Did He Jump Or Was He Pushed?
Sermon
As you all know, Terry Waite, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy from 1980, was involved in negotiations to secure the release of hostages held in the Middle East. Between 1982 and the end of 1986, 14 hostages, for whom he was interceding, were released. But he himself was kidnapped in Beirut in January 1987 while involved in secret negotiations to win the release of hostages held in Lebanon, and he wasn't released until November 1991.
Terry Waite pulled off some brilliant coups. Perhaps nobody else could have managed to secure the release of those 14 hostages. So it's not too surprising that he went back to Beirut in 1987 at that very dangerous time, to continue his work and to try his utmost to secure the release of further hostages.
At the time, the then Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Runcie, came in for quite a lot of flack. Why did he allow his envoy to be placed in such danger? asked the media. Why wasn't Terry Waite stopped? Why wasn't the mission aborted? Anyone could see what was going to happen! And so on.
As I recall, Lord Runcie shouldered the blame and said very little in his own defence. It was years later, when Terry Waite was safely home and the Archbishop had retired, that a little more of the truth emerged. It seems the Archbishop did everything in his power to prevent his envoy returning to Beirut at that particular time. But short of handcuffs, there was no way Terry Waite could be stopped. He seemed bent on a headlong rush towards probable disaster.
So if the Archbishop didn't send Terry Waite, why did he go? Why this overriding passion to rush into danger? Was he a stubbornly determined man who was going his own way at all costs, with total disregard for his own safety and for the feelings of those close to him, or was he sent by God?
Did he jump, or was he pushed?
When I have an overwhelming desire to do something which appears utterly stupid to everyone else, am I responding to God, or am I simply following my own rather selfish whims? And how can I tell the difference?
Why did Jesus ignore the warning about Herod wanting to kill him? Why did he turn his face towards Jerusalem and almost certain disaster? Was he responding to God, or merely following his own whims? Did he jump, or was he pushed?
The fact that it was some Pharisees who came to Jesus specifically to deliver this warning, seems to me to give the warning even greater credence. Through the gospels, we're led to believe the Pharisees were sworn enemies of Jesus. They're the people who repeatedly were condemned and denounced by him, for their hypocrisy in an outward show of religiosity which never reached the heart, and for their rigid and callous interpretation of the law.
Yet here are Pharisees who were clearly in the know, had the ear of high places, and who were so concerned for Jesus' safety that they came especially to him, to warn him to get out while he could. And they probably came at some cost to themselves and their own personal safety. I can't imagine it would have been a popular move, had Herod discovered what they were about.
So it would seem not all Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. Some, like Nicodemus, must have been secret followers. And that's perhaps what we should expect, for the Pharisees were the religious traditionalists of their time, just as we're the religious traditionalists of our time. On the whole, they were good, upright, spiritual people, although some of them were clearly misguided. But some would undoubtedly have perceived that Jesus was special, somebody who was close to God.
But Jesus doesn't even thank them for their efforts. His scorn for Herod is clear in his reply - "that fox" - and that scorn almost seems to include the messengers, these Pharisees who appear to be at least closet followers of Jesus and who took the trouble to come to him. It's almost as though Jesus is tarring everyone with the same brush. Unless this is a gloss added later by the compiler of the gospel.
Jesus' reply to the Pharisees was: "Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem."
That's such a cryptic reply. It's extremely difficult to understand with the benefit of hindsight, after the cross and resurrection. It must surely have been complete gobbledegook to those Pharisees, prior to the cross and resurrection.
And the language Jesus uses seems full of ultimates. "I must go on my way." He seems so set on his chosen course at this point. There seems no room for manoeuvre, no space for weighing up the pros and cons.
And the reason he gives isn't that it's God's will he should go to Jerusalem, but that he's choosing to go to the religious centre aware that he's likely to be executed there, and is almost seeking out martyrdom: "..it cannot be," he says, "that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem."
