-or- "The Gospel for You"
So [Jesus] told them a parable: "Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.' Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."
In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Spock sacrifices his own life in order to save the starship Enterprise from obliteration. As Spock is dying from radiation poisoning, Kirk is distraught and asks why Spock did it. Spock responds with a now well-known quote: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one." The idea is that Spock's death is a small price to pay for the safety of the lives of the entire Enterprise crew. Ethically speaking, such an argument is compelling. We often, particularly in the West and particularly in the United States, strive for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But is this ethical mandate consistent with Christian ethics? Jesus' parable about the lost sheep (and the two subsequent parables about a lost coin and a lost son) seem to argue for an opposing value.
In the parable, the Shepherd leaves the many in order to tend to the needs of the one. And notice, that the Shepherd does not leave the 99 safe in a gated pen, but leaves them alone in the wilderness in order to go and find the one that went astray and got lost. Jesus begins the parable with a question: "Which one of you would not leave the 99 in the wilderness and go after the one?" Think about that. Would you leave 99 sheep vulnerable to the dangers of the wilderness in order to track down one lone sheep? If I were faced with the question, I would have to say no--I wouldn't risk the 99 for the sake of one. Economics and politics talk about acceptable risks and acceptable losses. Risking 99% of one's flock is not acceptable. Losing one out of a hundred is an acceptable--even an expected--loss.
But faith does not make calculations in such a way. For God, and thus for God's faithful people, no loss is an acceptable loss...and any risk to restore the one is an acceptable risk.
The irony found in the Star Trek movies is that while Spock's great sacrificial act lasts for a span of minutes, the story is turned around in the next movie, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, in which the Enterprise crew spends and entire feature length movie in the attempt to restore the one individual. The point of the third movie is much more human, and I argue, much more Christian. One individual is worth risking everything to save. In fact, the Enterprise herself is destroyed in the third movie, and all for the quest of bringing Spock back. And he is worth it. Star Trek III sticks out as one of the dullest and most often forgot movies in the whole franchise. Why? Because the quest for the one is less dramatic and less heroic than the quest to save the many.
Ours is a culture that thrives on the dramatic and revels in the heroic. We are a culture of numbers. Are we not much more impressed by the business that touts "Billions Served" instead of the small, local restaurant that serves the same crowd week to week? And how much more of a tragic impact is felt in an event that kills thousands compared to the murder of one--which event is called terrorism? Which event is more likely to cause change?
Even in our churches, we are obsessed with the dramatics of numbers. Who is satisfied with the one, when there are hundreds out there? Which church would not rather have hundreds in worship on Sunday instead of tens? And although many would rather have the great crowds in order "to make a bigger difference in the world" the desire is--at heart--selfish and self-serving. It is far more Christian to risk everything--even the life of the congregation--for one person in need. Our focus should and must be on the individual.
Now, perhaps you say to yourself, "But Jesus died on the cross for the many. One man sacrificed himself to save all people." One may look at it that way. Indeed, we remember Jesus' words in the night in which he was betrayed, that he took the cup of suffering and gave it for all to drink saying this is "shed for you and for all people for the forgiveness of sins" (emphasis added). But to understand the crucifixion in such a dramatic and heroic way is an misunderstanding.
Jesus did not die for the nameless masses. Instead, the emphasis must be put on the words "for you." Jesus died for one person: you. And he died for each of us individually. When we receive Jesus Christ week in and week out, we are reminded of this fact. What is repeated to us is not that God died for all people, but that Jesus' body and blood are given "for you."
Moreover, the crucifixion event is only about a sacrificial hero if you forget what happened afterward. Jesus--one man--was raised up to new life in the resurrection. God came down to save the one lamb that was snatched away by wolves. And not even death itself was able to deter the Shepherd from reclaiming the one Lamb. That is the gospel promise! When I go astray, God will come for me. When I die, God will come and resurrect me. A nation will not be restored, but a new kingdom (the Kingdom of God) will be established one-by-one.
And in our culture's mindset, we imagine that Jesus' motivation to be crucified was a heroic one. We might believe that when Jesus faced his cross, that he was thinking about the masses of people around the world--just as Spock was thinking about the crew of the Enterprise: that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one. But when we look at Jesus' struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before he died, we are given a much different motivation. At Gethsemane, Jesus is struggling with whether or not to go through the crucifixion. It is his last temptation to save himself. Ultimately, Jesus decides to face the cross, but why? A reason is given...but people--the crowds, the "all people" who will receive his body and blood--are not mentioned. Jesus doesn't go through with it in order to save the world. The idea of being the world's heroic savior does not factor into the decision at all. Instead, Jesus accepts the fate of the cross for one simple reason: it is God's will for him. The passionate love for God, who Jesus trusts will come for him, is what gives Jesus the strength to face a horrible death. It is not the ethical-dramatic thought of the masses, but the religious focus on his own relationship to God that gives him the faith and the will-power.
It takes great faith to risk the many for the sake of the one. It takes a joyful heart, indeed, to rejoice over one who is found, in a world that focuses on the accomplishment only of quantity.
But remember, God risked it all for you.
And in gratitude, we turn and risk it all for another.
Thanks be to God for that.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment