Are You Offended?

12^th Sunday after Pentecost Year B

John 6: 56-69

18^th March, 2007 
 

  Did you ever notice how children can be brutally honest? Don't ever ask a child her opinion if you aren't prepared for an honest answer. One of my children seems to start every second sentence with the phrase, “No offence…” Then he reels off the zinger, “No offence but you are having a really bad hair day…” “No offence but that shirt is really ugly.” Finally I had to have a little sit down and explain that prefacing comments with “no offence” doesn't give complete licence to say whatever you want; it doesn't guarantee that offence won't be taken.

  What offends you? Profanity in a movie? The spending habits of our politicians? Don Cherry? The extended finger of the driver you just cut off? We each have our limitations, the list of things that tick us off, that put us over the edge, that make us red with anger.

  In our gospel lesson today we see a Jesus that offends. In John's gospel chapter 6 begins with a meal. It is not an ordinary but a miraculous meal, a meal where Jesus feeds a crowd with a few fish and barley loaves. The people gorge themselves on the food provided, they eat their fill, and rest contented; duly impressed by anyone who can put on such a feast. But then Jesus confounds them.  As they are lolling about contentedly they hear him say; “I am the bread of life. Anyone who comes to me will never hunger.”  Is he offering more food? We're stuffed. We couldn't eat another thing. But then they hear something strange; did he just say he was the bread of life which came down from heaven?  Now the murmuring starts. Isn't this guy Joseph's son? We know his mother and father, they're nothing special.  How the heck could he come down from heaven? What's with this bread of heaven stuff?  Bread from heaven, a lot of good that is-we can't eat that!

     There is a frustration in Jesus voice as he continues, “No you don't get it.  The bread which I give you is my flesh, which is given that the world may have life.  If you are not eating my flesh, if you are not drinking my blood, then you have no life within you.     Now he has their attention.  Jesus is deliberately provocative here. His words are shocking.  Eat his flesh?  Did we hear right?  Did we just hear that? For Jews the drinking of blood was strictly forbidden by the law.  The phrase “flesh eater” was colloquial term for the devil. What's more Jesus' uses a crude form of the verb to eat, litteraly translated as “to chew”, to “gnaw” or to “eat audibly”. It is most often used when referring to cud chewing animals. My friends gnaw on my flesh!

     If Jesus had sympathizers in the crowd that day he lost them.  There were probably some that understood and appreciated the metaphor of “Bread from heaven.” But now Jesus had gone too far.  Was this man encouraging cannibalism? This was too concrete, too graphic, too repulsive to even consider. Even friends were offended. No one in their right mind would consider eating the flesh of another human being.  With a collective groan of disgust the crowd began to disperse. When he gave us all bread we thought he was alright.  But now? He should be arrested.

     Soon all that remained were his closest followers.  They too were troubled.  This teaching is difficult? Who can accept it? Verse 66 sadly reports that “after this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.” And chapter 7 begins ominously with the words; “After this Jesus went about in Galilee.  He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him.”

     Imagine hearing a sermon that made you so angry you wanted to kill the preacher.  Imagine being the preacher!

    We should note even some of his disciples, those closet to him, were offended. They begin to question Jesus, to grumble, to wonder if they can follow someone who is saying things that make so little sense to them. “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” they ask. Then, Jesus asks them, “Does this offend you?” Jesus goes on to say not that he's sorry for giving offense, but that if what he's saying now offends them, they're going to have an even harder time and be even more offended as time goes on. “What will you do,” he asks, “when you realize that I really have come from God? What will you do when you realize that I am really offering you what matters, but you don't want to accept it?”

The Greek word used in this passage for “offend” is skandalizo - where we get our word “scandalize” from today - and it means not only to give offence to but also to cause to stumble. You could rightly say that Jesus' message, his teachings, were considered scandalous to some of his audience, and certainly, his words even caused some to stumble from the life path they'd been traveling until they encountered him. As much as we might usually try to refrain from offending people, Jesus was pretty good at offending those who gathered to listen to him. Actually, if you think about it, Jesus could probably have started all of his sentences, all of his teachings, with “No offense, but…” because Jesus was so often saying something that caused anger, displeasure, resentment, or was an affront in his hearer. Think of it: “No offense, but you should really get rid of everything you have and give it to the poor.” “No offense, but it's easier for a camel to enter the eye of the needle than for a rich person to enter heaven.” “No offense, but woe to you Pharisees.” “No offense but turn the other cheek.” Jesus, frankly, wasn't particularly interested in whether he was causing offense or not. Not to say he didn't have great care for the people he was talking to. He had the utmost care for them. But because he cared for them, he preferred to speak truth to speaking what was pleasing. And so, instead of saying “no offense” to start his hard teachings, Jesus more often started them by saying, “Very truly I say to you” - Jesus wanted his hearers - wants us to know - that what he's saying, hard as it is to hear - is the truth. 

