Immediate Word

Jesus is getting plenty of media coverage these days. We at The Immediate Word believe that the current culture wide interest in Jesus being generated by Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion of the Christ and the ongoing bestseller status of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, offers an opportunity for us to confront and critique the misinformation being disseminated. There is great concern that different aspects of the movie and the book, as well as other presentations of Christ, may cause offense.

Team member George Murphy takes the new presentations of Jesus and compares them with a previously controversial story of Jesus -- The Last Temptation of Christ and helps us think about how we might deal with renewed interest in the person of Jesus. There is also a wealth of additional information provided by other team members, worship resources, and a children's sermon.



Are You Tempted to be Offended?
By George Murphy
Luke 4:1-13

Some Christians seem to go out of their way to be "offended." They write letters to the local paper that begin "I was deeply offended by" something that challenged their long-accepted views of religion or morality. Others want so badly to be cool and modern that they wouldn't be caught dead being "offended" -- except perhaps by a claim that Christianity is any better than any other religion. It's worth asking, what offends us as Christians -- and why? And as we begin the season of Lent, we need to ask what may be offensive about Christianity -- and why?

Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code has been on the bestseller list for quite awhile. It's offensive to many Christians because, among other things, it represents Jesus as a sexual being -- in fact, as a man who was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child by her. The Church (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, which is usually the bad guys in conspiracy theories like this) has supposedly suppressed the evidence for this and produced false accounts of Jesus life (the canonical gospels), but the Priory of Sion (the good guys) have hidden away the documents that prove it along with the bones of Mary Magdalene, the true Holy Grail. (I am not making this up.) The offense is reminiscent of that which a few years ago greeted the film The Last Temptation of Christ, which also involved Mary Magdalene and suggested that Jesus experienced sexual temptation.

A person who hears that the gospel for this first Sunday in Lent is going to be about the temptation of Christ might naturally think that those fictional claims about the sexuality of Christ would be quite relevant to the story. In present-day American culture "temptation," more often than not, is sexual: The very word is almost synonymous with a desire to get into bed with someone. (A line of a country-western song of years ago was "The temptation was flowing like wine" -- and it wasn't a temptation to drink!) It then comes as something of a surprise when the gospel, Luke 4:1-13, has no apparent connection at all with sex. Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread, to worship the devil, and to jump from the Temple -- none of which are major temptations for very many people today. But there's nothing at all about seductive temptresses or anything of the sort in the text.

For some Christians that is good news that saves them from embarrassment: Jesus didn't have to deal with that kind of temptation! But that immediately raises some problems. If sexual temptation is at the top of the list for us and Jesus didn't experience it, of what relevance is the story of his temptations to us?

And the problem goes deeper. Was Jesus really tempted by anything? If he was immune to one of our biggest temptations, maybe he was immune to all of them. That fits in with a lot of traditional beliefs about Jesus, the belief that as God Incarnate he was not only able not to sin, like Adam and Eve before the fall, but was not even able to sin. (Not only posse non peccare but non posse peccare.) And if he couldn't sin, he couldn't be tempted to sin. If that's the case then how do you present the story in the gospel as anything more than an account of some esoteric ritual that Jesus had to go through?

I think that The Last Temptation of Christ was offensive to many Christians not just its sexual aspect but the fact that it seemed to challenge a deeply held belief that Jesus was perfect. And because it did that, it seemed to be blatant attack on the heart of Christianity.

If we're going to deal with the temptation story in connection with these two works of fiction, there's a lot to think about -- the nature of temptation, the humanity of Christ, and attitudes toward sexuality. And since The Da Vinci Code has made such an impact on the reading public (Can a movie be far behind?), we also need to consider its dubious historical premises that are taken for reality by some people.

There's a close connection between the ideas of "testing" and "tempting," and the same Greek word, peirazo, can, in different circumstances, mean one or the other. James 1:13 says that God "tempts no one," but in the KJV of Genesis 22:1 we read that "God did tempt Abraham." It would be more consistent to say, with NRSV, "God tested Abraham." People are tested to see if they can or cannot do something, while temptation means to try to get somebody to do or not do something -- usually something he or she shouldn't do. God tests Abraham to see if he will be faithful and obedient -- perhaps to show Abraham himself the state of his commitment. (Math and science texts have lists of problems at appropriate points, not just so students can be graded by a teacher but so that they themselves can see how well they've learned the material.)

Testing, however, is an occasion for temptation. In the wilderness, Jesus' fitness for his vocation as Son of God is tested with trials that Israel, God's "firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22) failed in the wilderness. Can he rely on God for his sustenance? Can he worship God alone? Can he refrain from putting God to the test?

But the devil -- or however we want to speak of the reality of evil -- can make these tests into temptations. "Wouldn't some bread taste good right about now? Wouldn't you like to rule the world? Wouldn't you like to be sure that God will protect you?" God tests Jesus so that he can see that he is indeed, as the words at his baptism declared, the Son of God (Luke 3:22). But that means also that God allows Jesus to be tempted, to doubt those words. "If you are the Son of God" ... the tempter says.

Now a test could be just a formality, but in order for a temptation to be real, there has to be some actual possibility of yielding to it. I can't be tempted to jump over the moon because that's just not possible for me. So if Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15), it would seem that he must have been able to sin -- but didn't. (I think that KJV, which I quoted, is right to translate pepeirasmenon as "tempted" here. NRSV has "tested" but gives "tempted" in the margin.)

If this is the case then the Incarnation really does mean that God shared fully in our actual human condition -- not simply in some ideal humanity that managed to avoid the effects that sin and alienation from God have on all the rest of us. As Karl Barth put it, (Church Dogmatics IV, Pt. 2, pp. 92-93) " 'Without sin' means that in our human and sinful existence as a man He did not sin."

(But how could the Second Person of the Trinity sin? Is not the very idea self-contradictory? Perhaps -- but this may be a point where theological speculation is just not very useful. "What is above us does not concern us," Luther says somewhere. Perhaps God took a greater risk in assuming human nature than we imagine. I have always liked the title of a book by Bonnell Spencer, God Who Dares To Be Man [Seabury, 1980].)

Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are" -- except sexually? Was Jesus really tempted in all points as the teenagers awash with hormones listening to your sermon? Why do we have such a big problem with that?

I don't have much to say good about TheDa Vinci Code but have to admit that it's right in saying that the church, by and large, has not shown a terribly healthy attitude toward sex. Some Christians have imagined that the "real" sin of Adam and Eve was sexual intercourse. Even though marriage has been recognized as ordained by God, it has often been thought of as a kind of legalizing of fornication (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:9). Protestants have sometimes accused Roman Catholics of holding such a view, but it's more widespread. One older Lutheran pastor told me that when he started in one of his congregations he wondered why, when women came forward for communion, they always took their coats off before leaving the pew. A little discreet enquiry discovered the reason: It was so everyone could see that they weren't pregnant. If a woman was pregnant then she'd been -- well, you know -- and shouldn't commune.

It's too simple to attribute this -- as Brown's novel does -- to male attempts to suppress the sacred feminine and goddess worship. The roots of Christian ambivalence about sexuality can be found in the struggles of Israel's prophets against the fertility cults of Canaan involving worship of both male and female deities. The basic problem here was that of idolatry, the placing of ultimate trust in anything other than the true God -- of thinking that Ba`al and Astarte and other deities worshiped with sacred prostitution and other rites, rather than YHWH, provided offspring and crops and cattle (cf. Hosea 2:8).

Adultery and fornication in fact became metaphors for idolatry (e.g., 2 Chronicles 21:13, Jeremiah 3:1-2, Ezekiel 23 and other passages). Idolatry is always the putting of some good aspect of creation -- in this case sex and fertility -- ahead of God. It is not surprising though that such associations would lead to sex itself being seen as a problem. That poses the question, however, of why the Jewish tradition in general never developed the kind of suspicion of sex that Christianity did.

In any case this is not simply a matter of historical interest. Sex is not something trivial (as sexual promiscuity in fact tends to make it) but is one of the most profound of human activities. The kind of ecstasy that can be involved in sexual relations can give everyone who experiences it a sense that there is a religious dimension to sex. There does not have to be participation in an organized fertility cult for sex to become an idol for a person.

As indeed it is for our culture. While the Christian tradition often has denigrated sex -- contradicting its own doctrine of creation -- present day American culture tends to picture sex as the be all and end all of life. Since the sexual revolution of the 60s, television, movies, and books it's become quite standard to depict couples involved in casual sex with no suggestion at all of marriage or any kind of commitment at all. One young Christian said that in a university setting those who didn't believe in pre-marital sex were viewed kind of the way he had always thought of the Amish who avoid some aspects of modern technology -- with a kind of quaint respect but basically as kind of weird.

Everybody is supposed to be sexually active and find fulfillment in sex. You would never dream, from watching most TV programs, that some men and women throughout history have decided for one reason or another to be celibate and have lived happy and rewarding lives, of great benefit to others, without indulging in any secret perversions.

So what about Jesus? In light of what's been said here, it's clear that the story in Luke gets at something deeper than sexual temptation. What is being tested is the loyalty of the Son of God to his Father. The suggestion that Jesus turn stones into bread is not fundamentally about a particular physical appetite, hunger, but about believing that "One does not live by bread alone, but (Luke 4:4 does not have the full quotation from Deuteronomy 8:3 as Matthew 4:4 does) by every word that comes from the mouth of God." And if the Tempter has set Mary Magdalene or any other woman before him as an object of desire, the purpose would have been to tempt him to believe that fulfillment was to be found in a sexual relationship instead of his relationship with the Father.

That's all very well but we shouldn't dodge the direct question: Did Jesus experience sexual temptation? We don't have any direct evidence about that but the Christian belief that he was fully human means that he would have been fully functional sexually and able to experience sexual desire. That being the case, he would -- living in the world -- have experienced sexual temptation. But as Luther said, we can't keep the birds from flying over our heads but we don't have to let them make nests in our hair.

Why wasn't Jesus married -- or rather, why have we no evidence that he was?

This would have been unusual for a Jewish man at that time but it would not have been completely unprecedented, as we see from the story of Jeremiah (16:2). Could Jesus have been married -- to Mary Magdalene or any other woman? I can't think of any compelling theological reason why not. But there is -- contrary to what Brown and others have claimed -- no justification for believing that this was the case.

One reason that sex is not involved in the temptation stories in the gospels probably is that the whole idea just seemed kind of embarrassing to the evangelists, if indeed they thought of it at all. In spite of belief in Jesus humanity, there is a tendency to think that he was just above all that. The embarrassment would be shared by many clergy if they were to preach about it, and even more so by their congregations if they had to listen to a sermon on the sexuality of Jesus. So what are you supposed to do with all of this on Sunday morning?

First, you might recognize that many of the people who would feel uncomfortable with such a topic quite happily watch movies and TV programs that treat sexual matters quite openly (one might even say brazenly) and engage in conversations about sex in ways that our grandparents wouldn't have dreamed of. If we can talk without embarrassment about the sexual activities of entertainers, clergy, politicians, and everyone else, why are we so reticent to use "sex" and "Jesus" in the same sentence?

In reality, if we say "Yes, Jesus was fully human, Yes, he experienced sexual temptation, No, he did not 'lust after a woman in his heart' or have sex outside marriage," then we have a significant point of attack on the idolization of sex by our culture. It is possible to be a sexual being, to see sex as something good and powerful and enjoyable, and yet recognize its proper setting as marriage and limit its expression to that setting.

Perhaps you could surprise people this Sunday by defying the lectionary and using Genesis 39, or a suitable part of it, as the Old Testament reading instead of the Adam and Eve story. Joseph, who has sometimes been seen as a type of Christ (because he was sold as Christ was by Judas) is tempted to commit adultery with Potiphar's wife, but doesn't: "How then could I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (Yes, I know, this has the stereotyped picture of woman as the sexual temptress. But it's interesting that this chapter of Genesis follows the one in which Tamar seduces her father-in-law Judah in order to obtain justice for her dead husband -- and Judah has to say "She is more in the right than I." You can't have everything in one story. But boy, is there a lot of sex in the Bible!)

The story of Joseph reminds us that resisting temptation may exact a price: Joseph gets thrown into prison. And that brings us back to the temptation story in Luke -- or rather, the story of Jesus' first temptations. Because when they are finished, the devil "departed from him until an opportune time." And here the "offensive" film The Last Temptation of Christ and the novel of that name by Nikos Kazantzakis on which it's based, gets it precisely right.

The last temptation comes at Calvary, when Jesus is tempted to come from the cross. The words of the bystanders, "If he is the Messiah," "If you are the King of the Jews" (Luke 23:35-37) echo the "If you are the Son of God" which Jesus experienced in the wilderness. (In Matthew the words match exactly.) In the novel and film Jesus, as he hangs dying, imagines that he has been released from the cross, that he marries and lives a long, full life -- but then returns to reality, to death, having resisted the last temptation.

I can't do it justice here: You'll have to read the book or rent the movie.

So finally, what is "offensive"? Christians are rightly offended by a lot of the things that our culture glorifies -- the trivializing and vulgarization of sex, the glorification of violence, the acceptance of greed and, most deeply, the idolatry that accompanies all of these things. But the proper Christian response is not simply to be "offended" in prudish fashion. It is to proclaim the one real offense that Christianity has to offer, the offense of the cross (Galatians 5:11). Those who have seen the film The Passion of the Christ should understand why the cross was offensive. It was not, to say the least, a dignified or heroic death but what Origen in the third century (when there were still public crucifixions) called "the utterly vile death of the cross."

The idea that God really could be tempted, that God could die the humiliating death of a slave, and that we need to be saved by such a death, is offensive to normal human sensibilities. We want to get Christ -- and ourselves -- off the cross. But that is the last temptation that has to be resisted.

Appendix: The Da Vinci Code

I've said perhaps as much about Dan Brown's novel as a preacher needs to know in order to deal with the themes of temptation and offense in a sermon, but the popularity of this book -- this week it's number two on the New York Times fiction list -- calls for something more. I've tried to be restrained in my earlier comments about it but now will speak bluntly: It's a mediocre "beach read" packed with numerous glaring historical errors that seem intended only to discredit Christianity. People are rightly concerned about whether or not Mel Gibson's "Passion" film is unfair to Jews. It's interesting that nobody in the media seems very concerned about books like The Da Vinci Code that are unquestionably unfair to Christians.

Brown's book starts out as a mystery in which a Harvard "symbologist" and a Parisian police cryptologist follow clues that will lead to the Holy Grail which the "Priory of Sion" has been protecting for centuries. The first half of the book is a fairly decent thriller. Then the "experts" start explaining things and we're treated to a barrage of preposterous statements about history and religion that continue intermittently for the rest of the book. There are far too many for me to list in detail so a few will have to suffice.

(p. 231) "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great."

(p. 233) "until that moment in history (A.D. 325), Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet." (p. 233)

(p. 234) "Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned." ... 'Fortunately for historians,' Teabing said, 'some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s ...' "

Stop laughing! This is serious business! What's funny about the statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are "forbidden gospels"? (Or for that matter, that they were found in the 1950s?)

Well, it is funny -- but not as much so as the pseudo-learned statements about Judaism on p. 309. Everybody who's studied Hebrew knows that the name "Jehovah" comes from mistakenly reading the consonants of the divine name YHWH with the vowels of Adonai, but Brown's symbologist tells us: "YHWH -- the sacred name of God -- in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah." No wonder that -- as we're told on the same page -- "Langdon's Jewish students always looked flabbergasted." They probably were thinking, "How did this clown get tenure at Harvard?"

More serious for the book's plot is the fact that Brown's notion that the gnostic gospels portray the real human Jesus in contrast to the canonical gospels that portray him as more "godlike" shows no understanding of the character of any of these texts. And if the canonical gospels were supposed to discredit Mary Magdalene and portray her as a prostitute -- well, why don't they do it? That idea arose because of the belief that the woman "who was a sinner" of Luke 7:36-50 was Mary Magdalene who is mentioned in 8:2, but there is no warrant in the text itself for this association.

On pp. 326-327 there is a list of purported Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion. They were supposed to reject Christianity and protect and pass on the "true" story of the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and, and, among other things, participate in the secret sexual rite of "sacred marriage." Among other famous historical figures listed is the 17th century scientist Robert Boyle. I knew that this wasn't real history but thought it would be worth consulting an historian of science who is a specialist on Boyle, Professor Edward B. Davis of Messiah College in Pennsylvania, about its plausibility. He responded -- I quote with his permission -- that even if the "Priory of Sion" did exist at that time, "Boyle would have been appalled at the organization's mission. Boyle had a very traditional Christian view of Jesus as fully divine and fully human. He also had a very dim view of marriage, partly based on his observations of his sisters and brothers, many of them trapped in rotten marriages arranged for them by their powerful and unscrupulous father. Although Boyle allowed that marriage had been ordained of God, he remained unmarried and chaste his entire life. Thus, it is literally unimaginable to me that Boyle would have endorsed the idea that Jesus had married Magdalene."

Many more mistakes could be noted. The thrust of it all of this is that while Jesus was a great leader, etc., traditional Christianity is all wrong and that the Church has been suppressing the truth for centuries.

Some may be thinking, "Why are you getting so worked up about this? It's just fiction, after all!" Yes, and if it were presented as something like the Bizarro World in Superman, in which everything is reversed from normal, I wouldn't mind much. But the supposed historical material in The Da Vinci Code is presented as real history, and much of it isn't really even necessary for the plot. One of the works of supposed history to which it appeals is Holy Blood, Holy Grail which presents the claims about Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their supposed ancestry of the Merovingian kings of France. This book was justly derided when it first appeared over twenty but it's now back on the New York Times list as the number four work of paperback nonfiction.

The knowledge that most Americans have of history, and especially of church history, is very weak, and most of them will have no intellectual defense against the kinds of claims being presented by such books. Brown obviously did some research to pick up some of the pieces of artistic and literary data he uses in his novel, and it's hard for me to see how anyone could do even the most minimal historical research and say the kinds of things that he does. I can respect honest criticism of Christianity, either in fictional or non-fictional form, but cannot consider this book to be honest.


Team Comments

Carlos Wilton responds: George, As usual you've done a wonderfully thorough job with this week's resource: combining deep biblical scholarship with trenchant social commentary. I found it entertaining, and at times amusing, to read.

Indeed, it's a challenging topic. Many of us preachers find it problematic to address the theme of sexuality so bluntly from the pulpit. I'm thinking of one occasion in particular, when a young associate pastor of my acquaintance noticed that the story of David's rape of Bathsheba had come up in the lectionary, and decided to preach on it.

She was excoriated by the congregation afterwards for her "inappropriate language." Several members bemoaned their embarrassment at having had young children sitting beside them as she mentioned "those words." A careful reading of the preacher's manuscript afterwards indicated nothing amiss -- just liberal use of words like "sex" and "had sex" throughout the sermon, along with one or two occurrences of "menstruation." Nothing was biblically or theologically suspect; the preacher had faithfully retold the biblical narrative, and in no way did she condone any ethically inappropriate behavior. The sermon just made people uncomfortable, for reasons they found it hard to explain.

What the preacher declined to do was to use the comfortable euphemisms that this particular congregation -- and especially some of its older members -- had grown to expect. Nothing the preacher said was different from anything her listeners could (and did) hear daily on the six o'clock news: but somehow, in the softly mottled light of the stained-glass windows, they expected an antiquated Victorian gentility. Not "menstruation," but "that time of the month." Not "sex," but "relations." Words that would probably go right over the heads of the youngsters, but which the adults would understand perfectly well.

