November 2, 2003
By Jack Price

            The intrepid 1960's secret agent Maxwell Smart used to say, "Missed it by that much!" -a narrow miss, but always a miss.  It is said, "Close only counts in horseshoes (some add, "and hand grenades."  The saying, "Close, but no cigar," assumes the desirability of a cigar, but the point is that one can be oh so close to one's goal or target, yet miss it.  Even by a little, missing it is still missing it.  Just ask Yankees' fans about the World Series, the Red Sox' manager about the playoffs or the runner-up in last year's Super Bowl.  Good luck, by the way, to the Chiefs.

The scribe who came to talk with Jesus was evidently very close to being what Jesus was looking for.  They liked each other's answers.  This scribe was as close as the rich young man Jesus had said, "lacked but one thing," .to sell everything he had and follow."  The difference between close and committed is all the difference in the world.  Identifying what that difference is can identify for us just exactly what stands between Jesus and us; what separates us from a meaningful and intimate relationship with God.

            Mark's gospel is rapidly moving toward its climax in the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus.  The road to Jerusalem has been walked and the rabbi from Galilee finds himself in the shadow of the Temple itself.  Today's lesson reflects the final dispute or debate between Jesus and one of the religious leaders, in this case one of the scribes. 

            There have been a series of these debates, or discussions, since Jesus entered Jerusalem this final time.  First, he was asked his opinion about paying taxes to "God or emperor."  After deftly handling that, he was questioned as to his views about the idea of resurrection.  In this situation, he was able to defeat their argument by pointing out their mistaken premise.

Finally, one of the scribes approaches Jesus. Scribes did not have quite the authority and skill of rabbis to interpret scripture and reason theologically.  After seeing how well Jesus answered the Pharisees, this scribe posed his question - "Which is the first (greatest) commandment?"  We have seen this basic question before in the Mark's gospel (Mark 7:8f and Mark 10:5).  What differentiates this conversation from previous discussions about the greatest commandments?

There is some question about this conversation.  Was the scribe testing Jesus with his question?  Was he trying to clarify Jesus' views about doctrine with the intent of entrapping him?  This interchange, however, is not a fierce or hostile discussion.  Perhaps he is actually "testing the waters" as a prelude to his own decision about following Jesus?  Regardless of the motive, there is no more questioning of Jesus.

So, what answer did Jesus give?  His answer to the scribe's question actually pulled together two sections of Torah that had not previously been paired.  First, Jesus quoted the Shema, from the Hebrew word "Hear."  From Deuteronomy 6:4f, "Hear, O Israel:  the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength."  And, then, Jesus presents a second "first" commandment, this time pulling from Leviticus 19: 18 concerning one's obligations to one's neighbors-"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  Scholars believe Jesus was the first to combine these two commandments.  Jesus was emphasizing that love of God is inseparable from love given to neighbor.

Mark uses this conversation to reaffirm the importance of these two great commandments.  "Love God with all aspects of your being.  The Greek word agape is  seldom used in scripture to refer to our love for God.  Agapé is God's selfless love poured out for us.  For us, agapé is a goal.  We touch true agapé occasionally while God's very nature is agape.

What does it mean to love God with all the aspects of being?  It means total commitment.  Loving God with all your heart, in the context of Jesus' (and Mark's culture) really means loving with your mind because the heart was understood to be the center of reason and decision-making.  Loving with the soul is to love with the inner "self" of feelings and emotions.  The mind has to do with understanding, literally to "stand under with," while loving with strength refers to physical and moral fiber.  The first commandment, according to Jesus, is to love God selflessly through all the aspects of your being.

The scribe only asked for one commandment, but Jesus gave him two.  The second commandment was not requested, but is inseparable from the first.  Loving the neighbor as the self means acting with mercy, acting with justice, and acting in spiritual connectedness.  The great rabbi Hillel, who lived a generation before Jesus, interpreted the commandment quite simply:  "What you hate yourself, do not do to your neighbor."

Jesus must have answered well because the scribe was enthusiastic in agreement.  He restates Jesus' words by way of expressing his agreement:  'he is one, and besides him there is no other'; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,' and 'to love one's neighbor as oneself,' -this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."  This scribe recognizes Jesus' wisdom and complements Jesus' answer.  So why would Jesus not embrace him on the spot? 

What stands in the scribe's way?  The answer becomes a few verses later. Mark has set the stage and, beginning with verse 38 Jesus speaks hard words of judgment concerning the whole "class" of religious leaders saying, "Watch out for the scribes who like to walk up and down in long robes, and who like to receive deferential greetings in the marketplace, the best seats in the synagogues, and places of honor at banquets.  As for those men who appropriate widows' houses, while they offer long prayers for appearances' sake, they will receive a greater condemnation."

