An Act of Irony
Dr. Jim Wilson, March 21, 2010 “Waste not, want not!” This bit of folk wisdom was one of my mother’s favorite teachings. She applied it to most everything---from how much we put on our plates to left-overs, from using the blank sides of pieces of paper to stubs of pencils, from clothes to monitoring temperatures. She was an environmentalist before we used the term---recycling bottles and cans and limiting shower time. “Waste not, want not!” I still hear these words if I toss some left over down the disposal or leave the water running when I brush my teeth. It was a perspective from which I was taught to live. But I have found that like a lot of other pieces of wisdom, it is not an absolute. Waste, or what at appears to be waste, can prove to be beneficial. For instance, in the 1970s, while the cost of computing was still quite high, Alan Kay, an engineer with Xerox, decided to do what one observer called “wasting transistors.” Instead of reserving the pricey power of the computers at his disposal for “valuable” functions such as information processing, Kay began using it for “frivolous” stuff such as drawing cartoons on the screen. These cartoons and other on screen things he created such as pointers and windows, eventually became the first graphical interface and that gave life to the Macintosh computer. The Mac, in turn inspired similar changes in PCs. In other words, by “wasting” computer power, Kay made computers simple enough for the rest of us to use.* Writing in WIRED magazine about this phenomenon, Editor-in-chief Chris Anderson says, “This was the power of waste. When scarce resources become abundant smart people treat them differently, exploiting them rather than conserving them. It feels wrong, but done right, it can change the world.” While I am not completely comfortable with such an assessment, I have come to realize that what often appears to be a wasteful act or exercise can, in fact, be life changing. But before that can happen, while the resource is still scarce, someone has to use it in an extravagant, “wasteful” way. There is a certain irony is such acts. This brings us to the story John tells in our text for today. The scene is a dinner party at the home of Jesus’ good friends, Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary who live in Bethany just three miles east of Jerusalem. Jesus has just raised Lazarus from the dead, an act which created quite a stir of excitement among the people, but also a decision by the religious leaders that Jesus must die. It is just six days before Passover, that great celebration of Israel’s deliverance from bondage, and a mere day or two before Jesus will enter Jerusalem and announce his hour has come. Jesus, however, is the only one aware of the confluence of these events. The gathering of Jesus and his friends at table is one of joy. There sits Lazarus, a living, breathing Lazarus, a testimony to the power of Jesus to bring life out of death. There is Martha rushing about, as usual, making certain that all is in order. Then, in the midst of the meal, Mary, the other sister, does something quite unusual. She comes over to Jesus and pours a whole pound of nard, an expensive fragrant oil, over his feet and wipes his feet with her hair. All at table stare in disbelief. Often guests were anointed on the head with a few drops of oil by the host as a sign of hospitality. Kings and priests were commonly anointed with larger amounts of oil as a blessing on their ascending to office. But this was a whole pound of very precious, very expensive oil, oil that had to be imported. We hear later that the pound was worth 300 denarii, a year’s pay for most workers. And she anointed Jesus’ feet, not his head. Why? Some offer explanations suggesting it was a prelude to Jesus’ washing the feet of the disciples. But how did Mary know he was going to do that? I would suggest a more practical reason. The guests would be reclining at the low table. It would not really be possible for Mary to reach Jesus’ head. She had to settle for his feet. The larger question is what was Mary intending by this rather extravagant act? John does not provide a motive for her action. But I think it is probably safe to assume she was expressing her love and profound thanks to Jesus for restoring her brother to life. Yet, even as the fragrance of the oil fills the house, one at table lodges a protest. Judas Iscariot criticizes Mary’s extravagant act. “Why was this perfume not sold for three-hundred denarii,” he asks, “and the money given to the poor?” At first hearing, Judas’ protest seems to have merit. Pouring a pound of expensive perfume on Jesus’ feet does seem wasteful, especially when the needs of the poor are so obvious. Never mind that John offers editorial comment that Judas is the one who will betray Jesus and that his motives are less than altruistic given that he steals from the common treasury. Still, what are we to make of Mary’s act? Is it a pointless, wasteful use of resources? Judas’ protest sets the stage for Jesus to