Such are the risks of broaching such a topic as you propose for us this week!

Because (as you indicate) the biblical narrative of Jesus' temptation has nothing to do with sex, it's very possible to preach a more general sermon about temptation. The listeners can then fill in the blanks as to whatever it is that tempts them most. What tempts Jesus, it would seem, are the things that threaten to undermine his reason for going out into the wilderness in the first place: to engage in an ascetic discernment process, seeking his own personal mission.

"The wilderness" is a rich theological concept in the Bible. Far from being a place of desolation, it is a place of challenge. It is possible to live in the wilderness, but only in the way that Moses and the Israelites lived of old: depending on whatever manna God sends. (For John the Baptist that means locusts and wild honey.) Jesus, presumably, enters the wilderness to fast and to pray. The first test -- turning stones into bread -- would undermine his fast. The second and third trials -- both flashy, prideful acts -- more subtly undermine his devotional life, as he is seeking to discern his calling.

The devil's questioning of Jesus, say Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, "is first and foremost a test of kinship loyalty. Note carefully how the devil frames the first challenge, 'If you are the Son of God' ... Precisely that has been the claim and precisely that is what is being tested. Note also how carefully Jesus answers when his lineage is questioned. He does not answer in his own words, as if his honor derives from what he is in himself. To do that would grasp honor above that of his own Father and turn honor into dishonor. So he answers as a loyal Middle Eastern son would always answer -- with something from his family tradition. He offers the words of his true Father in Deuteronomy and by such laudable behavior he gains honor as virtue." (Social-Science Commentary On the Synoptic Gospels; Fortress, 2003, pp. 240-241)

When it comes to the second test, say Malina and Rohrbaugh, "The devil makes the audacious claim to be God's broker, saying that both the kingdoms of the world and the right to dispose of their resources in whatever brazen manner he wishes have been given to him. He thereby issues a brazen counterclaim to that which Luke makes for Jesus." (p. 241)

In the third trial, the devil essentially asks Jesus, "Who's your daddy?" Again there is an appeal to lineage: "If you are the Son of God" ... If Jesus is who he claims to be, the devil is taunting, God's own angels will bear him up. Yet Jesus bypasses this challenge by coolly refusing to be drawn into the game. Then he puts the devil in his place by reminding him of the one to whom even the tempter is ultimately accountable (the second-person pronoun speaks loudly here): "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

Some may take this line of Jesus' and use it as the basis for a sermon on the desirability of avoiding temptation. Yet once the social context of the devil's kinship challenge is made clear, it's evident that the text can't bear that interpretation. Besides, it can be pastorally liberating to reassure the people (as Luther does, in that wonderful saying you cite about keeping the birds from nesting in one's hair) that it's only human to be tempted. The sin is not in the temptation, but in the response to it.


Illustrations

"I can resist everything -- except temptation."
-- Oscar Wilde

**********

"My temptations have been my masters in divinity."
-- Martin Luther

**********

" 'Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus,
Another thing to fall."
-- William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, act 2, scene 1. (Angelo speaks these words to Escalus, who is pleading with him for mercy on behalf of Claudio, who has been charged with getting Juliet pregnant.)

**********

"It's no sin to be tempted. It isn't the fact of having temptations that should cause us shame, but what we do with them. Temptation is an opportunity to conquer. When we eventually reach the goal to which we are all striving, God will look us over -- not for diplomas, but for scars."
-- Peter Marshall, quoted by his wife Catherine, in A Man Called Peter, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951), p. 51.

*********

In the 1997 film, The Devil's Advocate Al Pacino plays a singularly wicked attorney -- who, it turns out, is actually the devil in human form. At one point, he waxes eloquent about the human craving for power:

"You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals and fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own god! And where can you go from there?"

*********

"Opportunity may knock but once, but temptation bangs on the door constantly."
-- Anonymous

**********

"Vice, in its true light, is so deformed, that it shocks us at first sight; and would hardly ever seduce us, if it did not at first wear the mask of some virtue."
-- Philip Dormer Stanhope, Fourth Earl Chesterfield, British statesman, in a letter to his son

*********

Carl Sandburg's richly crafted biography of Abraham Lincoln pays homage to the young Illinois frontiersman's character in ways that are reminiscent of Jesus' wilderness struggle:

"In wilderness loneliness he companioned with trees, with the faces of open sky and weather in changing seasons, with that individual one-man instrument, the ax. Silence found him for her own. In the making of him, the element of silence was immense."

*********

"Sin! What are you? You are nothing." Julian found herself chuckling as she wrote this. "I saw in my vision that God is everything. But sin -- I did not see you. When I saw that God had created everything, I did not see you. When I saw that God does everything that is done, I did not see you. And when I saw the Lord Jesus in my soul, I did not see you. And so, sin, you do not exist. And I am sure that the people who enjoy sin will find themselves with nothing in their hands when they are done."

Julian stopped to think. Does that mean that people do not sin? Of course they do. "As long as we love sin, we are in a kind of pain that is greater than any other pain," she wrote. "But when we love God, then all is well. Even though we may sin sometimes, we are not lost. God has created all of us for love. And when we move away from sin and respond to the love of God, then all is well. God wants us to feel the greatest confidence and pleasure in love. Amen."
-- Ralph Milton, Julian's Cell, the Earthy Story of Julian of Norwich (Northstone Publishing, 2002).


Additional Material from Carter Shelly

Mary Magdalene: Wife, Whore, Witness

Luke text explores the temptations placed before Jesus at the beginning of his ministry. With George addressing both the film The Passion and the novel and film The Last Temptations of Christ, where one of the temptations posited for Jesus is a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene, I am offering some supplementary materials on Mary Magdalene. With Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code such a popular source of discussion and its premise that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were husband and wife and also parents with descendants still alive and at large in France and Scotland, this seemed an appropriate week to examine some of the scholarship and discussion provoked by Brown's work of fiction. If anything, we pastor types may thank Brown for creating enough curiosity that laity are seeking accurate information about Mary Magdalene, the possibility of women disciples of Jesus, and the early church's development.

Material on Mary Magdalene has served as a source of interest and curiosity since the early centuries of the Church. More recently, she's also been a popular subject for feminist biblical and theological scholarship. Her ministry and person continue to offer rich material for inspiration and research. Existing scholarship and debate concerning Mary Magdalene are legion. Ministers wishing to preach or teach a series on Mary Magdalene will find your biggest challenge will be deciding which resources to use. In order to provide concrete material for this edition of The Immediate Word, I am limiting my own contribution to the following information:

First, a list of actual Gospel text citations in which Mary Magdalene appears;

Second, Christian traditional understandings of who Mary Magdalene was (hence the working title "wife, whore, witness";

Third, a brief bibliography of some, but far from all, academic books that include discussion about Mary Magdalene; and,

Fourth, identification of two website sources that discuss the accuracies and fictions created by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code as they pertain to Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

To begin, Gospel references to Mary the Magdalene appear in Matthew 27:56 present at Jesus' crucifixion, 27:61 as one of the women sitting outside Jesus' tomb, and 28:1 as one of the first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Mark mentions Mary Magdalene in 15:40-47 tells of her presence at the cross and at Jesus' burial before again mentioning her visit to his tomb along with Mary the mother of James and Salome as they intend to anoint his dead body with oil only to discover in the longer Mark ending 16:9 where a direct appearance of Jesus to her supports the empty tomb evidence that He is risen. Luke's refers to Mary Magdalene in 8:2 as a woman possessed with seven demons Jesus cures through exorcism and in 24:10 Mary Magdalene along with other women discovers the empty tomb and "two men in dazzling clothes" who ask the women why they seek the living among the dead. 24:10 notes that Mary Magdalene and the other women report this amazing news to the apostles. John does not mention Mary Magdalene until chapter 19:25 and 20:11-18. Again, she is present at the crucifixion. More importantly, she is the first person to discover the empty tomb and after Peter and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" have seen also that Jesus' body is not there, Mary Magdalene is the first person to actually speak to Jesus after his resurrection.

Several important features should be noted about these Gospel references. Mary Magdalene is identified as a follower of Jesus, one devoted enough to endure the pain and grief of watching him suffer and die. She is also present as one of the first, if not the first, person to see the Risen Christ in every Gospel account.

Secondly, this knowledge of who Mary Magdalene was and the role she played in early Christianity as a follower of Jesus gets confused by the ancient Church when other Gospel accounts get identified as being Mary Magdalene when she is not so identified in the text. A central example is Luke's account of the woman who washes Jesus' feet with her tears and anoints Jesus' feet with oil before drying them with her hair. Simon the Pharisee's aside that if Jesus knew what sort of woman this one was, Jesus would not let her touch him, leads most interpreters to conclude this woman was a prostitute. No name is given for this woman. It is possible that Mary Magdalene intention to anoint Jesus' dead body with oil was the source of the initial linking of the two stories, but there is no scriptural evidence to suggest the women are one and the same. Another misidentification made concerning Mary Magdalene was the assumption that she was Martha and Lazarus' sister Mary. Thus, Mary Magdalene gains notoriety not only for her former sinfulness but later on for her thoughtful, contemplative conduct sitting at Jesus feet to hear his teachings while Martha toils away preparing the meal.

From this assumption that Mary Magdalene was a former prostitute and also the sister of Martha come post Council of Nicaea assumptions that Mary Magdalene primary role was as a model of penitence and ascetic piety. While her witness to Jesus' resurrection was recognized by the medieval Church, it was not viewed as anywhere near as important as her conversion from sinner to saint. Thus, Mary was not only identified by Martin Scorsese and Dan Brown as a woman important for her sexuality, the Roman Catholic Church chose that aspect of her to stress rather than recognize her role as "apostle to the apostles" since she was the first to see the Risen Christ and one of the women who went to tell the disciples the good news.

Mary Magdalene has been a popular source of inspiration for artists. Portraits of her include particular symbols: a jar of oil, a cross, and a skull. In The Da Vinci Code Dan Brown builds upon the longstanding assumption that Mary Magdalene was a reformed prostitute who becomes Jesus' wife and the mother of his offspring. Offspring whose very existence refutes the Church's claims of divinity and eternity for Jesus Christ. It is this conundrum that provides the central conflict at the heart of the novel: the modern day Roman Catholic Church's efforts to refute and suppress such heretical material irrespective of its truth or falseness. The claim Brown makes for Mary Magdalene being present at the Last Supper as one of the twelve disciples portrayed in Leonardo Da Vinci's famous painting also celebrates the notion of the Holy Grail, the chalice used by Jesus at his final meal with his followers.

Since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has clarified its understanding of Mary Magdalene role. In so doing they have celebrated her place as one of the first people to see the resurrected Jesus and of her faithfulness to him as both a faithful follower and during his final suffering. No longer is her role identified as that of sexual sinner whose excised seven demons represented the seven deadly sins: pride, avarice, gluttony, lust, laziness, jealously and anger.

In Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth by Esther De Boer provides a excellent introduction and thorough examination of Mary Magdalene's place in scripture, scholarship, and Christian religion. In it, De Boer also gives a passing nod to biblical scholars who maintain that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and ascribe the biblical silence about this marriage to a desire to protect Mary Magdalene and child from dangers and persecutions suffered by Jesus and his followers:

Researchers like Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, and Margaret Starbird think that the silence about Mary Magdalene is deliberate. They speak of secret oral traditions that relate that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and was expecting his child. To protect her and the fruit of her womb, it was necessary to keep quiet about her existence to the Roman occupying forces (20).

While the majority of biblical scholars who currently are engaged in study of Mary Magdalene significance begin with the Gospel texts mentioned earlier, they now have an additional resource from the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in 1945 near Phou, Egypt. Among the Gnostic books uncovered there were two more traditionally Christian works, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. While it has not been possible to establish an exact date for these non-canonical texts, it is believed the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was recorded around the middle of the second century. Much effort and time has been expended in translating this text and determining its value as a resource about early Christianity and Mary Magdalene. First translated into French, this material is now available in English along with a commentary upon its contents. (LeLoup, Jean-Yves. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Trans. Joseph Rowe. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2002.) While some other Gnostic writings suggest an "intimate" relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, that subject does not appear in the Gospel that bears her name.

Thirdly, other resources on Mary Magdalene or "the sacred feminine" another important subject discussed in The Da Vinci Code include:

An A to Z of Feminist Theology. Ed. Lisa Isherwood & Dorothea McEwan. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic P, 1996.

Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1988.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1992.

King, Karen L. "The Gospel Mary Magdalene" in Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary. Ed. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Schottroff, Luise, Silvia Schroer, and Marie-Theres Wacker. Feminist Interpretation: The Bible in Women's Perspective. Tran. Martin and Barbara Rumscheidt. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Torjesen, Karen Jo. When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993.

