Clever Words
Sermon
I rather enjoy television courtroom dramas, such as "Kavanagh QC", partly because the goodies always win the day, usually at the last possible moment and when the odds are stacked high against them. The innocent victim accused of murder is always saved at the eleventh hour, entirely by the cleverness of the defence counsel.
I grew up after the war when patriotism was high, and so I grew up believing that British justice was the best in the world, and that the truth always conquered. But I'm no longer quite so naive. After high profile miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Five, I'm now inclined to believe that clever lawyers win their cases, but that the truth of those cases is a very hit and miss affair.
Only a day after Michael Stone was found guilty of that terrible murder of Lin Russell and her six-year-old daughter Megan, the Press raised serious doubts over the credibility of the chief prosecution witness, and the Crown Prosecution Service asked the police to investigate as a matter of urgency. After several years, Michael Stone has now been found guilty of the murder all over again, but very often when cases are reinvesitgated new evidence seems to come to light which entirely changes the original verdict.
I remember as a child having a Disney annual which had a picture of Goofy with the words, 'Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words can never harm me.' I thought at the time that it probably wasn't true. I also remember an old china inkwell, which had written round the base, 'The pen is mightier than the sword'. I think the inkwell was perhaps more accurate.
Words can be very powerful. They can be used for good, or they can be used as weapons, to injure and to maim, sometimes in hidden, manipulative ways. And words can be used very successfully to hide the truth and to hide from the truth. A clever speaker can persuade even an intelligent audience that wrong is right and can so inflame the more vulnerable, that they can be manipulated to do anything they're told. Part of the success of the Hitlers of this world, is their ability as orators.
The Sadducees in first century Judaism were clever speakers, well used to debate. They were the priestly aristocratic party, centred in Jerusalem. Unlike the Pharisees, who accepted the whole of the OT as scripture, the Sadducees accepted as scripture only the first five books (the Pentateuch) of the Old Testament. The Pharisees were marked by devotion to the law, both the written law, and the oral law - that which was passed down by word of mouth. The scribes, experts in the law, belonged predominantly to this Pharisaic group. But the Sadducees followed only the letter of the law. They were unconcerned about the spirit of the law. They rejected the oral legal traditions, sticking only to what was written down and they were opposed to teachings not found in the Pentateuch, such as the resurrection of the dead, which was a much later idea. So their religion was narrow and unyielding and unchangeable. There was no room for new ideas.
According to Luke's chronology, the chief priests and the scribes had already crossed swords with Jesus. He had driven out the money lenders and overturned the stalls in the temple, and accused the priests of allowing the temple to become a den of thieves, so understandably, Jesus wasn't popular with the religious authorities. Especially as after that episode, he regularly went to the temple to teach and to preach, to pass on his new ideas. And of course, people flocked to hear this new, exciting teaching.
The religious traditionalists tried every way to trip him up. They asked by what authority he was teaching and preaching, and he confounded them by asking them by what authority John the Baptist had baptised. They were stuck, for if they said John's authority was only human, the people would turn on them, but if they said it was God's authority, Jesus would ask why they didn't believe John. To add insult to injury, Jesus then told a story against the traditionalists, the story of the tenants in the vineyard who beat the servants sent to collect the harvest, and then murdered the son.
After that, the chief priests and the scribes set about finding ways to get rid of Jesus. First they tried the power of words. They tried to humiliate Jesus in arguments, using clever words to make him look stupid in front of the people. And when the chief priests and the scribes failed, the Sadducees waded in. It was something of an unholy alliance between different religious factions who were usually deeply opposed to each other.
The Sadducees tried to present an infallible argument proving there can't possibly be life after death. They used the old law, whereby if a man died, the next brother down took on the wife and children and cared for them. By taking the law to ridiculous extremes, they hoped to make Jesus look ridiculous, but they came unstuck, for Jesus didn't seem to realise they were jeering at him, and took their question seriously. He showed how limited their understanding was, for they didn't even understand that the next life is not as this life, but is a life of the spirit.
The Sadducees were using clever words to try to hide the truth, and to try to hide from the truth.
We've just begun an Alpha programme here in our parishes. It's a programme based on discussion, and will encourage us all to think perhaps more deeply about God and Christianity. And that's a good thing. Discussion and thought are good. But they're not the only things which are important. Emotion and intuition and sensing and feelings are important too.
Discussion shouldn't exclude emotion and intuition, and emotion and intuition shouldn't exclude discussion and reason. Those who want to be well-rounded in their Christianity should use all aspects in their search for truth, using discussion and reason to balance but not exclude emotion and intuition, and vice versa. It's too easy to use discussion and reason to hide from the truth which is felt at a much deeper level.
Anyone can use the Bible to prove that black is white. There are all sorts of contradictions in the Bible, if I look deeply enough and if I take verses out of context. But although it's easy to use the Bible to support my own claims if I should wish to do that, I wouldn't be reaching the truth. I would be hiding from the truth by the clever use of words.
It's the truth that counts, and reaching that truth requires work and openness. Work to assess what's being said and check it out, rather than relying solely on what a clever speaker says, and openness to God, for God acts within the deepest recesses of being. And if those two things are right, then we shall instinctively know the truth, however clever the arguments of those who try to prove the contrary.
