TE nang,

“DOH'T CALL IT LOVE" BETHANY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
LUKE 9:46-56 LAFAYETTE, INDIANA
FEBRUARY 17, 1974 JOHN M. BUCHANAN

There is something deeply rooted in al? of us that wants to possess
what we love: that wants clear boundries and a sénse that this is mine to
love and therefore net yours. There is something deeply rooted in us*¢that
needs the precious certainty that my loves, my loyalties, are the right
ones and yours are the wrong ones. That something, whatever we decide to

call it, can transform our purest devotion into the worst bigotry rather
quickly. That need of ours can, and often does, turn our deepest love into
the pettiest of jealousies. It is, in fact, the opposite of lave. It
destroys lave.

The New Testament Lesson this morning bunches three separate incidents
together that seem, at first, unrelated. But they do deal with the same
human weakness with which I introduced the topic, and my conclusion is that
they are together jn order to teach us a lesson; an important lesson in the:
particular nature of Christian love.

The text begins as the disciples are arguing about which of them is
the greatest, a not uncommon dispute among men. Muhammad Ali comes right
out and says it “I am the greatest": most of us play the game silently,
covertly, but playing nevertheless; comparing our Tooks, clothes, accom~
plishments, abilities with others and discovering that it feels rather good
to be able to conclude that "I am the greatest - or at feast I'm better
than you."

Jesus knew what was going on. He stood a child by his side and
Suggested that true greatness might be compared to childtikeness.

And then, without any transitional material at all, John blurts out
the incident involving a man casting out demons in Jesus’ name, "We tried
to stop him" John explained, "because he wasn't one of us." We may not be
allowed to gauge each other in order to feel a sense of greatness, that is
to say, but surely we don't have to allow any others in our club.

Jesus said, "Do not try to stop him. He who is not against you is for you."

““DON'T CALL IT LOVE" (2) FEBRUARY 17, 1974

And then the third incident involving a Samaritan village. It is a
little more complex. There was a century old conflict between the Jews
and Samaritans. Over the years it had become a deep and abiding hatred
based on religion, race and politics. They had nothing to do with each?
other. That's what made the Parable of the Good Samaritan so very dramatic-
the fact that a Samaritan turned out to be the good man. In any case it
was about this time that Jesus decided to go to Jerusalem for the Passover.
"He set his face toward Jerusalem" is the way the Gospels describe it, as
if to serve notice that it was no casual decision. Rather it involved a
radical turning toward probable death. The atmosphere, that is to say, was
hignily charged,

The most direct route from Galilee to Jerusalem went through Samaria,
but for obvious reasons Galilean Jews didntt ordinarily go that way. The
Samaritans didn't take kindly to any Jews in their tertitory, and if they
discovered that the Jews were on their way to Jerusalem they would surely

Narass and attack them.

SO, it was a rather unusual and significant thing for Jesus to want to
go that way. It was even more unusual - and Significant - for him to send
messengers ahead to prepare for a stop-over in a Samaritan village. It was
an unheard of gesture of love and friendship; an act of the highest inten-
tion ~ Jesus, on his way to conflict and confrontation with his own people,
asking for the hospitality of his people's bitterest enemies.

Well, the Samaritans didn't know all that. To them a Jew was a Jew,
and a partyof religious pilgrims could mean trouble in the middle of the
night and so they acted, I'd say, rather understandably. They wanted no
part of it. The messengers returned with the word that the villagers had
refused to have them for the night. And it was just too much for James and
John, brothers, nicknamed "The Sons of Thunder" because of their temper and
passion. They were insulted, hurt, angry - on his behalf - but really on

their own behalf. They felt the snub, the humiliation of having extended

"DON'T GALL a? LOVE" (3} FEBRUARY 17, teva
something and then having had it thrown back in their faces. And the whole
century of hatred came to the surface as they asked "Lord, may we call down
fire from heaven to burn them up?” There is Biblical precedent for that,

vy the way, The prophet Elijah dealt with his enemies in precisely that
manner. (2 Kings 1:9-16}

At this point the mood changes, although that isn't easily apparent
from the way the text is translated. Jesus "turned and rebuked them",

That doesn't mean he said "Cut it out now, fellas". He rebuked evil spirits,
wind and waves on the Sea of Galilee - and here - two disciples. He
condemned it strongly. He disassociated himself entirely from that approach.
He would have nothing to do with it.