Why was Jesus so determined to plunge to almost certain death? Why didn't he take the sensible route? Why didn't he withdraw from the obvious danger for a while, continuing his ministry in the country, healing and teaching and leading people to God, while things cooled down? Perhaps then posterity would have had years more ministry from him, and he would have died very fulfilled at a ripe old age.
I wonder whether Jesus was afraid of abusing power. His temptations in the wilderness were all about the abuse of power - changing the stones to bread, taking earthly political and military power, and throwing himself off the temple without injury. He resisted those temptations in the wilderness, but usually, temptations don't just disappear, they often continue to haunt throughout life, perhaps in subtly different forms. Maybe Jesus was haunted by the dread of abusing his great powers, and so he deliberately put himself into a situation where he would be stripped of all those powers, and handed over into the power of others.
Perhaps it was a huge temptation to him to turn away from Jerusalem and hostility and death, and to go back to a quiet and pleasant life in the country. His angry reaction to anyone who ventures to suggest he should turn away from his chosen course, suggests that he was indeed, tempted. When he tells the disciples at Caesarea Philippi that he'll be killed and Peter remonstrates with him, he says to Peter, his great friend: "Get behind me, Satan!" (Mark 8:33)
Every time we recite the Lord's Prayer, we ask God not to lead us into temptation. But it may be, that if God is really to keep us away from temptation, he must encourage us or thrust us into situations which we find terrifying and dangerous. Perhaps that's why Jesus went to Jerusalem. Perhaps that's why Terry Waite went back to Beirut.
Most of us don't experience physically dangerous situations. But it's so tempting to sheer away from and avoid situations which are terrifying and dangerous in other ways. Like, daring to be totally honest in relationships. Risking anger and hurt by telling people what you really think, rather than what you think they want to hear.
So when I have an overwhelming desire to do something which appears utterly stupid to everyone else, am I responding to God? I think perhaps I might be, especially if I'm strongly tempted not to do the stupid thing, but to take the easy, safe and comfortable route.
Christianity which is lived as it should be lived, is seldom comfortable. So next time I pray: "Lead us not into temptation", I'm going to think very carefully about the implications of what I'm saying.
Terry Waite pulled off some brilliant coups. Perhaps nobody else could have managed to secure the release of those 14 hostages. So it's not too surprising that he went back to Beirut in 1987 at that very dangerous time, to continue his work and to try his utmost to secure the release of further hostages.
At the time, the then Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Runcie, came in for quite a lot of flack. Why did he allow his envoy to be placed in such danger? asked the media. Why wasn't Terry Waite stopped? Why wasn't the mission aborted? Anyone could see what was going to happen! And so on.
As I recall, Lord Runcie shouldered the blame and said very little in his own defence. It was years later, when Terry Waite was safely home and the Archbishop had retired, that a little more of the truth emerged. It seems the Archbishop did everything in his power to prevent his envoy returning to Beirut at that particular time. But short of handcuffs, there was no way Terry Waite could be stopped. He seemed bent on a headlong rush towards probable disaster.
So if the Archbishop didn't send Terry Waite, why did he go? Why this overriding passion to rush into danger? Was he a stubbornly determined man who was going his own way at all costs, with total disregard for his own safety and for the feelings of those close to him, or was he sent by God?
Did he jump, or was he pushed?
When I have an overwhelming desire to do something which appears utterly stupid to everyone else, am I responding to God, or am I simply following my own rather selfish whims? And how can I tell the difference?
Why did Jesus ignore the warning about Herod wanting to kill him? Why did he turn his face towards Jerusalem and almost certain disaster? Was he responding to God, or merely following his own whims? Did he jump, or was he pushed?
The fact that it was some Pharisees who came to Jesus specifically to deliver this warning, seems to me to give the warning even greater credence. Through the gospels, we're led to believe the Pharisees were sworn enemies of Jesus. They're the people who repeatedly were condemned and denounced by him, for their hypocrisy in an outward show of religiosity which never reached the heart, and for their rigid and callous interpretation of the law.
