The Problem of Religion Bethany Presbytcrian Church
John 2:12-—22 John M. Buchanan, liinister

February 9, 1969

Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that a great deal of the
content of the New Testament has to do with conflict. Because we don't like
it - conflict in general, and conflict in the church specifically - wo condition
ourselves to ignore it, cover it up, hide it; furiously trying to convince
ouxselves that all things religious must be serene and peaceful. We do so,
of course, only at the risk of fundamentally altering the New Testamont —

@ project we are willing to undertake for the grand cause of avoiding conflict.

Whether we like it or not, the conflict that runs through the Cospel
narrative, is largely between Jesus and religion; that is, institutional re-
ligion in the form of the established power structure of first century Judaism.
What is worse, Jesus, himself precipitated the conflict. The Pharisccs and
Sadducees didn't go to him looking for trouble. Quite the reverse is ‘ono.

Ie brought it to them: he was the aggressor: he threw down the kind of arrogant
ultimatum they could not ignore.

The incident itself is very familiar. In Matthew, Mark and LUke
it occurs during the last week of his life, just prior to his arrest and
crucifixion. In John — the account read this morning - the incident is at
the boginning of his public ministry. Jesus went to Jerusalem for ‘the
Passover celebration, and when he arrived at the Temple he discovered a very
bisarve scene. The outer court was filled with the clamour of the market
place. Money changers competed with hawkers of sacrificial birds. Bulls,
lambs, pigeons were for sale. His vresponse was immediate. Fashioning a
whip from some cords, he forcefully, violently ejected the entrepenours
from their place of business, overturning their tables in the process.

We con only imagine the chaos; animals running loose, salesmen scurrying
after their stock and rolling coins; we can only imagine the initial
suxprise which must immediately have become resentment and their hatred.

That is the incident I would like to have us think about thic morning.
And while the rough details are still in your mind, and before we look at it
more closely, I would direct your attention back to the present tense — our
situation: the problem of religion today.

One part of the problem is that we are nearing the saturation
point. In his excellent study, "The New Shape of American Religion",

Hartin Marty documents the fantastic rise in religious interest in this
nation since World War II. The evidence is all about us. We can't ovort
get the Cotton Bowl game underway without a public tip of the hat in the
direction of heaven. People who would never think of reading the Bible

to their children, or setting a foot inside the Church, raise their voices
in pious protest because the Supreme Court has said that the states can't
sponsor Bible reading and prayer as part of public education.

There is a continuing interest in religion in our culture. It
seoms that about half of thepersonalities on the Joe Pyne Show are in some
way related to religion. As a topic of discussion, religion is a tricd and
true method of captivating an audience.

Religion continues to be very acceptable. The plaque in the
Narthex symbolizing the Barmen Confession is testimony to the fact that
in the not-too-distant-past, Chritian faith was not at all acceptable
to the political power structure in one culture, at least. But in Ancrica,
besides being a father and a veteran, a prospective politician can do no
better for himself than salt his oratory with Biblical quotes.

i + oe |

re

Religion contunues to be interesting, socially acceptable and vouy popu-
ler. Zor many people, it is "the thing to do.“ Church membership is xclp-
ful economically and professionally. The statistical climb has levellod off
a bit, but still, far more people indicate some relationship to the Ciuxcch, or
at least some recognition of the existence of a supreme being, than in ony
other nation in the world. Religion is interesting, acceptable and popular.

[ho trouble is that "interest in” religion is not at all the sanc ‘Yuing
as Chsiotvian Faith. "Interest" is a rather limp word to use in refounnce to
soeting so ultimate as religion. One gets the imporession that tho “'onple
money chongers would have been very interested in religion. But it woo the
late GC. S. Lewis who put it best when he wrote: "....religious people -U2a%t
is, poople when they are being religious—~are not interested in religion. Men
who heve gods worship those gods; it is the spectators who describe “in os
intozest in religion.... The moment 8 man seriously accepts a deity “ic
‘intevest’ in religion is at an end. He's got something else to thin!: chout.'
(Pune, July 9, 1965--used by Marty). In other words, it's one thing to be
intellocturally curious about religion; it's another thing entirely %o bo reli-
gioucl; committed to Jesus Christ.