In all three of these incidents the dynamic that 1 described earlier
is at work. In the first, between the disciples themselves: in the second,
between the disciples as a group and an outsider - a non-member: in the
third, between the disciples as a part of a larger religious - national
group and people who represented a different religious -national group.
It's here in all three - the components of love, devotion, loyalty, soir
how coming out as jealousy, chauvinism and bigotry.

Thre is, we must admit, something admirable about the disciples in
ail three incidents. There is something admirable about wanting to Le
great in the service of Christ, something noble about wanting to protect
the integrity and purity of the Christian Fellowship, something very human
about wanting a little vengeance on the enemies of one's peaple.

We know that it was wrong of the disciples to want to destroy a
whole village because of the insult to Christ. But isn't it reallyigust
a matter of loving too much too zealously. And isn't it better to love
too much than too little. Isn't it better to be on the side of enthusiasm
than to care not at all. We knew a year or two ago the wrongness of
destroying entire villages in South Viet Nam. When an officer said that

a village had to be destroyed in order to save it from Communism we knew

“DOT CALL if LOVE" (4) FEBRUARY 17, 1974
that was wrong. But it had no real effect on us because it was done in the
name of patriotism, love of country, loyalty to Democracy. It was wrong -
but we understood it and forgave it and forgot it. And those who had the
Christ-like courage to "rebuke" it found rather quickly that it was not a
ver¥ popular thing to de.

Our attitude generally about these three Tevels of human weakness -
jealousy, chauvinism, bigotry - is that they are undesirable but tolerable,
and understandable, because after all they issue from sincere and single-
minded love. My proposal this morning is that what is happening at all
three levels - and in a1] three Biblical incidents is not love at all, but
rather a failure of Love. Let look at that for a moment.

In a sense, the disciples argued with each other because they were
jealous. Each of them loved Jesus. Each had a claim staked on his love:

a bit of him tnat belonged to them. And they were jealous of what they
thought they possessed. For the same reason they were jealous when an
outsider used his name. He had no right to do that.Jesus belonged to them.
dealousy - and it's impossible to discuss the idea apart from the
institution of Holy Matrimony - is often excused as a product of love.

When we feel it, and we a1] do at times, we are inclined to rationalize it

as a matter of loving so much. “If 1 didn't care about you - if I didn't
love you - I wouldn't be jealous." Translate that: "my jealousy is actually
a compliment!" We are so very ingenious at that kind of logic.

The troubie is jealousy implies ownership. It is not the same as envy.
Envy develops when you see something you do not have and would like to have.
Jealousy is aroused in relation to that which you already possess.

And before wea excuse our own jealousy it is oniy fair to acknowledge
that it is not a natural, normal human response: in fact, it is learned.
There are cultures in which it just doesn't exist. (See Gpen Marriage,P.237)
It is part of marriage in our culture because marriage has, for centuries,

implied ownership.

“RGN ET AL CPR Luk fg’ FEBRUARY 17, 1974

How T am fot suggesting that fidelity is not important in marriage.
Quite to the contrary, it is all important. 1 am suggesting that jealousy
has very little to do with it, and in fact can easily destroy the reia-
tionship it is intended to protect.

It ts very doubtful that you can love someone who you think you own.
Sut more to the point, the psychologists tell us that jealousy is almost
always the result of feelings of insecurity and self-doubt. Abraham
Maslow put it bluntly: “Jealousy practically always breeds further rejection
and deeper insecurity", which obviousiy will cause more jealousy. And i?
uninterupted Dy personal growth, by understanding and trust,jealousy will
surely cause love to wither and die.

The second level is Chauvinism; not the much maligned male variety,
but tne kind that says my group is best: the super-patriotism that says my
nation is best - and good: while all the rest are second - rate and
assentially bad. We've got that in our midst too, and it is aiways
dangerous. Qne writer put tt this way: "an awful lot of people mistake
their distrust or dislike of other peoples for patriotism - for jiave of
their own country." (fodels for Ministers}

When it 1s cut loose and amplified it can be deadly.and dangerous.
Patriotism, properly cultivated and nurtured can be used to justify any
means so long as the end - glorification of one's own country is acconniic’s
Thus in the name of the Fatherland the rane of Eurepe was accomplished by
Hitler, and in the name of the purity of the German State 6,000,000 Jaws
were eliiminated. In tne name of Patriotism, the Russians continue to
persecute, harass and imprison their greatest spirits. Alexander Solzhenit~
Syn is today in exile - In the name of patrtotism. In the name of racial
purtty, Black men were lynched for looking at white women. And today, there
ave those who in the nam e of Democracy, or in the name of naticueztl
security, are willing to excuse the infringement of liberty, privacy,

freedcm cf speech and assembly.