Yet here are Pharisees who were clearly in the know, had the ear of high places, and who were so concerned for Jesus' safety that they came especially to him, to warn him to get out while he could. And they probably came at some cost to themselves and their own personal safety. I can't imagine it would have been a popular move, had Herod discovered what they were about.
So it would seem not all Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. Some, like Nicodemus, must have been secret followers. And that's perhaps what we should expect, for the Pharisees were the religious traditionalists of their time, just as we're the religious traditionalists of our time. On the whole, they were good, upright, spiritual people, although some of them were clearly misguided. But some would undoubtedly have perceived that Jesus was special, somebody who was close to God.
But Jesus doesn't even thank them for their efforts. His scorn for Herod is clear in his reply - "that fox" - and that scorn almost seems to include the messengers, these Pharisees who appear to be at least closet followers of Jesus and who took the trouble to come to him. It's almost as though Jesus is tarring everyone with the same brush. Unless this is a gloss added later by the compiler of the gospel.
Jesus' reply to the Pharisees was: "Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem."
That's such a cryptic reply. It's extremely difficult to understand with the benefit of hindsight, after the cross and resurrection. It must surely have been complete gobbledegook to those Pharisees, prior to the cross and resurrection.
And the language Jesus uses seems full of ultimates. "I must go on my way." He seems so set on his chosen course at this point. There seems no room for manoeuvre, no space for weighing up the pros and cons.
And the reason he gives isn't that it's God's will he should go to Jerusalem, but that he's choosing to go to the religious centre aware that he's likely to be executed there, and is almost seeking out martyrdom: "..it cannot be," he says, "that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem."
Why was Jesus so determined to plunge to almost certain death? Why didn't he take the sensible route? Why didn't he withdraw from the obvious danger for a while, continuing his ministry in the country, healing and teaching and leading people to God, while things cooled down? Perhaps then posterity would have had years more ministry from him, and he would have died very fulfilled at a ripe old age.
I wonder whether Jesus was afraid of abusing power. His temptations in the wilderness were all about the abuse of power - changing the stones to bread, taking earthly political and military power, and throwing himself off the temple without injury. He resisted those temptations in the wilderness, but usually, temptations don't just disappear, they often continue to haunt throughout life, perhaps in subtly different forms. Maybe Jesus was haunted by the dread of abusing his great powers, and so he deliberately put himself into a situation where he would be stripped of all those powers, and handed over into the power of others.
Perhaps it was a huge temptation to him to turn away from Jerusalem and hostility and death, and to go back to a quiet and pleasant life in the country. His angry reaction to anyone who ventures to suggest he should turn away from his chosen course, suggests that he was indeed, tempted. When he tells the disciples at Caesarea Philippi that he'll be killed and Peter remonstrates with him, he says to Peter, his great friend: "Get behind me, Satan!" (Mark 8:33)
Every time we recite the Lord's Prayer, we ask God not to lead us into temptation. But it may be, that if God is really to keep us away from temptation, he must encourage us or thrust us into situations which we find terrifying and dangerous. Perhaps that's why Jesus went to Jerusalem. Perhaps that's why Terry Waite went back to Beirut.
Most of us don't experience physically dangerous situations. But it's so tempting to sheer away from and avoid situations which are terrifying and dangerous in other ways. Like, daring to be totally honest in relationships. Risking anger and hurt by telling people what you really think, rather than what you think they want to hear.
So when I have an overwhelming desire to do something which appears utterly stupid to everyone else, am I responding to God? I think perhaps I might be, especially if I'm strongly tempted not to do the stupid thing, but to take the easy, safe and comfortable route.
Christianity which is lived as it should be lived, is seldom comfortable. So next time I pray: "Lead us not into temptation", I'm going to think very carefully about the implications of what I'm saying.