Religion is acceptable, and the trouble with this one is that broad
acceptability is purchased at the price of particularity. To be broodly
accopied religion cannot afford to get particular about anything.

‘Ime, when we talk about the religiosity of the American people, we must
use the vaguest, most general terms available. Everyone believes in God:~-
put the minute you try to say something specific about that God, you're in
troublo. And so Religion chooses not to. Platitudes serve for theologz; piety
sezvon in place of devotion. Jesus Christ becomes a friend instead o: ao Lord,
ond Cod Almighty becomes a benevolent father who really isn't too conco:ned
with now life is lived.

Religion is popular and that popularity depends directly on no one be~
coming, offended. What that means is that the Church has to somehow convorm
to ‘ae individual's political, social and economic creed--and if it Cocmn'%;
if it challenges one of these; if it directly involves itself in a couce oF
moveriont contrary to the creed of the individual—-the Church, it is asnumed, is
thowefoze doing something it ought not to do.

eve, then, the great tragedy, The Church, because it is a human institu-
tion—-because it rather enjoys being popular and acceptable and the o2jocot of
interest, chooses to reflectthis phenomenon called religion, rather toon
Christian Faith.

More is, after all, a great gap between the New Testament and ti.5 goes
on incide the Church. Church people resent very much being remindod o2 “at
unitinc fact. And yet it is true that the institution which bears tho nano of
all mon continues to be one of the most racially segregated and economically
stratified institutions in the whole of society. The Church lost thousends of
monbozs and millions of dollars because it dared to suggest that racial justice
is o legitimate concern and a great cause. And while it was being so ‘amiliated
by people who somehow still called themselves Christians, the photoguap: vent out
to all the world—-of the governing board turning a Black worshipper cicy.

tthe Church now ranks fourth in the category of private building cons txruc-
tion. ‘nd yet when a minister in this community told his people that soverty
is a problem they must solve in the name of JesusChrist, he was callec <
Communist.

Tst¢ all a little confusing really. The gap can be called hypoceziny; but
more io the point, I believe, it is merely a reflection of religion. The Churth,
far too often, chooses to be an institution of religion rather than vo sorvan t
people of God. That's the problem of religion.

oa te

Low let's return to the New Testament. As I mentioned before, “1c
author of the fourth Gospel placed the incident of the cleansing of ‘he
Temple at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. The other threo Cospols
pliacc it at the end. It is apparent, then, that the Gospel of John, written
perhaps seventy years after the fact, uses this event to preface the story
of Jesus Christ. This sets the stage. This conflict-situation introduces
what is to follow. The reader is warned, here, to look for the conflict as
it keene emerging throughout the story.

Listorians have shed some very helpful light on what was going on “tat
day ai the Temple. (The following information from Wm. Barclay, Tho iind of
Jesus, Ch. 19, p. 187-192)

livery adult, male Jew had to pay an annual Temple tax of half a
shelel. To put that into perspective, it amounted to almost two days‘
wages. ‘he tax could be paid at ‘certain times and places, but one mon un
before the Passover it could be paid only at the Temple itself.

nen he came to the Temple to pay his half-shekel, he found a sorics of
courts. ‘The first was the Court of the Gentiles into which men of all nations
wore volcome. It was here that booths were set up to collect the tax. Dut
the toss could be paid only in a certain type of coin--one with no image. And
60 there were other booths at which m oney changers exchanged whatevan
currency the person had into the appropriate coins. For this service, the
monoy changers were paid a fee. Part of the job, also, was to decide the
legitimate value of the coins they were exchanging; and many an argument trans—
pived over the silver scales-—-—which were the tools of their trade.

liowy in all probability a man who had come to Jerusalem to pay hic
Temple Yax would want to make some special thank offering while he was
there. Yhis appropriate act of worship was done by animal sacrifice. If
he brovghthis own lamb or pigeons——they had to be inspected for blomisios.
Tho inspectors charged a fee. Of course, he could avoid all> that and cinply
buy on conimal which was already inspected, and which was conveniently You
sale in this same court of the Gentiles.