   We aren't used to people telling us truth. As we gear up for a potential spring election we may soon be bombarded with messages from politicians that will try to persuade us not that we should agree with their point of view, but that they already agree with our point of view. And I'm not criticizing - I think, despite bad raps, that there are politicians on all levels who honestly are seeking to do what's right for their communities and country. But in the end, to be elected, a politician has to appeal to the broadest base of people, while offending as few people as possible with their platforms. That makes a very fine line for politicians to walk. How can you avoid offending two or more groups of people who have very opposite views on things? Politicians may be leaders, but we hope that their leadership involves representing what we believe.

With Jesus, things are different. He's a leader, but a leader who sets forth what he believes, what is, and then seeks to persuade us to share his vision. But he won't compromise his vision, the truth he brings, just to win our support. Jesus' platform, his message, is the kingdom of God, eternal life. He won't offer us anything else, even if it costs him followers who aren't ready for what he's giving, even if he offends his very target audience.

   It is Peter's response to Jesus' question that I find particularly interesting. When Jesus asks if the twelve will leave him too, Peter doesn't say, “Oh no Jesus, we would never leave you!” He doesn't say, “of course not, we love you, we want to be with you, we won't abandon you!” What he says is probably much more honest and on target: “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” There is almost in Peter's reply a sense of resignation, as if he'd really rather there was a different way, really wishes he'd found another answer he could give. Peter essentially says that because the twelve believe Jesus to be the Holy One of God, because they believe that he has the words of eternal life, they don't have somewhere else to go anymore. They're bound to Jesus. If they believe him, believe what he says and teaches, what option do they have other than to stay with him, remain disciples, continue to follow him?

We, like the disciples, come to a time when we have to answer the same question - do we wish to remain disciples, or do we wish to go away and try something else, follow something or someone else? We can't ask Jesus to tone down his message. Every time we read the scripture the same challenging texts will be there, waiting for us. Jesus is interested in our discipleship, but not interested in making sure he doesn't ruffle our feathers. His teaching doesn't change to correspond to opinion polls. He doesn't propose that we follow him in part, or choose what we like best of what he says. Instead, he answers grumblings with another challenge: does this offend you? If so, you're in trouble, because you've only just begun to see what God can do.

But remember that Jesus may be uncompromising but he is an agent of grace. I don't think the disciples that stayed with him that day understood his words anymore than those that chose to leave. But they did discern that Jesus represented a truth that they did not yet fully perceive. They accepted that their lack of understanding did not mean that his words were wrong rather they seemed to accept that they would have to grow into their meaning by following.

  That is good news for us. To follow Jesus we don't have to have a full understanding of God, only a willingness to work on one. We don't have to agree with every teaching, we can be troubled by things, have doubts, even be offended and still follow. It goes without saying that no human being save Jesus himself has ever or will ever grasp fully all that God is. But that truth, that lack of total comprehension has not stopped men and women through the ages from following Jesus. It has often been lamented that science and the scientific method have given us many great gifts over the last few hundred years, but has also cultivated a reluctance to believe anything we cannot fully describe or quantify. While this is true in part, we need look no farther than this passage to see the shortcomings of the human imagination as a stumbling block to experiencing God is not a modern phenomenon. Those who left that day were saying in essence, “I don't understand this, therefore I cannot follow you.” But those who stayed said, “Even though this sounds strange, even though I don't fully understand, I trust you and that is good enough for now.”

  Like Peter, we may feel somewhat resigned. What else can we do? But like Peter, I hope our answer will be, if not enthusiastic, at least the same as his, “Where else could we go?” God offers us grace and unconditional love. In Christ we are offered God come as close to us as possible. Where else have you been offered living bread?

  With sadness in his voice Jesus asked his friends, “Do you also wish to go away?” And with quavering voices they answered, “Lord to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God. Amen.