Forbid or Deny?
Matthew 16:21-28
For those who think deeply about these things, Peter has always seemed to be an odd choice to be the leader of the disciples. In the gospels, he is often depicted as acting before he thinks – hardly a good quality for the leader of a visionary movement. We know that he was married – which seems an odd precedent for a church that values celibacy for its priests. And when things got tough, when “push came to shove,” we know that first, Peter drew a sword, and second, Peter denied even knowing Jesus three times before he ran away.
If we look at the other disciples, we might find a better choice than Peter to be the leader. We know that James and John owned a fishing business with their father, so they had managerial skills – which are important to have when dealing with personalities to get them to work together on common goals. We know that Andrew had a heart for the Gentiles – which is important if the movement is to ever expand beyond Israel. We know that Thomas was often the first to volunteer, even when the circumstances were challenging – which is important if leading by example is necessary for overcoming reluctance to take on the hard tasks. We know that Judas kept the money – which indicated record keeping skills and the willingness to assume a fiduciary responsibility.
Those are all skills and attributes that are valued today for our leaders, but I think they miss the point being made in our reading. As long as we continue to think that these are the most important qualities for leadership in the gospel movement, the church isgoing to struggle in the world.
Since we live in a world of list-makers, I came across a list of the top ten qualities for leaders. They include honesty, the ability to delegate, communication, a sense of humor, confidence, commitment, positive attitude, creativity, intuition, and the ability to inspire. But since each of the qualities exist on a continuum, most everybody can lay claim to having these qualities to some degree.
Peter likely had all of these qualities, but what I notice missing from this list is timeliness. It doesn’t matter if you are honest nearly all the time, if you deny Jesus at the time it matters most. It doesn’t matter how committed you think you are if, when things get tough, the sound of a rooster crowing sends you off in tears. It doesn’t matter how confident you are sitting around the table at the Last Supper in the Upper Room, if you go into hiding after the crucifixion.
Timeliness is a quality that is better illustrated with stories than with lists. I can think of two characters who, because of their timeliness, would be better candidates for pope than Simon Peter.
The first candidate is the dwarf Gimli Gloin, from the books and movies “The Lord of the Rings.” It is towards the end of the third book and movie when the hobbits Frodo and Sam face the impossible task of crossing the dark land of Mordor to get to Mount Doom, the only place where the One Ring can be unmade. The One Ring must be unmade to defeat the evil power of Sauron, who intends to enslave the race of humans.
Faced with this challenge, the inner circle of heroes, led by Gandalf and Aragon,discussed what options are left to them. Gandalf explains that ten-thousand Orcs now stand between Frodo and Mount Doom, and fears that Frodo and Sam will surely be captured and killed, ending their quest, and sealing the doom of all humanity. Aragon has a plan to distract the enemy in order to give Frodo and Sam the cover they need to complete their mission. This plan, however,likely means that they will be the ones who will be captured and killed.
It is at this point that Gimli says something that would make him a better choice for pope than Peter. Summing up the plan and their options, Gimli says to the heroes, “Certainty of death, small chance of success... What are we waiting for?”
The plan is carried out, the distraction works, Sauron is defeated, and they all live happily ever after. But it might not have happened if Gimli had not stood up at the right time, or if he had discouraged them by counting the cost to themselves as too great a cost to pay. If Gimli had turned against the plan, he would have been a stumbling block to going forward, and the story might have had a much different ending.
The second candidate who I think would make a better choice for pope than Peter is also named Peter: Dr. Peter Venkmann, played by Bill Murray, from the movie “Ghostbusters.” Early in the movie, Egon tells Peter that crossing the streams from their proton packs would be bad, since it would lead to “all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.” Yet, at the end of the movie, when Gozer the Destructor has emerged and the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man is stomping on the church, Egon suggests that the only way powerful enough to stop the evilfrom destroying life as they know it is to cross the streams.
Peter reminds Egon that he has warned them that crossing the streams was bad, since it would lead to their certain death. But Egon says, “There's definitely a very slim chance we'll survive.” As they think about this, the Ghostbusters look to Peter, who then says the right thing at the right time. He says, “I love this plan! I'm excited to be a part of it! LET'S DO IT!”
The streams were crossed, the gates of evil are closed, Gozer is defeated, and they all live happily ever after. But it might not have happened if Peter Venkmann had discouraged them in that moment by counting the cost to themselves as too great a cost to pay. If Peter had turned against the plan, he would have been a stumbling block to going forward, and the story might have had a much different ending.
For both Gimli Gloin and Peter Venkmann, the question facing them was, “What can be done about this evil confronting us?” It is a question that gets asked over and over again on life. The world has tried many answers to that question.