Positions of trust and respect bring with them temptations.  Those in positions of highest trust have sometimes betrayed that trust for their own gain.  The scribes were often entrusted with the management of widows' estates and took advantage for their own gain. This happens in our own time:  corporate and financial greed by those entrusted with people's life savings and retirement; clergy entrusted with the moral nurture of children who betray that trust; political leadership for sale to the highest bidder. 

Religious leaders in Jesus' day received deference, with a kind of celebrity status.  There must have been temptation to "believe the hype" and think of themselves as inherently better than others, exempt from the rules that bind "just regular folks".  This is certainly true among celebrities of our own time. 

It's not that living the "scribe lifestyle" and having the "scribe attitude" automatically puts you in violation of the commandments to "love God first" and to "love neighbor as self".  It just seems that most of the scribes regularly violated these great commandments by taking advantage of widows whose estates were entrusted to their management and by loving their "status," rather than God, "with all their heart, soul, mind and strength."  This may have been accepted behavior for many of the scribes. Those who did not take advantage of their station and whose attitude was more humble and who allowed the abuse to continue by not actively opposing it, were guilty by association.  Jesus calls them on it. 

The scribe was so close.  He understood, but this one thing remained.  Jesus might have told him, "Let go of the celebrity and the status of being a scribe, walk away from it and follow me.  You are so close."  But the scribe would have walked away sadly because he dearly loved being a scribe.

Do Jesus' words challenge us as well? Like that scribe, are we in some ways guilty by association?  It seems to be in keeping with the gospel message that, as we share in the benefits and opportunities of a particular society, we also share in the guilt for its excesses and for at least some of the inequity, injustice and deprivation that exists in that society?  Last Sunday evening, we were reminded that the United States sells a lot of arms to third world countries.  The results are devastating for them and truly for us as well.  The Gospel challenges us and holds us accountable by association as citizens for what we do as a society.

Mark wrote this gospel to a community of believers at a time of great loss.  Most of his community were Jews who believed in Jesus.  Around the time of the writing of this gospel, the great Jerusalem Temple was being destroyed by Rome.  It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the Temple to Jewish people.   Mark was trying to help  his own community see that the loss of the Temple was not a complete loss.  In his stories about the religious leaders, he reminded them of the attitude that had grown up around the Temple.  The Temple culture had become equivalent to God.  More than perceiving God's presence, God's residence, in the Temple, there was almost a sense that God was a captive in the Temple.  In Mark, we see a challenge to "let the temple go" when it comes to stand between a person and God.  God's new creation got off track in the temple culture, but is now being ushered in through Jesus.  The loss of the Temple is can be seen as a sign of hope rather than despair.

The crux of Jesus' teach is the navigating of a fine, but definitive, line between agreement and commitment, between agreeing and becoming desperate enough to give everything to serving God.  The tragedy of the scribe's hypocrisy is how close he was to exactly what Jesus was always talking about.  The difference between close and committed, however, is all the difference in the world.  Identifying what that distance is can identify for us just exactly what stands between us and heaven, an intimate relationship with God.

Hank Dunn is a friend of mine:  a former nursing home and Hospice chaplain.  In an article on spiritual disciplines, Hank sums up the core of today's lesson.

The spiritual life is more about subtraction than addition Meister Eckhart taught. The truth hidden in this statement is that we do not need to ADD anything to our life to make us more spiritual. We cannot be any more spiritual than we already are. We can't get any more of God inside of us, any more of the Spirit or, for those who have a hard time with the God-talk, we can't get any more of our true essence as humans. This is it!

Eckhart Tolle opens his book Stillness Speaks thusly, "A true spiritual teacher does not have anything to teach in the conventional sense of the word, does not have anything to give or add to you, such as new information, beliefs, or rules of conduct. The only function of such a teacher is to help you remove that which separates you from the truth of who you already are and what you already know in the depth of your being.  The spiritual teacher is there to uncover and reveal to you that dimension of inner depth that is also peace."

If we enter into a spiritual discipline to make ourselves more spiritual we have already lost the battle.

So, should you do spiritual practices? You might as well not if it is just another effort to improve the self. If the practices represent letting go of a belief in a separation between my true self and the divine, then practice. If the practice is a letting go of a belief in the possibility of improving the ego, then practice. If the practice is a way of unmasking the false self and its constant chatter in my mind, then practice.

            We can be close, so close, to God yet still miss the mark.  Let us then lay aside whatever keeps us from coming to Jesus.