difficult word that Moses cannot set foot in the land of promise is couched in gentle and loving tones. Though faithful in his leadership, he is so much a part of the people that he must share in the consequences of their errant behavior. It has been called "accepted disappointment." Here we encounter realism. This is no "happily ever after" ending to the story. The word is restrained and sober. Better this than the empty fluff and superficial rhetoric that often characterizes a farewell event.
But no matter the consequences, this chapter rightly concludes with legitimate praise for a man who stands out singularly in religious history. It would be hard to overestimate his importance. He combined in himself the rare gift of compassion and administrative skill. One often sees one or the other; seldom is it found in one person. Coupled with his persistence, his visionary leadership, and his oratorical skills, every word of praise is deserved.
The so-called "Mosaic faith" has now been established: God is one who works in the events of history; God is the one who takes the initiative, especially in calling these people to be light to the world; there is but one God and no other. Moses' task is complete. They can never forget him. He has no need to cross the Jordan. It is time for new leadership.
1 Thessalonians 2:1-8
After heaping such praise on the Thessalonians for their exemplary faith and witness, it comes as somewhat of a surprise that Paul needs to launch into a defense of his ministry as we find it here in chapter 2. No doubt it is prompted in part by criticism from fellow Jews in the synagogue at Thessalonica. They would not have taken kindly to the work of Paul and no doubt did everything possible to discredit him as soon as he departed. He needs to reassure the Thessalonians that he is no charlatan.
But it is also helpful to know that the pattern Paul uses here was very common among public speakers in the first century. One needed to spend some time in a speech establishing one's credentials -- even as politicians do today. That being the case, this section may be no more than Paul's way of setting down reasons why they should trust him and not take into account the judgments leveled against him by his detractors. As other public speakers made their credentials known before giving advice, so Paul wants the believers in Thessalonica to know who he is before he moves on to share his concerns with them.
What is compelling in the text is the gentle, non-defensive way in which Paul makes his case. As with Moses, the words are tender, straightforward, and sober. He recalls for them that he took advantage of them in no way when he was with them, pursuing his trade in order to be no burden for them. The use of female imagery -- "like a nurse caring for her children" -- may startle those who see Paul only as a male chauvinist. Though Paul can be tough, he can also be gentle. Are such qualities in conflict with each other? No, on the contrary, this is exactly what we look for in any effective leader.
Matthew 22:34-46
The text from Matthew has a different setting in both Mark and Luke. Here it is a part of the ongoing conflict with the Pharisees. In the other two gospels the same question is asked in a non-adversarial context. It may be that the question was asked in both settings. That would not be surprising since the issue under consideration is so fundamental to religious life.
The reply of Jesus that one should love God above all and one's neighbor as oneself is not original with him. The fact that he lifts up the command to love God alone from Deuteronomy 6:5 and the command to love neighbor as oneself from Leviticus 19:10 had been done before. But in previous tradition the two commands had been seen as separate from one another, like two streams running side by side. What makes the reply of Jesus revolutionary and radical is that he joins them. One cannot separate love for God from love for neighbor. It is as though the Pharisees are asking Jesus to name "the" law that stands over all others. He refuses to do so. Jesus understands that love for God, when isolated from love for neighbor, can evolve into an egocentric love that is not necessarily lived out in love for neighbor.
It must be recalled in light of what Jesus has said earlier in other settings that love for neighbor includes love for one's enemy. This is where he would have raised the greatest resistance from his listeners. To love one's own kind, that is one thing. But to love one's enemies is quite another. Indeed, the cross looms larger and larger. And it is on the cross that some will come to understand what he means when he speaks of love for one's enemies.
Attempting to "grade" anything is risky, whether it be kinds of sin or varieties of law. Yet, this exercise serves the good purpose of forcing one to grapple with the question: Why law at all? Most everyone would agree that we need law and order. There are certain fundamental agreements that hold society together. What Jesus wants us to see, however, is that the "law of love" calls us to that kind of life which makes society not merely bearable, but of superior quality. He does not want us merely to tolerate one another, like factions in a neighborhood who do no harm to each other, but who also ignore each other. Christ wants our love to be active -- the second mile, the other cheek, the cloak as well as the coat. In this sense, we would agree that there are "higher laws," imperatives that drive a people to live above the least common denominator.
Suggestions For Preaching
With general elections now only days away, this could be another opportunity to speak about the kind of society we should be. All three persons in our texts today -- Moses, Paul and Jesus -- set forward characteristics we would want our leaders to emulate. In both Moses and Paul we see good, honest administration, coupled with love for those they serve. Both sense a call from God to their work. Is it out of order to suggest that we would like to see in elected leaders some indication that they see the office as a way to serve others? Paul says he is "not in it for the money." At a time when it costs a fortune to run a political campaign, is it asking too much to want leaders who seek no personal gain in public office?
Most of all, should we not call for the kind of attitude that is summarized in the command to love? Given the importance of the separation of church and state in our society, we might be hesitant to call for a statement of personal faith from candidates for office. Yet, would we not agree that the command to love neighbor as oneself is the bedrock foundation for a democratic society?
And it should be apparent to all that leadership is not enough. Like the people of Israel, we are all called to responsible living. In a culture where we see neighbors and their needs to be as important as ourselves and our own needs, there is hope for the future.
