Trust Isn't Always Easy

In 1979 the members of Monty Python looked to make a new movie. They had just found success with a mocking satire of King Arthur. Now they thought, what if they did a parody of another king? How about the king of kings? Jesus. If King Arthur offered good material, there must be even more with Jesus.

Yet, as the comedians did the research for the satire of Jesus, they came to see he was not really a comedic figure.  Ironic, parabolic, witty, yes, but not so much an easy target of jokes, punch lines. He's not a slip-on-the-banana-peel sort of guy. Just when they thought they would abandon the project, an idea came.  Jesus is not funny, but the people who follow Jesus can be quite a hoot.  What if we created a character people mistook for Jesus and made fun of how gullible we are?  We take religion very seriously and whenever things get serious, people do wacky things.  They could make a movie about the religious habits and foibles of those around Jesus.  Hence, do not mock Jesus per se, just those who might be around him. Subtle.  Yes.  I can see it.

              The Church of England couldn’t see it; they didn’t get the joke.  Neither did the nation of Norway.  They banned the “Life of Brian”.  Norway!  As you can imagine this caused an uproar and the uproar made the film wildly successful.  Many more people watched it because the Church of England took issue, claiming, the subtle distinction, was not distinct enough.  The movie was blasphemous and shameful, offensive.

              There is a famous interview where the actor John Cleese is defending his film.  On a talk show there is a bishop and a leader of the church mocking and ridiculing the movie as 10^th rate, they called it.  Cleese for his part suggested many sermons he endured as a student were 10^th rate.  The banter was back and forth and very British.  The interview is quite engaging as you see people trying to defend the honor of the church by disparaging people.  The church cannot be mocked, but they can certainly mock others.  The anger and disdain arising from being offended was all too clear to see. Cleese crossed a line, and they were there to put him in his place. No matter what rate the film was, it was offensive.

              Forty-five years later, it would be hard to imagine this causing much of a dust up.  Not all religions can be mocked today, but the idea that a Protestant church would be bothered by satire is unlikely.  I remembered the movie and the controversy this week because of something Jesus says in our reading and how offensive it must have been.  In a strange way, too, how people today might take offense not with how religion is mocked in “The Life of Brian”, but how they might be upset by the way the Roman Empire is praised in the film. 

Jesus may not have been very funny, but he was quite often offensive.  He said and did things for which people got upset, were offended.  In fact, our reading today is the first of four “offensive” moments in a row.  This is the first of four pericopes where Luke accounts for an offensive moment in the life of Jesus.  It is as if Luke is doing a miny seminar or reflection on what it means to be offended by Jesus.

In the first of the four readings the scandalous words and deeds of Jesus hinge on Rome.  The slave of a Roman centurion is ill.  Local religious leaders petition Jesus to help him.  That Jesus agrees should have ruffled some feathers.  How is it that the messiah to the people of Judah is inclined to restore a slave who serves the occupiers, the invaders, the pagan Romans?  Seems like a slap in the face.  Jesus seems to be helping the enemy, helping the oppressors instead of the oppressed.

Then, as if that were not enough, Jesus says of the Roman Centurion, this is the man of greatest faith in Israel.  The Centurion is a military leader, a man who enforces taxes, puts down rebellion, executes those who disturb the peace of Rome. In this second instance Jesus seems to cross the line from being blind to human need (it doesn’t matter the man who suffers serves Rome, he is a human being) he crosses over from any sense of pain is pain, to praising a Roman centurion, making him an example to follow. He is the greatest.  Should have caused pause at least.

There is a famous, funny scene in “The Life of Brian” where the rebels, the zealots are conspiring against the Roman empire and acknowledging how terrible Rome is, how they hate the Romans, but then it dawns on the angry group, Rome has done some good things, too.  One of them asks, “What has Rome ever done for us?”  One shy zealot suggests, “there are the aqueducts.”  Another says sanitation.  Others chime in: education, medicine, irrigation, “and don't forget the roads.  The roads are very nice.”  After each example all nod and concur.  We hate the Romans, sure, but they have done some pretty good things, too.

It would not be a stretch for this to be offensive today.  In our new orthodoxy of correct historical views such moderation is heretical.  Romans, empire, occupation: bad.  No good should ever be offered to counter the verdict: Rome was evil. It is as if all things which come from Rome, all things that rest on this common denominator have no enduring value, no goodness, because they are sullied and tainted. 

The latest generation of pastors have been taught this historical perspective.  Rome is bad.  And from such conviction, they believe the gospels were a kind of anti-Roman, anti-empire treatment. The gospels were a protest of Rome, a subversive swing. The kingdom of God is a rejection of all-things-Rome.  When I hear this historical perspective, I must confess, I feel like the zealots in the movie, “don’t forget the roads.” I am nervous about the reductive and easy answers quality of historical views today.  