I grew up after the war when patriotism was high, and so I grew up believing that British justice was the best in the world, and that the truth always conquered. But I'm no longer quite so naive. After high profile miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Five, I'm now inclined to believe that clever lawyers win their cases, but that the truth of those cases is a very hit and miss affair.
Only a day after Michael Stone was found guilty of that terrible murder of Lin Russell and her six-year-old daughter Megan, the Press raised serious doubts over the credibility of the chief prosecution witness, and the Crown Prosecution Service asked the police to investigate as a matter of urgency. After several years, Michael Stone has now been found guilty of the murder all over again, but very often when cases are reinvesitgated new evidence seems to come to light which entirely changes the original verdict.
I remember as a child having a Disney annual which had a picture of Goofy with the words, 'Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words can never harm me.' I thought at the time that it probably wasn't true. I also remember an old china inkwell, which had written round the base, 'The pen is mightier than the sword'. I think the inkwell was perhaps more accurate.
Words can be very powerful. They can be used for good, or they can be used as weapons, to injure and to maim, sometimes in hidden, manipulative ways. And words can be used very successfully to hide the truth and to hide from the truth. A clever speaker can persuade even an intelligent audience that wrong is right and can so inflame the more vulnerable, that they can be manipulated to do anything they're told. Part of the success of the Hitlers of this world, is their ability as orators.
The Sadducees in first century Judaism were clever speakers, well used to debate. They were the priestly aristocratic party, centred in Jerusalem. Unlike the Pharisees, who accepted the whole of the OT as scripture, the Sadducees accepted as scripture only the first five books (the Pentateuch) of the Old Testament. The Pharisees were marked by devotion to the law, both the written law, and the oral law - that which was passed down by word of mouth. The scribes, experts in the law, belonged predominantly to this Pharisaic group. But the Sadducees followed only the letter of the law. They were unconcerned about the spirit of the law. They rejected the oral legal traditions, sticking only to what was written down and they were opposed to teachings not found in the Pentateuch, such as the resurrection of the dead, which was a much later idea. So their religion was narrow and unyielding and unchangeable. There was no room for new ideas.
According to Luke's chronology, the chief priests and the scribes had already crossed swords with Jesus. He had driven out the money lenders and overturned the stalls in the temple, and accused the priests of allowing the temple to become a den of thieves, so understandably, Jesus wasn't popular with the religious authorities. Especially as after that episode, he regularly went to the temple to teach and to preach, to pass on his new ideas. And of course, people flocked to hear this new, exciting teaching.
The religious traditionalists tried every way to trip him up. They asked by what authority he was teaching and preaching, and he confounded them by asking them by what authority John the Baptist had baptised. They were stuck, for if they said John's authority was only human, the people would turn on them, but if they said it was God's authority, Jesus would ask why they didn't believe John. To add insult to injury, Jesus then told a story against the traditionalists, the story of the tenants in the vineyard who beat the servants sent to collect the harvest, and then murdered the son.
After that, the chief priests and the scribes set about finding ways to get rid of Jesus. First they tried the power of words. They tried to humiliate Jesus in arguments, using clever words to make him look stupid in front of the people. And when the chief priests and the scribes failed, the Sadducees waded in. It was something of an unholy alliance between different religious factions who were usually deeply opposed to each other.
The Sadducees tried to present an infallible argument proving there can't possibly be life after death. They used the old law, whereby if a man died, the next brother down took on the wife and children and cared for them. By taking the law to ridiculous extremes, they hoped to make Jesus look ridiculous, but they came unstuck, for Jesus didn't seem to realise they were jeering at him, and took their question seriously. He showed how limited their understanding was, for they didn't even understand that the next life is not as this life, but is a life of the spirit.
The Sadducees were using clever words to try to hide the truth, and to try to hide from the truth.
We've just begun an Alpha programme here in our parishes. It's a programme based on discussion, and will encourage us all to think perhaps more deeply about God and Christianity. And that's a good thing. Discussion and thought are good. But they're not the only things which are important. Emotion and intuition and sensing and feelings are important too.
Discussion shouldn't exclude emotion and intuition, and emotion and intuition shouldn't exclude discussion and reason. Those who want to be well-rounded in their Christianity should use all aspects in their search for truth, using discussion and reason to balance but not exclude emotion and intuition, and vice versa. It's too easy to use discussion and reason to hide from the truth which is felt at a much deeper level.
Anyone can use the Bible to prove that black is white. There are all sorts of contradictions in the Bible, if I look deeply enough and if I take verses out of context. But although it's easy to use the Bible to support my own claims if I should wish to do that, I wouldn't be reaching the truth. I would be hiding from the truth by the clever use of words.
It's the truth that counts, and reaching that truth requires work and openness. Work to assess what's being said and check it out, rather than relying solely on what a clever speaker says, and openness to God, for God acts within the deepest recesses of being. And if those two things are right, then we shall instinctively know the truth, however clever the arguments of those who try to prove the contrary.