respond to what Mary has done. “Leave her alone,” says Jesus, “she bought it for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” What Jesus sees in Mary’s act is not a pointless, wasteful act, but a prophetic act, an anointing of his body for the giving of the ultimate extravagant gift---his gracious love poured out for the whole world. What Judas saw as a pointless, wasteful act, Jesus says is an act of faithful devotion and blessing. What appeared to be a waste of resources is in reality an extravagantly faithful act that helped change all of life. Therein lay the irony. What the act means is the opposite of what it first appears to be. It really was a matter of false choices. That is what Judas was doing. He was attempting to force a false choice---either caring for the poor or worshiping Jesus, one or the other. He tolerates no possibility of both. This is called the “false dichotomy” or the “Either-Or Fallacy,” in that only two alternatives are considered when in fact there are other options. We face such false choices every day. In relationships we can bump against a false choice that says you must care for this person or that person. Not only is such a choice painful, it fails to consider other options. Or at work, the company faces a choice this going in this direction or that direction. What about other possibilities? Or the whole matter of security and freedom is fraught with false choices. Does submitting to body scans really promote greater security? Politicians love false choices. Witness this whole health care reform turmoil. Both sides point out dire consequences of a choice for or against reform. Are there decisions where there are no alternatives, no both/and to our choices? I think there are. The choice to be faithful in marriage means other options are off the table. The choice to call Jesus Christ Lord means other choices are eliminated. In terms of the church, Judas’ false choice is still very much alive. There are those within and without the church who constantly draw a line between worship and social justice in an attempt to force the church to choose one or the other. For some money and resources spent on worship whether on the beauty of a sanctuary or music or paraments is simply a waste. For others to fund social justice ministries is a misuse of church funds. You have heard the arguments. It is, I believe, a false choice. You will remember a year or so ago there was a fire at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. The ceiling of the sanctuary was severely damaged and collapsed in some areas, and the roof was also damaged. Two days after the fire, Neil Steinberg, a Chicago Sun-Time columnist with a famously hard-boiled reputation, walked into the church to see the damage for himself. He saw it, but he also saw the greater part of the church that wasn’t damaged. He went back to his office and wrote a column about his visit, which he entitled, “Cathedral Can Inspire Cynic.” In the article, Steinberg wrote, “Repair of Holy Name is a cause worth supporting. I’m a hardened, godless cynic, but to walk into Holy Name and see that ceiling soar toward heaven, well, I hate to imagine a person so emotionally numb not to be affected. God may not move you but he moved the people who build this, and this moves you.” Steinberg went on to invite readers to donate to the Holy Name Cathedral repair fund. Then he concluded by saying that he had given $50 himself, which he said, “seemed a painless minimum sum for a Jewish agonistic wishing to speed the repairs along.” What may at first seem like an extravagant waste, may, in fact, inspire a change in perspective. It works both ways. Mark was an extremely bright young man. He graduated from the University of Illinois summa cum laude. He was headed for medical school which pleased his parents both of whom were highly successful and highly respected surgeons. Mark received scholarships from many of the top med schools in the country. Instead he went into the Peace Corps and then chose to be a teacher in an inner city school. His father said to me one day after worship, “What a waste of talent!” I replied “Could it be a wonderfully faithful use of talent?” What may appear to be wasteful at first may be in reality a life changing gift. We must avoid false choices. It is not worship or social justice. It is worship and social justice. Worship does not excuse us from concern for the poor. As United Methodists we know worship is the foundation of social justice and social justice is the enactment of our worship. To create a false choice is to turn away from God. It is sin. Instead of false choices you and I are called to live with the irony of our faith, with that tension between what appears to be extravagant waste and what is a life-changing experience. Some wasteful acts are just that, wasteful acts. Others, however, are wonderful gifts of the extravagant grace of Christ Jesus. May God give us the wisdom to discern the difference. Thanks be to God! Amen! *HOMILETICS, March-April, 2010, pp.31-32 |