It looked like a noisy carnival and sounds, for all the world, not
unlike some Christmas Bazaars I've had the misfortune of attending. 0
usvel, the people who got hurt byit all were the poor—the ones who
couldn't afford a lamb to eat, let alone slaughter sacrificially. Dur
worst ox all-—-it was this--this display of economic exploitation that had
been dtamped on the minds of a whole people as religion. That's what
religion is——that's what it can become.

inter the conflict. Jesus didn't like what he saw, and in sheer
rightcous, virile indignation, cleansed the Court of the Gentiles by
ejecting everyone involved. And if you like your religion soft and -casy,
if you think the phrase "peace and unity of the Church’ means that no ono
is svpposed to rock the boat; if you can picture Jesus with little childczen
on his lap—-but not with a whip in his hend—~you re going to have trouble
with the rest of what I have to say. .

Jirst--Christianity is not, and can never become--religion in the conse
thai I've used the word. Roger Smith said it well: "Christianity as a
faith is always in conflict with Christianity as a religion, and thevo is an
imporient—I should be inclined to say the most important-—-sense in w.ricu
Chricticn faith includes within itself the permanent protest againc’t iim
om xeligious forms and expressions." ("A Theological Perspective of tho
Seculax McCormick Quarterly, Nove. 1964)

we Aas

neconc, religion may seek consensus and take comfort in its ACCOD IT
bility and popularity, but Christianity may find itself called actuol1;
to provol:e conflict. Nothing seems as clear as that—in light of ovr
texs tis morning. And yet there is no doubt in my mind that this ides
is. anathema to a lot of churchmen today. Jesus didn't seek consensts. ie
didn't make compromises. He didn't use the word “tolcerance’ +o disgmise
cowazcice. He was an opponent of hypocriey, injustice and exploitation 2
whozcover he saw it, in a manner the church is loath to imitate. iUh-%
do you think he would say, for instance, about the fact that there svc
houses in this city without running water—-and that one of the bille or:
stesc logislature will consider has to do with upgrading and ehkadnedi clas
roquivenonts for dog houses? I have an idea he call thet one like co
sciy 14 ond that there would be conflict—-and that that is precisely uiat
he wartc us to do.

“ind, religion--the general attitude of piety that afflicts our cul‘tmre
is = vogue imitation-—-a poor replica of the real thing. Now to be suve
religion may be temporarily comfortable. It isn't going to cost on
individual anything in terms of his time, his money, his prejudices anc
opionions. And precisely because it is so vague—-precisely because i
refures +0 sion the gut issues of the day--it really isn't worth mec).
Authentic Christian faith—complete commitment to Jesus Christ puts « mon
where vho action is--and provides 2 sense of being in on the only real i
impoztcnt thing that every happened in the history of mankind.

“inally, above all of this rises the spectre of a cross. Whon oree
wen to the very seat of the religious establishment and there opposed the
specitic forms that religion had taken he took the first long stride sree
would end on Calvary. When he cast his lot with thepoor; when he too! his
stond Tor integrity and compassion, and against hyprocricy and oppression
ho moot his life—-even to death.

I believe the same kind of choice confronts the church today—ond

iy inportantly—-cevery individual who would call himself a Chris vicn.

The issue has not changed.

Waet will it be for us? Will we play games with an easy picty oz will we
allow Jesus Christ truly to be Lord? Will we be content with religion—
or will we live out our commitment in Christian Faith? It ig for coach
of us to oanewer. Amen