Among the more popular answers are these: You can shift the problem of evil to someone else – let them take care of it. You can compromise with evil to lessen its effect on you – it’s not ideal but it could be so much worse. You can embrace the evil and call it good – which is what people have done ever since Adam and Eve.
The last “solution” is one of the main reasons evil continues in this world. For example, it is evil to steal, but it is considered good to have more than others – and if stealing gets you more, then you steal to get more. Whether it is called theft, lobbying for your clients’ interests, or taking advantage of vulnerable people, we find ways to call stealing good.
It is evil to lie, but it is considered good to win – and if lying enables you to win, then you lie to win. Whether it is called half-truths, personal opinion, or politics as usual, we find ways to call lying good.
This kind of evil is so deeply entrenched in our culture that we justify it by claiming that it is our inescapable human nature – it is just who we are, and there is nothing that can be done to get rid of this kind of evil. We can try to limit the effects of evil, we can argue about choices that lead to the lesser of two evils, but deep down we think it is naïve to talk of doing good and being good, simply for the sake of good. We believe that there must be something in it for us, without it costing us too much, before the solution is any good to us.
That is one of the reasons stories like “The Lord of the Rings” and “Ghostbusters” are popular. The evil is revealed, the heroes selflessly confront the evil, the evil is defeated, and the people live happily ever after. We want the “happily ever after,” and we admire the sacrifice of our heroes. But we also know the cost is likely too high for most people to choose. So, we settle and compromise, hoping for life that is“happy enough.”
Jesus didn’t descend from heaven so that we could be “happy enough.” Jesus came into this world to redeem us from the power of sin, the manifestation of evil. Jesus came to restore us to the life abundant with God Almighty, the life intended from the very beginning. He came to bring the kingdom of God, the reign of God, on earth as it is in heaven.
To that end, Jesus came teaching and preaching the love of God. He came performing miracles and casting out demons. He came to welcome the stranger and the sojourner, the lost and the lonely, the unclean and the outcast. And Jesus was gathering followers to this good way of life, but he was also attracting attention from those who had compromised with evil.
Jesus showed us what it means to be truly human. To be fully human is not about compromising with evil, and benefiting from evil, but about loving our neighbors and loving God, our Great Benefactor. Jesus also knew it would take an act of God to defeat sin and death so that we can also be fully human, as God intends us to be.
That is why, in our reading, “Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” This is the act of God, the great personal sacrifice of Jesus. This is the plan which can defeat evil and win the victory for the people. This is the plan that carries with it the certainty of Jesus’ death, and the exceptionally small chance that there can be a resurrection, but it is the only way for the evil to be defeated, and for the people to finally, eternally, have a way to live “happily ever after.”
And how does Peter, the one chosen by Jesus to be the head of the church, respond to this plan? He pulls Jesus to one side and says, “This is a terrible plan. God forbid that anything as terrible as this plan ever takes place. We need the elders and priests and scribes to be on our side – that’s the plan we need to be working on. Your plan costs too much if it requires your death. You can’t be the messiah on the earth if you are dead and in the earth. And while you may have the power to get Lazarus out of the tomb, who is it that has the power to get you out of the tomb? It certainly is not me!”
Peter is the stumbling block to the plan of God. He is the stumbling block because he believes, like most of the world, that power resides in the ability to say “no.” He believes leadership means being in the position to forbid the actions of others. He believes it is having the authority to stop something with these magic words: “Because I said so.” Peter is the stumbling block because he thinks he can even say “no” to God, and God will have to obey him.
Jesus’ reply to Peter indicates that there is a power in saying “no,” but that this “no” must be directed at ourselves. We are to deny ourselves, and take up our crosses. We are to deny our power, so that we can be moved by the power of God. We are to deny our will, so that we can do the will of God. We are to deny our vision of our kingdom, so that we can fulfill the vision of God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.
Peter needed to hear Jesus say what Gimli Gloin and Peter Venkmann intrinsically knew, that “those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.” It is a lesson that we still need to hear today, if we are to have any hope at all in living as disciples of Jesus Christ. It is a lesson we need to take to heart, if the evil is to be defeated and the kingdom of God is to come in its entirety.
This is the plan of Jesus Christ for his disciples. Certainty of death, only one chance of success –so what are we waiting for? Let’s get excited to be part of this plan! Let’s do it! Let’s go to dark Gethsemane, to the right time to see Jesus fulfill the plan for our salvation, so that we can share the good news and help bring the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven!
UMH 290 “Go to Dark Gethsemane”