Tucker, Ruth A. and Walter Liefeld. Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Finally, while there are far more websites discussing The Da Vinci Code than it's practical to include in this week's material, I am citing materials from two particularly helpful ones. The first comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School: http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2003/0924.shtml and is written by New Testament Associate Professor Margaret M. Mitchell. Her remarks are included in full:

Cracking the Da Vinci Code

Besieged by requests for my reaction to The Da Vinci Code, I finally decided to sit down and read it over the weekend. It was a quick romp, largely fun to read, if rather predictable and preachy. This is a good airplane book, a novelistic thriller that presents a rummage sale of accurate historical nuggets alongside falsehoods and misleading statements. The bottom line: the book should come coded for "black light," like the pen used by the character Sauniere to record his dying words, so that readers could scan pages to see which "facts" are trustworthy and which patently not, and (if a black light could do this!) highlight the gray areas where complex issues are misrepresented and distorted.

Patently inaccurate: In his own lifetime Jesus "inspired millions to better lives" (p. 231); there were "more than eighty gospels" (p. 231; the number 80 is factual-sounding, but has no basis); "the earliest Christian records" were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (including gospels) and Nag Hammadi texts (pp. 234, 245); the Nag Hammadi texts "speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms" (p. 234); the marriage of Mary Magdalene and Jesus is "a matter of historical record" (p. 244); Constantine invented the divinity of Jesus and excluded all gospels but the four canonical ones; Constantine made Christianity "the official religion" of the Roman Empire (p. 232); Constantine coined the term "heretic" (p. 234); "Rome's official religion was sun worship" (p. 232). There are more.

Gray areas: "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable" (p. 232), but that does not mean "Nothing in Christianity is original." The relationship between early Christianity and the world around it, the ways in which it was culturally embedded in that world, sometimes unreflectively, sometimes reflexively, sometimes in deliberate accommodation, sometimes in deliberate cooptation, is far more complicated than the simplistic myth of Constantine's Stalinesque program of cultural totalitarianism. Further, Constantine's religious life -- whether, when, how and by what definition he was Christian and/or "pagan" -- is a much-debated issue because the literary and non-literary sources (such as coins) are not consistent. That Constantine the emperor had "political" motives (p. 234) is hardly news to anyone! The question is how religion and politics (which cannot be separated in the ancient world) were interrelated in him. He is as hard to figure out on this score as Henry VIII, Osama Bin Laden, Tammy Fay Baker, and George W. Bush. Brown has turned one of history's most fascinating figures into a cartoon-ish villain.

"Paganism" is treated throughout The Da Vinci Code as though it were a unified phenomenon, which it was not ("pagan" just being the Christian term for "non-Christian"). The religions of the Mediterranean world were multiple and diverse, and cannot all be boiled down to "sun-worshippers" (232). Nor did all "pagans" frequently, eagerly, and with mystical intent participate in the hieros gamos (ritual sex acts). "The Church" is also used throughout the book as though it had a clear, uniform, and unitary referent. For early Christian history this is precisely what we do not have, but a much more complex, varied, and localized phenomenon. Brown presumes "the Church" is "the Holy Roman Catholic Church" which he thinks had tremendous power always and everywhere, but ecclesiastical history is a lot messier.

Brown propagates the full-dress conspiracy theory for Vatican suppression of women. Feminist scholars and others have been debating different models of the "patriarchalization" of Christianity for decades. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza's landmark work, In Memory of Her (1983), argued that while Jesus and Paul (on his better days) were actually pretty much pro-women, it was the next generations (the authors of letters in Paul's name like 1 and 2 Timothy and others) who betrayed their feminist agenda and sold out to the Aristotelian, patriarchal vision of Greco-Roman society. Others (unfortunately) sought to blame the misogyny on the Jewish roots of Christianity. More recently it has been argued that the picture is more mixed, even for Jesus and Paul. That is, they may have been more liberal than many of their contemporaries about women, but they were not all-out radicals, though they had ideas (such as Galatians 3:28) that were even more revolutionary than they realized (in both senses of the term). Alas, no simple story here. And while obsessing over Mary Magdalene, The Da Vinci Code ignores completely the rise and incredible durability and power of the other Mary, the mother of Jesus, and devotion to her that follows many patterns of "goddess" veneration (she even gets the Athena's Parthenon dedicated to her in the sixth century).

This list is just a sample. A "black light" edition of The Da Vinci Code would, however, be unnecessary if readers would simply take the book as fiction. But there is an obstacle: the first page of the book reads, under the bold print headline "Fact": "all descriptions of ... documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
-- Margaret M. Mitchell is Associate Professor of New Testament at the University of Chicago Divinity School and the Chair of the Department of New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Her latest book is The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Westminster/John Knox, 2002).

The second resource may prove useful to Immediate Word subscribers as a resource for additional background material on many important subjects that pertain to religion and culture. It is: http://www.religionwriters.com.The target audience is religion writers, not preachers. I am including a major section of its data on The DaVinci Code because it offers the names of scholars, media materials, etc. that would be invaluable to anyone wishing to pursue this subject comprehensively. Religion Writers.Com also has archived materials that cover many important issues and events pertinent to religious professionals:

The DaVinci Code: Fact, Fiction and Belief

What happens when fast-paced fiction, fact and religion mix? A potent thriller called The DaVinci Code that has spent 10 months on bestseller lists and inspired intense debate about Jesus, church hierarchy, and the role of women in Scripture. With more than 4 million copies in print, Dan Brown's novel has drawn readers, scholars, and clergy into discussion about early Christianity, where secret groups, little-known texts and heretical beliefs mingle.

The imaginatively plotted novel supposes a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene that eventually produced a royal bloodline in early France. Brown says he based the book on research, and indeed, many scholars are studying the role of Magdalene and "the sacred feminine." But the novel, while highly praised as a great read, has been criticized on several fronts. Roman Catholics say it is unfair and inaccurate in descriptions of church hierarchy and the Catholic society Opus Dei. Some scholars say it misleads by presenting fiction mixed with fact, and others attack it for promoting unorthodox beliefs. The DaVinci Code has stirred so much interest that books on the subjects it treats are selling well, and it's inspired new books that seek to sort the facts from the fiction.

Why it Matters

Pop culture -- through books, movies, television, and theater -- has shown great power to inspire interest and debate about religion. The resulting discussions have left people curious about religious history and Scripture and have drawn scholars into efforts to explain, debunk, argue, and clarify what is authoritative.

Questions for reporters

Are local book groups reading it? Are they interested in exploring how much of the author's use of history is fact or fiction?

What do local religious educators and clergy say about the book's idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married?

The DaVinci Code explores ideas about the "sacred feminine" and gives the figure of Mary Magdalene significance for Christians. Are men and women reacting differently to this book?