Now, granted, I am not suggesting that Nazis marching in Charlottesville are good people on one side of a debate.  Unlike the proposed curriculum for Florida students, I am not inclined to suggest there were benefits to slavery.  No.  But I am just as unconvinced that Rome as evil is a good way of seeing things.  I know I am heading into offensive views, but I am pretty sure the Jesus is rejecting broad categories, how they offer a false comfort, a lazy sense of justice. Being offended, taking offence doesn't get you anywhere good.

If Jesus intended to denounce Rome, he never got around to it.  "Give to Caesar what's Caesar's" is not a denunciation.  Jesus will denounce the scribes and pharisees, he will dismiss Herod as a fox, but he doesn't speak like the zealots, "hate the Romans." The Roman centurion as the man of greatest faith in Israel? Easy to see the possibility of offence.

Jesus does renounce things.  He challenges the abuse of power, speaks against greed, refuses to condone our violence; lots of teachings about anger and hatred and lust and how they poison us.  It is not as if Jesus is indifferent to injustice, he just doesn't give easy answers, the answers we reach when offended.  He speaks like the rabbis saying, “the rain falls on the just and the unjust.”  Justice is complex, ironic, unlikely to fit in our categories of shame. Jesus never offers justice as a simple solution or categorical denial, “hate the Romans.”

It is quite common when I share the direction of Jesus, don't be angry, when I share this teaching people get mad.  People take offence.  How could life be lived without anger?  Impossible.  How ridiculous of me to say such a thing. 

When John the Baptist took offence at the way Jesus lived, Jesus told the followers of John, he said, "tell him, the lame walk, the blind see, the hungry are fed, the poor hear the good news, and blessed are those who are not offended in me."  Jesus wasn't living as John thought he should live, and the Baptist was upset, he was offended.  He lost faith in Jesus. 

In this exchange Kierkegaard saw a great truth.  He saw how the opposite of faith is not doubt; the opposite of faith is offence.  When we are offended, when our noses are bent, and feathers are ruffled, when we are in a snit, in our offence and upon high horses we stop trusting people.  If someone offends us, we feel compelled to cancel them, to denounce them, to shame them.  This one is not longer to be trusted. Don't treat them as a good person.  They are bad, offensive.  When we are offended, we lose faith in people, and faith in people is trust.

Blessed is the one who is not offended in me.

I struggle today with how often the opposite is true.  Real character, real integrity is found by taking offence.  Being offended, being angry and denouncing others as shameful, this has become a blessing.  Blessed are the offended.

It is never good idea to live the opposite of what Jesus taught.  Blessed are the offended?  Not good.  It is so easy to get offended; it is so hard to trust, especially once offended.  It is as if we need to keep our disdain alive as a proof of someone being wrong. 

I believe this: Offence leads to destruction; trust leads to freedom.  Destruction is easy; freedom is hard to come by.

The gospel writers don't depict the Romans as a force for good.  The empire is not an agent of peace no matter the claim of pax romana. People oppress people. Truthfully, though, they are silent for the most part.

What if Jesus had been silent?  Asked to help the centurion what if he says, shame on you, I won't be a part of this.  The religious leaders asked Jesus to help.  Jesus could have said, you are all corrupt, you are evil.  I am here to be bring freedom to the oppressed, not aid and abet the enemy. He could have shamed the religious leaders.  You sell your soul for a new synagogue? 

This sort of speech would be welcomed today.  This is speaking up, speaking out.  No compromise. Why would Jesus help the Centurion?  Why not speak against them? 

We could take offense at the silence of Jesus, not denouncing Rome; like many of his day we could take offence at his praise of the centurion, calling him great. People in his day must have thought, why does the messiah praise such a man, how is that possible? In this offense they lose trust, faith in Jesus.  How could such a one say such a thing and be the son of God?   

How much easier it would be to follow Jesus if he said, fight fire with fire, don't put up with any wrong, condemn all who oppose you.  Not hard to trust such impulses. 

Trusting Jesus, not taking offence, is never easy.

Jesus said, love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High.  He said, bless those who curse you.

              This is hard to trust.  This is hard to believe. How can anyone live like this?  It's not always easy to trust.

              Taking offence?  Not hard.  No one challenges the offended today lest you are the next target.

              Hate the Romans.  But I do like the roads. 

              Blessed are those who do not fall to offence for they have chosen the path leading to freedom and wisdom.  Amen.