Plain Speaking

Texts: Jeremiah 11:18-20; James 3:13-4:8; Mark 9:30-37

One of the many tensions in being human is that between meeting the expectations of our community on the one hand and being true to ourselves as individuals on the other; and that's as true for Christians as for anyone else.  The great prophets of our faith history – including the giants like Jeremiah – are to be honoured and remembered for their great courage in speaking out, in challenging those in positions of authority and calling them to account.  We have an example of that in our first reading today; at least, we have an example of the cost of doing it.  Jeremiah has been telling anyone who would listen that the people of his time were heading towards disaster – and the political leaders have had enough.  To them he is not a brave voice standing up for what is right: he is a seditious mongrel causing panic and alarm among the people at the very time when unity is necessary.

All that should sound familiar to us.  We have only to look at the war of words that has erupted in Wanganui for a recent example.  Is Ken Mair a divisive ego-tripper causing disharmony in a multicultural city, or a brave voice challenging the power elite to right a longstanding wrong?  Is Mayor Laws defending his own position of power for the sake of it, or is he standing up for the majority of his citizens on an important point of principle?  Is Bev Butler a heroine or a pain in the nether regions of the human anatomy?

Our theme today is ego-tripping; and when we look at our second lesson (ironically, from the plain-speaking St James) and the gospel reading, you can see why.  Both St James and Jesus himself seem to counsel against pushing ourselves forward.  Our Minister of Health might want everyone on the front line, but these two readings seem to suggest that we are all better off serving in the back room!  We should not seek positions of power, but be like powerless children.  We should not speak up, but be humble and even submissive.  And yet – there is Jeremiah, and with him all the other prophets of our faith history, including those of our own age, such as Desmond Tutu.

And there is the inescapable fact that Jesus was crucified for speaking out.

Where does all this leave us?  Well, I think we have already had one clue recently in the story of the healing of the deaf man who could hardly speak.  Remember how we are given quite graphic details of the way in which Jesus healed this man, and if we look at those details we will find that all the way through the story the deafness is treated as the primary complaint.  He is described as "a man who was deaf and could hardly talk".  Jesus first puts his fingers into the man's ears, and then touches the man's tongue.  When healing comes it comes in the same order: "the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly".  The ability to hear precedes the ability to speak.

And that seems to me to be the gist of this very direct teaching from St James this morning.  He distinguishes between "the wisdom that comes from heaven", and the wisdom that is "earthly, unspiritual, of the devil".  In other words, when someone speaks out we need first to discern to whom he or she has been listening before speaking out; and we can get a pretty clear idea of that, not just from the content of what is said, but the tone and manner in which it is said.

St James describes the wisdom that comes from heaven as "first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.  Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness".  Every politician, every court lawyer, and in fact every one of us who ever gets into a debate with anyone else should ponder those words long and hard.  Is my argument 'pure'?  Whatever else St James meant by that word, I think there are at least two ways in which our arguments may fail that test.  First, are we expressing ourselves in pure language, free from foul and abusive terms?  Secondly, are our motives pure in pressing our argument, or do we have a selfish agenda?  Are we pushing what we honestly believe to be a just cause, or are we more interested in winning the argument to show how clever we are or to save face?

Are we peace-loving?  Even though we disagree with someone on an issue – and maybe it's a very important issue – are we seeking to resolve the issue in a way that promotes peace, rather than ongoing discord?  Are we considerate of the feelings of those who disagree with us?  How different the battle over the proposed stadium might have been if all concerned had followed St James teaching here!

And St James is equally clear about the other side of the coin.  What he calls earthly, unspiritual wisdom that comes from the devil causes "fights and quarrels" among us, which come from "bitter envy and selfish ambition" in our hearts.  These are tough words, but pretty well on the mark, I think.  And to me what this whole passage calls into question is our widely accepted belief that democracy works best as a sort of free for all where each individual and each group pushes his, her or its barrow as hard and as selfishly as possible, and somehow or other what is best for all of us is supposed to emerge from that chaos.  But is that what it means to live in a free society – that each is free to be selfish?

I believe that our Christian faith tells us that each of us is free to consider our neighbour's interests as well as our own, and free to advocate what is best for others even at our own cost.  One of the great issues facing our society in the years to come will be the provision of health care.  While none of us like the idea, there will be – even if there isn't already – some form of rationing required.  We simply cannot provide all our citizens with every conceivable surgical procedure and every conceivable drug.  Someone somewhere will have to make tough decisions.   So do people like me join Grey Power and advocate for more treatment for oldies like me – based, perhaps, on how long we have been paying taxes – or do we stand back and look at what is best for the people as a whole?  Should we give priority to my grandchildren's generation, then my children's, and only then to my own?

What I'm suggesting in all this is that St James and Jesus are not talking about relatively minor matters within the community of faith.  While both readings have something useful to say to us as a diocese facing an electoral college, and as congregations about to have Vestry elections, they should guide us at a much deeper lever than that.

In all aspects of our lives we need to seek first the wisdom that comes from heaven; and that is particularly true when we find ourselves getting into an argument.  When I first went through Law school I was taught that my first duty was to the Court, and only after that was my duty to my client.  Why?  Because a properly functioning judicial system is in the best interests of all of us, including my client.  Sadly, there seems to be reason to doubt that such a view is still taught today.  As we become ever more obsessed with the rights of the individual, so we move ever further away from the kingdom of God.

I want to end with the story of two religious brothers who came to Sheffield University to teach us in our debating society their form of debating.  The rules were very simple.  First, the proposition for debate was read out by the chairperson.  (Until then, neither speaker knew what is was to be.)  Then there was silence for 15 minutes.  After that, the person for the proposition spoke one sentence in support.  Then the opposing speaker spoke two sentences.  The first sentence was his summary of what the first speaker had said.  The second sentence was designed to refute the first speaker's statement.  That was the first round.  Altogether there were 8 rounds.  In each round the number of sentences for each speaker increased by one; but in each case the first sentence had to be a summary of what the other speaker had just said.

When the eighth round finished, there was another period of 15 minutes silence.  At the end of that period, the speaker for the proposition had 5 minutes to summarise the case against the proposition, and the other speaker had 5 minutes to summarise the case for it.  The audience was then asked to vote on which of the speakers had most accurately summarised his opponent's case throughout the whole process.

In discussions afterwards, the brothers explained the purpose of their approach in one line: to learn to listen respectfully, first to our inner wisdom, and then to those who disagree with us.  That's wisdom that comes from heaven.  St James could not have put it any better.