I've been spending time in the Sermon on the Mount for the past few weeks, partly because I'm teaching on this in a small group and a Sunday morning community, and partly because I've been challenged personally by this Sermon.
I'm now in chapter 6, which opens with a discussion on "acts of righteousness." Other ways of saying this might be helpful: spiritual disciplines, or the Wesleyan vocabulary of means of grace. There are three "acts of righteousness" specifically mentioned: giving (specifically to the poor), prayer, and fasting. These acts are clearly separated from the next session on money and the Kingdom because these three acts carry a common construction formula: "when you...do not be like the hypocrites who..." and then "your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
The hypocrites are the antithesis of the disciples behavior in this prayer. The disciples are told specifically three times to not be like them. I'm ok with this statement, after all who wants to be a hypocrite, right? The problem is that when I think of a hypocrite I usually think of someone who says one thing but actually does another. An example would be someone who says to give, but then actually does not give; or someone who says to pray, but then actually does not pray; or someone who says to fast, but actually does not fast. In this sense, I can get behind why we are not supposed to be like the hypocrites. This is the classic argument of why some don't get involved in the church.
An interesting twist on the hypocrites though is that this is not their role. They are not the people who say one thing and then do the opposite. The hypocrites here are people who actually do the action they say they are doing, they just say it a bit too much. This is where I start to get confused. What is hypocritical about saying you give as long as you actually give? So here is what that tells me, the virtue in these "acts of righteousness," lets use giving for instance, is not giving, but the secrecy in giving. Jesus is not so interested in the fact that someone gave. In fact, he seems to say that if you go around boasting, then you shouldn't have even given. That is crazy to me because I would think naturally that the virtue is the giving. As long as someone gave, then we are good. Afterall the poor still received their food. I hear this from time to time when people say to me "I guess I could give to the church, but its not like I make very much. Asbury has people who make 7 or 8 figures, what is my tithe in relation to that?" If you are asking that question then you are radically missing the point, at least according to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is not interested in the effectiveness of the gift; Jesus is interested in faithfulness. The effect gift is the hypocrites, who give a lot, and then tell of their great generosity. The faithful gift is the gift that is probably not nearly as much but done in a way that doesn't point back to the giver. Jesus would rather have less money if it was secret.
I don't think this is to say that the virtue here is secrecy, but rather the motivation behind the act is everything. And this is in totally keeping with chapter 5, adultery is lust in the heart (motivation), murder is what happens in the heart (motivation). Chapter 5 concluded with these words, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." In other words, be like God in our heart, which will show up in the way that you practice your acts of righteousness/spiritual disciplines/means of grace.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment