IEE
as of ‘ [ i ;

y Almighty ted Elemal Soe ‘fn cole & omnipetent, @love ef/ and +n el we
aise 2Ad ae e : — < St-WUucss tha

i omeuwe eur ho Vzate art
oe Mee ~ put are Ov Wega , oad we sail. duit thu oe
wt large teat Cucomnpass hee. We tah reed: hae =A * > Se ay

vate reseuce
a we grorse Maan Uoku ovr yotees, ovr muds our atlas vrs ust do wot
Fetend Yoo knew We fot. Rotter wre Gomer we Nounlt - bowlu
\sve. Hea Out Tiyety OUT Fotber fake “p our aert of Wworslip ~
ancdnt, ry witty hy Ugly Spirsh — ued ib wou Be plein y 7~
ea siqu’ ‘ ~ereng ecu 65 —-— gol Lerd.

Now les v= We Ness ‘wr ahh Ss L \nes hens “Kar oO a Vs
QE ite toa 7 Moarys whi
Avo a Keon =i hase 2 Wick, Lowe weowt

Cruvare oF sor weds Wwe Vo ie hauls, We. arc ratefoj,
oer Sour tor food aud Ghetter, - we qivovuudauce ad Wine,
\nony come bo cal necaseity, Lu Kioulk Hee Gr al toot tues Ove
Kues te) * Gs lour aurd Fri ouds Lip t for Ku ans oud errows
oft our \stre. Ue eee Se our eter, a al\

Sosa WA Va ™M fee ia Yay (grse ~ rouse dee Cael,

ret ye Aor gence - lot vs_ gray < bees Ola wile at
aL. “aot SEL wa Pray fer Peace Gang a Wu Cnoféwe Yt
we Week wet alwoys ackiewk pe. = eames Witt ovr wily bos Our

(ours,

kunrorvledne ony he tow yw h Waa Cor tealize ee look Ld
Mua pry Gr armeh Fras Ge Anse ater ULL opgare ~ for Sie
es pe Gicktues, Che pray é~ ae (0 veo a a Deuce a ——

eux J.C, or Lord.
bet ox grey Sor auidaug dirded. Tow) ues. - S. lott,

i) flaw wha ort wilh vs ays — Me Colin cecst « fru wut

a eish jn ovr Qivstiduads: Ghee oe Ye anraye

Rav or Key voll , z* WEN us in all un do Melo
“Ss da \ru Wen Nhrok are Heckun 1 Serttfoul wat ow ts
os Rr. — hoo ms gueld ~ why fawn Wt lus disciples

|

Bread of Life March 20, 1966 John 6: 1-15
L
ne o ct!

The portion of scripture I have just read is admittedly in the four

gospels. There aren't many sermons preached from thés text - and I discovered

in reading this week that even the scholarly commentaries do little more

than assure the student th#t this is a difficult nut to crack \ 16" an

important Story: in fact it's the only miracle story that is included in
all four gospel accounts. And so even though our initial reaction sent

nN east
desire to ignore we ne because of it's sheer weight in the gospel
record, Nag

A ral
le ye id Aas

This story, and many others Like it, is difficult for us to eenbrenens

-£

because we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of the miraculous.

Granted, we use the word "miraculous" rather frequently, in regard to the

healing of a “sick child - or an escape from what appeared to be inevitable

physical injury, We say "it's a miracle he's alive" and what we ususally
mean is that what happened was improbable and exceptional and unexpected -
but by no means impossible. The physical laws of nature as far as we

understand them were not dreken or violated \ But this is not so with our

Sereda retmerae

scripture lesson this morning | It's a long way between a person near death,

Sorerwenn teacnoe

responding to treatment and re tarwing to health, and the multiplication of

si ‘

five loaves and two fishes into enough food to accomodate 5,000 men.\ We have

oe Ae een an ee ee
\

all experienced the former or something similar at some time or another, but

pees eect tee eet manne nt er a

I would hayard the guess thah no one hef@ has ever experienced anything of
remotdly like the latter/

The miracles of Jesus fall into two categories, roughly; the bealings

: eer eee cra trannra ane —

and the nature miracles.\ Walking on the water, turning the water into

Wine and the feeding of 5,000 are illustrations of the latter: They are

i

1

laws of the natural world. aed they could not happen: they are, in

—

our frame of reference = ets impossible .\ And yet they stand _in the Biblécal

\
account, in this case, as an important part of the Gospael tradtion.. And

———— meee mete ran eee

so if we are to render eben a semblence of integrity to the tradition we

can't just ignore the story | Something happened, something important enough

i

to find it's way into all four Gospels.

There are four different approaches we can take to this particular

passage | The first is the apppoach of literalism- that is, that the account

is literally true: \that Jesus took these small scraps of fodd and made

them @4nto enough te literally feed 5,000 people .\ There are many problems

—— \

—

here and the first is that many of us simply can't believe that | furthermore

we don't believe that the miraculous, in this sense, is the way God has

shown himself to be working in his world. 4 But the most serious problem

of all with this approach, is that having brought ourselves to beleive it

we are left with a miracle-~worker and little else .\there is, of course,

mow here that that:\ the passage has more to say to us than that Jesus was

capable of breaking the laws of nature whenever he desired.

Ce

The second approach is to regard the entire story as myth, something

\
fabricated by Mark and copied by the other writers.\ It is to say that nothing

happened at all, and that the story was incorporated into Christian literature

in order to persuade people that Jesus was the Divine Sqn of God: The _

obvious problem here is that it calls into question everything in the Bbble

including the very existence of Jesus: somehhing that even the most hostile

\
eritic of the faith cannot do. \Critical historical scholars are now admitting

——.

the the events of the Old Testament, without exception are rooted in some

1

great historical event that can be traced, \pre Bible, while not pretneding
A
to be a historical chronicle, nevertheless is grounded in tangibte experiences
\
which did happen, \In short, without throwing the entire Bible out the window

we have to come to the minimum conelusion that somethigg did happen, something

very important.

page 3.

The third approagh is to try to understand and explain the story logicaly

Many have tried to do this: \One scholar suggests that Jesus and the disciples

4

\
cut the fish and bread into extremely tiny pieces, and that the crowd was
filled vicariously by this example of unselfish love,

Another suggests that mahy people in the crowd did have food concealed

poche

under their robes and were moved to reveal and Share it by Jesus example.

In the case of walking on the water the same approach would Suggest that

ne
— ae

there were stones immmdiately beneath the surface which Supported Jesus

While he walked. \1 personally reject this apporach because it is based on pues

ener:

conjecture, and in that again, it guides us away from the essential meaning

ee

\
the miracles took place hhat the truly important questions of why and what
S@ they mean are never asked.
The fourth approach , and the one I would recommand to you,ought to be

emerging at this ponht.\In a sense it could be called an "unapproach" because

i]
it begins with the admission that we don't know wha happened. we ipa:
ne ANn wed ef

ae

there--neither was the man who wrote the 4th gospel--in fact be never wrote
—— . a 1

anything down until 70 years after the crucifixion, \rt is an approach
\

based on integrity. \It admits doubt; \it admits that our minds don't adapt

i”
to the thought of 2 fishes and 5 loaves becoming enough food to satisfy
‘ pistes
5,000. \ But mostimportantly it remains open to this story, continuing to

\

examine, discuss and think abut it, because it assumes that there is something

there that we need to hear. \ It is an open-minded, intellectually honest

approach, within the conviction that the Bible is the word of God, and that
God does address his people by means of it.

/ I want to emphasize this because there are those today who would make

belief in the Bible a matter of Christian eovneceey. nay would make of the

\ a

saree

4,

Bible an inerrant historical record, absolutely correct in every respect.
— Mondreds cf cd
They would turn back the clock 200 years to the pre scientific era, when

4

Biblical faith was not threatened by the laboratory discovery.’

\

harmfully, they are saying that a Christian must have faith in the Bible--

But most

the same kind of faith that he has in God through Jesus Christ.

The U.P.C., of course, does not take this stand, and yet it has been

my experience that many of us still linger on the fringe of fundamentalism.

Secretly we admire the person who can believe that the fish swallowed

Jonah and that Adam and Eve actually walked around a garden in the Euphrates

valley 4,684 years ago. \ We think it is somehow more Christian to believe
\ TE a aa is i
that creation took seven 24 hr. days instad of 7 billion years., Even

k seven | ek hr, days instad of 7 billion ye:

though we don't abide by it personally, we believe that a Christian

must put bling faith in the Bible. :
\
To all of this, the approach I am suggesting says an emphatig_NO. (In

fact, it's about time U.Presby. stop acting like second-rate Christians

and aggressively pursue what we blieve is the correct approach to the Bible,

‘
We belieYe it is the word of God;\God uses it to address us when we read
in“t@e faith. \ It is not, and never was intended to be a wordl almanac,
\ . ix
4a book of history, a scientific text book; and to make it such is to do

violence to its word and intent--as well as to shut out the voice of God which

tt renee tec peg

might be speaking to us through he

Now, employing this approach let's return to the passage in question,
We don't know what happened; all we do know is that something transpired that
had significant meaning for the early Christians--and that can have a
Similarly significant meaning for us.

It is clear, within this context then, that Jesus Christ is here por-

——__

Brayed as a man who provides a very necessary ingredient to the life of man.

cathe ‘

In fact he did, at another time, say (1 am the bread of life 4 \ ross is
what the gospel writers continually say about him; that true life_is just

as impossible without Jesus Christ, as it is without food.

Be
That is the audacious claim of Christianity, and today it is more
difficult to make that claim affé ctively and faithfully than at any other

RN

time history. \ We live today in what has been called a "secular society"

That means that we livd in a cultureand society that is basically
Resa i

unre1igious; | the religious props have been pulled out from under our

culture and man suddenly finds himself alone in the universe. \ the process
~ et,

————

of secularization began long ago during the enlightenment when men of

reason first began to seriously doubt the claims of Roman Catholic Christn.

