Romans 10:5-15
Matthew 14:22-33
How would you complete the sentence, “Ignorance is...”? Would you say, “Bliss”? I think that most would. It is similar to the saying “Ignore it and it’ll go away.” Kind of like our pet dog, Scamp from when I was a boy. She was hit by a car once which crushed a leg. That required repeated surgeries and followup visits to the veterinarian. The vet hospital was near our home in Takoma Park right at the corner of an intersection that we travelled quite frequently. So, it got to the point that anytime we were driving toward that intersection and Scamp was in the car, as we approached she’d literally turn her whole body so that her back was toward the hospital and she couldn’t even look at it. I guess in her mind, it worked most of the time.
But, is ignorance really bliss? If we ignore it, will it really go away? One questions the wisdom of either statement. Ignorance is ignorance; lack of awareness; or--worse-avoiding reality. So, to the extent that being unaware, dull, and out of touch with reality is bliss, then maybe ignorance is bliss.
This notion of ignorance occurred to me, not from what’s in any of our texts for today. Rather it’s from what the Revised Common Lectionary has us ignore. Notice how for several weeks the Epistle lesson has been following a verse-by-verse track through Romans 8 and then the first 5 verses of chapter 9. Then notice the gap between last week’s lesson and today. We’ve dropped a whole chapter!
I wondered, “Is that by accident or by design? Are we being encouraged to ignore something?” The portion left out is Paul’s involved discussion and argument on Israel’s election. He quotes scripture to argue about the justice of God’s choosing to elect and to condemn strictly on the basis of God’s choice to do so. More precisely, much of Paul’s argument depends on his midrash--rabbinic-style interpretation and elaboration--of the Old Testament texts about Israel’s election and God’s faithfulness to Israel. So, the chapter left out of our lectionary cycle constitutes the heart of that pesky notion of predestination! Instead of that pesky text, today’s lesson is not at all jarring, with its reassuring ending, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
But by ignoring that chapter and the discomfort it causes, does the pesky text go away? Is ignorance bliss? Why do we struggle so with this section of Romans, yet the rest of Romans has so thoroughly shaped and defined Protestant identity, theology, values, and practice? I think a big part of the problem is that most of us approach the Bible--both the inspiring as well as troubling passages--more like Latin scientists than Hebrew rabbis.
By Latin science I mean the historical, social, and cultural quest that pretty much captures the triumphs of the Enlightenment and contemporary science. It’s a quest for precision of language in what we say about reality. The goal is to achieve unequivocal meanings in our descriptions of reality and our explanations of how things really are. The most elegant construction of scientific language is the mathematical equation.
Don’t get me wrong, would any of us really belittle this quest? I don’t think so. At a very basic social level we operate by its dictum, “Say what you mean and mean what you say.” And of course, our expectation is that what I say and what I mean is clear to you and means precisely the same to you as it does to me. But this quest for clarity and precision in meaning can leave us with limited options. When confronted with a statement or proposition, if we can’t agree with it we feel we have to reject it or ignore it. So, we struggle with Paul’s propositions.
Hebrew, on the other hand, is not oriented to precision of thought and dissection of language. The Hebrew language comes to life, and is literally constructed from, action and experience. Hebrew is poetry to Latin’s precision. It is story to Latin’s formula. And rabbis seek no equations. Rabbis debate. Rabbis argue. They argue because the text is always multi-layered. They argue because the texts that talk of God cannot define God; rather they describe human encounters with God. God is mystery. Rabbinic literary tradition is alive with argument and debate, point and counterpoint. And the goal isn’t to bring about resolution, but simply to preserve all the voices.
So, I think we should approach Paul. Paul is more rabbi that scientist; more Hebrew than Latin. He interprets. He posits. He debates. He postulates. But his voice needs a counter voice. His point needs a counterpoint. In fact, others in the New Testament do refer to the elect or the predestined. But none go where Paul took it. It is a fact that some of the Old Testament texts on which Paul focuses in Romans are used by others like James or Matthew to argue in a different direction. For example, If one reads Paul’s argument of righteousness and faith from the biblical example of Abraham alongside James’s same subject from the same biblical example one readily sees James and Paul in debate about the meaning of those texts.
Or take Matthew. Matthew has Jesus in a kind of rabbinic dispute on the Sermon on the Mount. He declares that anyone who minimizes the requirements of Torah will be considered least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh, they’ll be there in the Kingdom, not just in a very honored position! Now read Paul’s understanding of the minimal importance of Torah for Christians. Can we not hear an implied debate with Paul going on? Matthew even refers several times to the elect. But, as one finds in the rest of the Bible, it is a general and vague reference to the household of faith and of God’s faithfulness to them. In other words, it’s a generic reference to Israel, and by extension the church.
So, what are we to make of this gap between last week’s and today’s lessons? Just ignoring it doesn’t really help. Instead, I think that Paul’s writings need neither trouble nor tax us on this point. We should remember from last week that we in the United Church of Christ have already raised the challenge to Paul’s premise that Israel is accursed if it doesn’t accept Jesus. So, we might be more inclined to see Paul’s discussion as his rational attempt to hold in tension competing views that don’t need to be in competition in the first place. Instead what we have here is one inspired teacher’s efforts to wrestle with a seismic shift in his world. It reveals his attempt to make sense of the scriptures’ testimony to God’s faithfulness. Only, he’s having to figure out how to make sense of God’s faithfulness to God’s people when his notion of what “God’s people” means is now ripped wide open to include Gentiles.
Nevertheless, Paul, in concert with the chorus of New Testament witnesses, works through his dilemma to his affirmation, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” That is a lively refrain that we hear joyously announced throughout the New Testament. Ironically, the Gospel lesson presents a fitting conclusion. As Peter steps into the sea of mystery he steps out of the boat all alone. And he sinks. But he calls out, “Lord, save me.” And, true to Paul’s assurance, Jesus saves him and restores Peter to the company of disciples in the boat who are already safe in the company of Jesus. And they are worshipping Jesus.
No single meaning, no single passage, no single leader, no single author, no single voice of the New Testament has the true, complete and final picture. No single Christian can figure it out on his or her own. We need communion.
Ignorance is not bliss. Humility is grace. Perseverance in understanding the faithfulness of God is salvation.
Amen.