Mark 10:35-45
"And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him, and said to him, 'Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.'"
It's not only astounding to me that James and John would make such a statement like that; but, also, where do they come off with such an air of entitlement? How do they justify in their heads saying such a thing to Jesus?
It's a double headed dragon kind of statement. One head of the dragon is that they certainly believed enough in Jesus' power that He can do anything and everything. They certainly believed that Jesus was more than just some guy with a Napoleon complex.
But the other head of the dragon is James and John have no idea who Jesus is and what Jesus is about. Have they not been paying attention? They are well into a couple of years following Jesus around. Yet they have totally misrepresented who Jesus is and what Jesus' teaching and ministry is about by making their demand of him.
We shouldn't be hard on the two disciples, though, should we? Why should we not be hard on James and John? Because it's pretty much the way most of us approach God. "God, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you."
"We don't want you to ask any questions, God--just do what we ask."
"Don't challenge our thinking about what we ask, God--just do it."
"No matter how lame or self-centered our request is, God, we want you to make it happen."
"Even though our requests make us seem like a bunch of entitled whiners, God, we expect you will jump to fulfill our every desire."
I would really have liked to know what Jesus was thinking, when James and John spoke their selfish request. We know how the other disciples felt. Their response would have been my response: They were "indignant." And the other disciples were not "indignant" in their own minds about it. Mark wrote, "When the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John." Notice that little preposition in there, "at." They put some kind of action behind their indignant thoughts.
In one respect, based on the American Way, we may not see what's wrong with what James and John requested. From an early age we are taught to dream big, to strive hard to make something of ourselves, to not be satisfied with the lower rungs of the proverbial ladder of success, but to climb higher, to claw ourselves as near to the top as possible. What's wrong with that kind of ambition.
Isn't it drummed into us to rise above the level of others? To not be mediocre but to be great. "You can be something great!" is the message. To be a leader. To have authority and power. Who aspires to be average? We figure there's something wrong with someone who gets on the corporate ladder and then decides the lower rungs are just fine and doesn't try to climb any higher.
Maybe that's how James and John thought. They saw nothing wrong with their request. They didn't want to hang around with the other disciples who were satisfied with just loitering at the base of the ladder. James and John had their sights on higher things. They had the dream of, "Some day when I'm at the top..."
Former Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller was one of those kinds of people who wanted to be great. And once he got close to that top wrung of the ladder of success, he let people see it. During one late night flight back to Washington from making a political speech in California, Rockefeller made a phone call. His aides thought the call was something important, since it was made to someone in the Federal Government.
But what Rockefeller had done was call to tell someone he wanted the lights turned on at Mt. Rushmore. A few minutes later when they were close, the private jet flew down for a private viewing of the monument, circling it a couple of times and then continuing on their journey. One of Rockefeller's aides commented, "After that, I always figured the guy was immortal."
Notice that last comment. Isn't that what James and John are aspiring to--immortality? The top wrung? To not just be obeyed, or admired, but worshipped? There might be something in us that holds us back from the desire to be worshipped, but we'd sure like others to be in awe of our greatness, our power, our position, our God-likeness.
The sin of the Garden of Eden was the sin of the desire for that kind of power. Adam and Eve wanted to be more, to have more, to know more than was their due or was their right or was their station as human beings. They were tempted to "be like God." That is what they were reaching for and attempting to grasp. It was more than just the fruit they were reaching for.
When Muhammad Ali was in his prime as the world boxing champion, he was in a plane that was readying for take off. The stewardess reminded him to fasten his seat belt. He brashly retorted, "Superman don't need no seat belt."
To which the stewardess quickly shot back at him, "Superman don't need no airplane either." Taken down a notch, Ali fastened his seat belt.
The sin of power is the yearning, or the desire caused by self-delusion, to be more than we were ever created to be.
Jesus had to remind James and John of that fact. Notice he didn't just make his comments to James and John, but to all the disciples. Let me remind you of what Jesus said:
You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.
To do what Jesus is asking appears to be giving up, giving in, going back to the first wrung of the ladder of success-intentionally—and staying there willfully. It appears to be just so much nonsense, to we upwardly mobile people.
It is, in fact, humility. Humility is what Jesus is asking of his followers. Humility is even a fake virtue of the upwardly mobile, but it is never practiced.
Humility is one of those qualities that no one ever wants to say they have, because they are afraid if they do, they aren’t being humble any more. So I think we need to try to understand what humility is, so we can start making these characteristics part of who we are, and so fulfill the will of the Lord.
Basically, humility is power under control. Nothing is more dangerous than power under the control of arrogance. That becomes false humility, always contesting itself against all other humilities.
Like the member of a religious monastery who was asked what his order stood for. “Humility, the monk said in a word. Then he added, “At humility, we’re the best in the world.”
Power under the discipline of humility is teachable. As the world in our time seen so many know-it-alls? And all of them have a blog and are on the internet. It may not be that they know it all, but that they think what they know is more important, or better, than what anyone else knows.
The man who helped design the power system at Niagra Falls was Nikola Tesla. Tesla was recommended by a mutual friend to work with inventor Thomas Edison. Tesla was not awed by the great Edison. On more than one occasion, Tesla disagreed with Edison, trying to prove him wrong. After Tesla had been working with Edison for a number of months, the mutual friend asked Edison, “Is Tesla as good as I said he was?”
“Better,” was Edison’s grudging reply. “He’s as good as he says he is.”
Power under the control of humility is teachable not arrogant.
Also, power under the control of humility is self-limiting. This is probably one of the hardest of the characteristics of humility to hear. With all the drums of pop-psychology banging away at the themes of self-actualization, self-fulfillment, and self-determination, we don’t want to hear the word, “self-limitation.”
Just look at the history of the progression of our magazine titles. We started out with Time. That’s pretty wide ranging. And then on to Life. Not much is bigger than life. Then the scope of magazines after that starts narrowing. First, there was “People.” After that came, “Us.” And finally, we come the center of the universe with “Self.” Self Magazine. I’ll bet there aren’t any articles in there about self-limitation.
Think about how everything Jesus did was self-limiting. God in the flesh was born in a stable. He spent his ministry amongst the insignificant people of his day. He died between two thieves on a hill for outcasts. Yet Jesus is the pivot point of history. The year of his birth is the turning point of the calendar system. He is the most insignificantly, significant figure in the history of the world. Jesus is what power looks like in the control of humble self-limitation.
Tied in with this thought is that power under the control of humility means vulnerability. The symbols of Godly power are the manger and the cross. It is power unrecognized as power. It looks like weakness.
Therefore, and I know this is hard to understand because it goes against all the ways and values of upward mobility, God’s power under the control of humility leads from weakness. Such a style of leadership and living goes in direct contradiction to the society led by the strong and forceful. And look where that’s gotten us. As you watch the presidential debates, both Republican and Democrat, see if there is anything you can identify as Jesus’ humble power.
Do you want some power. You will find it in Jesus in it’s most potent form. All you have to do is be teachable under the guidance and authority of God. Be self-limiting to the point of being a slave. Be completely vulnerable in light of the manger and the cross. Lead from weakness. Be humble.
No comments:
Post a Comment