Are people reading the book because it's a good thriller, or are they drawn to the idea of "the sacred feminine?" What do they think about various denominations' limits on the roles women can play in congregational life?

What do religious leaders of different traditions say about how pop culture can engage people in theological questions or influence their beliefs?

Some critics have called the book misleading because it purports on an introductory page to be based on facts and research, though the book is labeled a novel and clearly includes some ideas that are not fact. What do local readers think about how much a work of fiction can draw on history without clarifying which is which?

Has The DaVinci Code caused fans to read other books -- particularly nonfiction -- on similar issues?

Doubleday's readers' guide asks, "Has this book changed your ideas about faith, religion, or history in any way?" Do readers and clergy think a popular fiction book should have that kind of influence?

National sources

Elaine Pagels is the author of the best-selling Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (Random House, 2003) and a professor of religion at Princeton University. She has written a number of well-received books on Gnosticism, an early Christian movement considered heretical, and early Christianity. Contact 609-258-4484, epagels@Princeton.EDU.

Karen L. King is the author of the recently published The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Polebridge Press, 2003). A scholar of Gnosticism, the body of non-orthodox early Christian teachings, and a professor of ecclesiastical history, she appeared on a Nov. 3, 2003, ABC television special exploring the claims of the novel about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Contact 617-496-3398. Her assistant is Elizabeth Busky, 617-495-4265, elizabeth_busky@harvard.edu.

Some Catholics are angry about the portrayal of Catholicism in the book, saying it is prejudiced. Linked to the novel's villains, the organization Opus Dei issued a statement Sept. 30 saying the book's characterization is "bizarre and inaccurate." Contact Opus Dei U.S. spokesman Brian Finnerty in New York, 212-532-3570, press@opusdei.org.

Darrell L. Bock, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, says there is no evidence for the view that Jesus was married. He wrote a Counterpoint to the Nov. 3 television special about Jesus and Mary Magdalene and is working on a book, Breaking the DaVinci Code, for Thomas Nelson that will examine the historical issues the book raises. Nelson publisher Jonathan Merkh expects to print up to 100,000 copies. Contact Bock, 214-841-3715, dbockdts@aol.com. Contact Merkh, 615-438-6638.

Ben Witherington III is a professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky., who has written extensively about early Christianity and the historical Jesus, including co-authoring The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family (Harper San Francisco, 2003). He says that in a culture that is biblically illiterate, almost anything can pass itself off as historical information. He is working on a book about The DaVinci Code for InterVarsity Press, scheduled for summer release. Contact 859-858-3581, ben_witherington@asburyseminary.edu.

Anne McGuire teaches religion at Haverford College. She specializes in research on the Nag Hammadi ancient Christian texts and has taught courses on gnosticism and women in early Christianity. Contact 610-896-1028, amcguire@haverford.edu.

CDS, a New York book distributor, plans to publish in March 200,000 copies of Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Secrets Behind The DaVinci Code by Connecticut-based journalist Daniel Burstein. CDS president Gilbert Perlman says the book will compile research on topics in Brown's novel, giving additional information without drawing conclusions. Contact Perlman, 212-223-2969 ext. 115, gperlman@cdsbooks.com.

Interest in the subject prompted a Jan. 13, 2004, reissue of The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince (Touchstone, 1998 first ed.), referred to in The DaVinci Code. Its sales rank has climbed up to 330 on Amazon.com. The British co-authors specialize in the occult and historical mysteries. Contact book publicist Lisa M. Sciambra, 212-698-4665.

James Garlow is pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, Calif., and a co-author of the forthcoming Cracking The DaVinci Code: Separating Fact from Fiction (Victor Books, May). Peter Jones, professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, Calif., is the other author. Jones, who is also director of the ministry Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet, says the book defends the Christian faith and criticizes the novel's promotion of spiritual seeking through altered states of consciousness. Contact Garlow, 619-660-5000; Jones, 760-480-8474.

Background

DaVinci Code author Dan Brown is on a publicity hiatus and is working on his next novel, which will also feature the character of Harvard art scholar Robert Langford. Brown's web site includes book reviews and articles about the book. His publicist at Doubleday is Suzanne Herz, 212-782-9786, Sherz@randomhouse.com.

Time magazine explored the surging interest in Gnostic Gospels in a package of cover stories in November 2003.

Stories in Newsweek's Dec. 8, 2003, issue explore new scholarship on the role of women in Scripture and discuss what is fact and what is fiction in The DaVinci Code.

In a Sept. 1, 2003, essay in the Catholic magazine Crisis, writer Sandra Miesel criticizes at length inaccuracies in the book. Catholic commentator, sociologist, and novelist the Rev. Andrew Greeley reviewed the book Oct. 3 for the National Catholic Reporter, calling it deft but inaccurate. A June 6 Catholic News Service review calls the novel overwritten and overplotted.

Scholars of early Christian history have been revising their understanding of the role of Mary Magdalene as a follower of Jesus and agree that she was not a prostitute but a disciple. But there remains disagreement about her importance in early Christianity. Beliefnet summarizes contrasting views expressed by scholars Ben Witherington III and Karen King.

Read the text of the Gospel of Mary.

ABC News aired a television news special Nov. 3, 2003, about some of the book's ideas about Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Christian history.

In articles published Nov. 7 and Nov. 14, 2003, the evangelical magazine Christianity Today criticized The DaVinci Code's portrayal of early Christian history.


Worship Resources
By Chuck Cammarata

CALL TO WORSHIP -- Option 1 -- from Psalm 91

LEADER: Those who dwell in the shelter of the Most High

PEOPLE: Will rest in the shadow of the Almighty

LEADER: So, let us say of the Lord

PEOPLE: The Lord is our refuge

LEADER: And our fortress,

PEOPLE: Our God in whom we can trust.

LEADER: Come, let us worship the Lord.

PEOPLE: Amen.

CALL TO WORSHIP -- Option 2

LEADER: Creator,

PEOPLE: Almighty God,

LEADER: Righteous judge,

PEOPLE: Father,

LEADER: Abba,

PEOPLE: Papa,

LEADER: Merciful redeemer.

PEOPLE: Praise God.

LEADER: All that is within me

PEOPLE: Praise his holy name!

LEADER: Amen!

PEOPLE: Amen!

This week's confessional prayer is a narrative -- a story told that evokes our sin and the glory of God's forgiveness. There is a second option if this approach does not fit you or your situation.