“DON'T CALL IT LOVE" (6) FEBRUARY 17. 1974

That's not love of country: that's a failure of love.

The third level, and perhaps the most important because itdeals with
the heart, is philosophic or religious. iowhere does deen Tove become
Fanaticism and then bigotry quite as clearly as in things religious. In
fact, religion, that may be cajiled man's noblest endeavor, has - at many
points in history, been his snabbiest. And for the same reason. Religion
appeals to the deepest love - the strongest emotions - the worst fears -
the highest hooes, Precisely because it deals with intense emotions, it
can go awry. Precisely because it calls us to love so much, it can see
that love turn to blind fanaticism.

Some of the saddest chapters in history began with the love of men
‘or God, and thetr devotion to his cnurch. The Spanish Inquisition was
based on the very simple premise that in Jesus Christ God had revealed his
truth to mankind, and that that truth ought to bo preserved and protected.
That ft invotved torturing and executing men who differed could somehow
be excused in the name of lave.

In the itiddle Ages the church gave itself to the preservation of
Purity by hounding heretics. Men were burned at the stake for believing
ideas that differed from orthodoxy - in the name of Tove.

That arrogance of many Christian missionaries in the 19th and early
“Jin centuries conveyed the same fanatic love for God. And it came acre-c
as patronization and imperialism.

Or consider the centuries of hostility between Catholics and Protes-
tants: loving the same God, following the same Lord, and Fighting each
other to the death all too eften. Consider the depth and profundity of
hatred that exists in itorthern Ireland today - in the name of Jesus Christ.

Great Christian teaders have aiways seen the danger of religious
Toyaity becoming simple bigotry, and the absolute necessity for Christ's
own spirit of tolerant love to infect his peopte,

John Wesley, rounder of ‘lethodism, could not have disagreed more with

"OOW'T CALL IT LAVE (7) FEBRUARY 17, 1974
Roman Catholicism, but he was unbending on the subject of tolerance. “I
have no more right", he said, “to object ot a man for holding a different
opinion from mine than 1 have to differ with a man because he wears a wig
and I wear my own hair; but if he takes the wig off and shakes the powder
in my face, I Shall consider it my duty to get quit of him as soon as
possible... The tring I resolved to prevent was a..... miserable bigotry
which makes many so unready to believe that there is any work of God but

among themseles." (Barclay, Daily Study Bible, Luke P.131}

His own nephew, Samuel, joined the Roman Catholic Church and he wrote,
“Whither in this Church or that, I care not. YOu may be saved in either
or damned in either."

There is a simpler story, however, that says it all. A tittle boy
was playing on the beach and brought a bucket of water to his father

» Saying: “I fave the ocean in my bucket.” So, men have always
wanted to assume that they were carrying the entirity of God's truth
around in their own theological buckets. So today, there are individuals
and churches, although no longer burning people for heresy in the name
of Jesus Christ, which say to tha worid - to us - to anyone who will listen:
"The ocean is in our bucket". And the answer is: "Yes, it is: but there's
lots more where that came from, and it's not all in your bucket."

Religious parochialism, arrogance and bigotry are not the result of
love. Rather it ts once again a failure of love.

The appeal is obvious: jealousy,chauvinism: , bigotry touch us at
perhaps our weakest point. It would be good to know that our spouse was
“ours” forever, that our nation was always best and eternally goad, that
our theology was altogether true. But that weakness is our sin. In it are
the seeds of our love's destruction. In our weakness is always the
possibility that we will ruin the most precious thing we have to give each
other, our country and our God.

When we feel it happening to us, let's not excuse it. Let's not call

"DON'T CALL IT Love® (8) FEBRUARY 17, 1974
it love, for it is a Failure of love. The jJave of Jesus Christ is broad
and open: it is inclusive, aot excTusive: it tears down barriers instead of
erecting them.

That's the Spirit of Christ that needs to be born in each of us.
There is a Prayer for the Church Somewhere by Halter Rauschenbush that con-
taing this phrase: "Baptise her afresh with tne life-giving Spirit of Jesus"

SO; we might Pray - for our chureh ~ and for ourselves, AMEN

Father, help us as we tentatively take the risks of love. Help us to
throw away the crutches of jealousy, chauvinism and bigotry, and to tive

with our hearts Open: through Jesus Christ our Lord. ANE,