Until that ime the entirety of life was infused with the presence es

val

fi

“is i
Shdistianity. \ Theology was regarded as the "geen of the sciences; "Jart_

ee

‘\ Once the basic assumptionso
\ ———__.

of this comfortable situation were questioned, however, the entire structure

\
began to crumble. | And today we live in a culture that has little room

and music dealt solely with religious themes.

\ \
for God. | As a people we don't seriously believe that God has anything to

ee

do with our affairs. | The N.T. might contend that J.C. is the bread of

\
life but at the same time we can look around us and see the bast ma joirty

{
of people doing quite well without hin. \ We live in @ secular world;| a—wortd
that—seems—to—do-very—welt apart-from-weligion as-a=cuiturstforee.| Now
4
Indeed the seculari-

this is not a Judgement, only a statement of fact.} “\
fortes 4
zation of culture has cede: Christianity be honest ;\ it has forced the church

y
to define precisely what it wmnnay A has made it impossible to rely on

the assumption that everyone will believe it simply because 2 priest or a
i
minister says it. \ It has put us on the spot when we make a statement like

(seem Christ is the bread of lite")for the world we live in quite frankly,

is saying "put up or shutup."
Our text indicates that Jesus was followed by a great_crowd;\that he

fed them and they were filled. In what sense can we say that about ourselves?

In what sense can we honestly say that Jesus Christ provides an essential ings
A 4,

ingredient to our Ligs ? our relationship with him is a fulfilling

Se en eet

satisfying thing upon which we a Sd completely dependent?

6.

The Gospel writers based their message on the assumption that natural

man, man as he is, secular man, is only part of what he could be. | In a

‘
\ The well-
\ —~

‘
known parable of the prodigal son is a good case in peta.) The younger son,

manner of speaking, apart from God, he is only half a man.

you will remember wanted to be free from his dppendence on his pacha ee

wanted to be released from the strictures of the father-son relationship.

And so he claimed his part of the inheritance and left his father's house

‘
to go to a far country.\ There he wasted his money and ,sank to the depths

\
of degradation.\ Life apart from his father was not what he thought it would

1

ee

1
reduced him to 4 Srteeend of the man he was and could be. \| And then "he came
— @6§€ OO a in

to himself" and réturned to his father's house; where true freedom; true
\

life--fulfilling, satisfying life could be found. a father accepted

te.

him back,

1
This is what the Christian faith assumes about us and all hint We long

Hm ce he ee

to be independent; we seek freedom from dependence on anyone, anything.1

We Want to leave the father's house and live apart from him--masters of

aa

our own sepetea | ae things do not work out for us either, \ The prodigal

tn,

son encount4red disaster; he lost his money and was forced to resort to

el
en —

apart from God, is not necessarily so dramatically vivid. y= seculariza-

tion of our culture, has taught us that physical well-being is never related

to religious faith. Infact, it-is generally conceded in the world of

big business that a strongly Christian man does not have the potential to

reach the very top. Ané= yet \We are no longer in a position to coy (oerteve

in Jesus Christ or eat easing it simply isn't true.

a
How then, can we believe that Jesus Christ is the breadof ire? | Lf
we have no tangible proof--on what basis can We make this radial ciste
All that we have--and all that is important--is our own experience--our

own feeling-knowledge of what it is to be a child of God--to know the lowt

and judgement and Presence of God in our lives; to know that we are in--

a father-son relationship with him from whom we came--and to whom we will
ultimately eo. \ ar we have is the common stuff of our own lives--and the
awareness that we are living out our lives in God's sight and in line with

his will.

It is impossible to pursue this much further without becoming intnesely
—>———— eee

personnal--and—thi+s—t—must ao) I don't care to think about my life--my work

ee,

my experiences with my family--my recreastion and enjoyment apart from

\
the assurance that God cares;\that my deepest anxieties are his concerns;

ee

that what I do matters to him. \to me, and I am certain that I speak for many

others--this knowledge this feeling experiencing thing that I can't escape

is the bread of saan | Now, I know many people who live apart from this;

people who are completely secular, in that the very thought of Godhas

nothing whatever to do with their lives.\ They're doing well; they will

ey

Succeed they will be happy And yet there is something missing and more

—— ——

often than not they know it, There will be filenty of money, vacations,

a measure of e@fluence; but almost invariably there comes a time--in

— See

\
middlelage when the terrifying thought occurs that this is dale | I'm going to @
~~. TT

die- ant I've probably lived more than half my life alreay--and whatever

there is about it I've already experienced it. \ Sooner or later--everyman
s

“findshimself eyeball to eyeball with his destiny and the total meaning of
i

his life and discovereg that, all things considered it doesn't add up to

very much,

I'm the last person in the World to say that at this point all a man
* ‘ Cn ens

has to do is to run back to the Church, \ put little Sock in easy, pipous

ee