PRAYER OF CONFESSION and ASSURANCE OF PARDON

Long had they been estranged. The daughter having taken a path she knew her father would not approve. So she moved away. Never answered his calls or returned his mail. She eradicated every evidence of him from her life. And then she heard that he was ill. Cancer. It was going to get him. She wanted not to care, but there was still something in her, some spark of love for him. So she went. At the hospital she hoped he'd be asleep. She would give him a little kiss on the forehead, say a prayer over him, and be gone.

But her plans went awry. When she saw him -- though the years and the cancer had despoiled his face -- she saw only the daddy who once held her near and sang sweet songs to her, and kissed goodnight. She took his hand and sat for hours by his bed.

And then -- when she'd just about given up all hope that he'd awaken, his eyes blinked open, "Ahh" he said, "My sweet Susan. I love you."

She wept. He died. But not before he spoke to her the words of her salvation.

We are often like her -- abandoning our Father. But he -- like her father -- is always ready to say -- I love you.

PRAYER OF CONFESSION - Option 2

LEADER: The Lilliputians restrained and controlled Gulliver just as the myriad trivialities of life restrain and control us.

PEOPLE: FATHER FORGIVE US

LEADER: For allowing our lives to be trivialized.

PEOPLE: FOR GETTING SO BOGGED DOWN IN THE SMALL THINGS

LEADER: That life's beauty,

PEOPLE: THE WONDER OF WORK

LEADER: The loveliness of loved ones

PEOPLE: THE MARVEL OF MARRIAGE

LEADER: The splendor of salvation

PEOPLE: THE GLORY OF GOD.

LEADER: Forgive us,

PEOPLE: AND SEND US OUT TODAY

LEADER: Unburdened,

PEOPLE: AND OPEN TO ALL THE FULLNESS OF LIFE

LEADER: Lived in Christ.

PEOPLE: AMEN.

PRAYER FOR ILLUMINATION

The temptation is to think that scripture has nothing new to say to us, to believe we have heard it all before, or even to hold to the idea that we just are not capable of truly understanding. But, we forget that the very spirit of God inhabits these words; that God can make them live: and that they can change our lives. Lord, allow us to hear you speaking now as we read the very word of God.

PASTORAL PRAYER

Temptation is all around all the time. Satan entices and persuades and lures us away from the ways and truths of God. "Did God really say you shouldn't touch any of the trees? Go ahead, you won't die."

Did God really say to love your enemies? That's ridiculous.

Did God really say that you should be content with what you have? Come on, who does it hurt if you cast an envious eye on the things others have? And why shouldn't you have more?

Did God really say that faithfulness in marriage is the right path? Go ahead, cheat. You know you want to. You know it will feel good.

Did God really say to be fair in your financial dealings with others? Go ahead, cheat. What's the big deal? They will never miss it.

O God, who wishes to guide us into all truth and beauty, teach us that your ways are intended for our best. Help us to not only understand them but to live them even in the face of constant pressure to follow other paths that often look good at the start, but lead only to destruction.

We ask it in the name of the one who spurned all temptation, Jesus Christ, Amen.

HYMNS AND SONGS

Is So Sweet to Trust in Jesus
Seek Ye First
At the Name of Jesus
Greater Is He That Is In Me
I Must Tell Jesus
I Need Thee Every Hour
Refiner's Fire -- a contemporary worship song
The Battle Belongs to the Lord
Humble Thyself In the Sight of the Lord -- a contemporary chorus

A couple of great contemporary songs that might be sung as special music are:

"Shifting Sand" by Caedmon's Call
"I Am Darkness; I Am Light" by Bruce Carroll


Children's Sermon
By Wes Runk
Luke 4:1-13

Text: "When the devil had finished every test, he departed from until an opportune time." (v. 13)

Object: A bag of garbage including some crushed aluminum cans, broken glass, some cigarette and cigar butts. Have these covered with a beautiful fabric and decorated with jewelry and flowers or plants.

Good morning, boys and girls. Today we are going to talk about the devil. Not a cute little thing dressed in a red suit that almost looks like a valentine or a clever fellow with a great sense of humor. No, we are going to talk about a fallen angel who wants to be your god and my god.

Under this gorgeous cloth that is decorated so beautifully is something very ugly. It is so ugly that we have to cover it because we want you to know how the devil works. The devil is never honest with you but tries to play with your mind. The devil tries to make very bad things look good. The devil is never a friend but always tries to make you believe that he will give you what you really want in ways that will make you very happy. Instead when we take away the beauty on the outside we will see his ugliness underneath the cover.

In other words, the devil may wear a beautiful suit or a gorgeous dress and have on makeup that covers all of the sores on his face and the blood on his hands, but he is ugly and someone to always stay away from when you know he is present.

The devil is in our gospel story today, and it talks about how he tries to trick Jesus into worshiping him. The devil wants Jesus to turn his back on the Father in heaven and on the Holy Spirit so Jesus can get some bread because he is hungry. The devil believes that he can trick Jesus into ruling the world or having people think he is not afraid of jumping off of buildings to get their attention. But Jesus knows how ugly the devil is and he refuses to fall for the devil's lies and hate. Instead he tells the devil to go away with his temptations.

The devil is a liar. The devil is mean and ugly. No one would really want to be friends with the devil but sometimes people are tricked by what they hear and by the false promises. They only see what they want to see. They see beautiful clothes made out of garments like this cloth, and they want to be friends with someone who looks rich. People love jewels and power, and if the only way they can have it is by cheating and following the devil, then they will do it.

But let's look under the jewels and the beautiful cloth and see how ugly the devil really is. The devil is not something special but instead made up of things like this. (take off the jewels and the cloth and let the children see the bag of garbage, and all of the other ugly things you have stacked on a table) This is what the devil really is like. Underneath he smells bad, talks bad, acts bad, tastes bad, and feels like trash. Is there anyone who wants to take home some of the devil? (let them answer) I don't think so.

Jesus sent the devil away saying that he was neither a friend of God or humans. Jesus also encourages us to not listen to the false promises of food, drink, power, and wealth. The devil is filled with sin, and he is ugly.

So the next time you see a very cute devil I want you to think about what the devil is really like and just walk up to him and say, "I love the Lord Jesus." When the devil hears those words he will turn and run from the truth. Amen.


**********

The Immediate Word, February 29, 2004, issue.

Copyright 2004 by CSS Publishing Company, Inc., Lima, Ohio.

All rights reserved. Subscribers to The Immediate Word service may print and use this material as it was intended in sermons and in worship and classroom settings only. No additional permission is required from the publisher for such use by subscribers only. Inquiries should be addressed to permissions@csspub.com or to Permissions, CSS Publishing Company, Inc., P.O. Box 4503, Lima, Ohio 45802-4503.