“Sins of Omission”—March 29, 2018
Pilate spoke to [the crowd] again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” They shouted back, “Crucify him!” Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” but they shouted all the more, “Crucify him!” So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified. [Mark 15:12-15]
Doing nothing is still picking sides. Let’s just be clear about that.
While it’s obvious that the crowd in the story has been stirred up against Jesus, Pilate makes for more of a subtle, insidious opponent of Jesus—a cowardly one. Try as some folks have done over twenty centuries, you can’t make Pilate into a good guy trying unsuccessfully to spring an innocent man, or even a neutral party. And even though he tries to wash his hands of involvement in this mess—literally, according to Matthew’s parallel version of the story!—Pilate can’t get the stain of guilt off his hands. He’s Lady Macbeth a millennium and a half before Shakespeare.
In fact, you could say that Pilate’s crimes are worse than the crowd’s. The crowd at least believes that Jesus is guilty of something. The chief priests and other religious professionals have pointed out to them that Jesus has said and done things that only God is allowed to do. Unless he really is God-in-the-flesh (and of course, that is precisely what we Christians do believe about him), Jesus is a blasphemer, guilty of sullying God’s reputation and cheapening God’s name. And those are serious crimes, by Jewish law. They are Third-Commandment kinds of crimes—a matter of slandering God’s name, at least if Jesus were not actually God in the flesh. And that is an idea that the crowd cannot imagine. So the only option left to them, if they are going to take their own commandments and God seriously, is to call for Jesus’ death. Misguided as they are (because it turns out that Jesus really is who he says he is), at least there are matters of conviction at stake here.
Pilate, on the other hand, doesn’t recognize the crime of “blasphemy” and doesn’t particularly care what Jesus claims to be. Jesus could believe he was Napoleon Bonaparte, a poached egg, or the lost heir of the Russian czars, for all Pilate cared. Pilate doesn’t believe that Jesus is guilty of anything that he can see, much less something worthy of capital punishment. But that doesn’t stop him from handing Jesus over to be killed. It is more important to Pilate to “satisfy the crowd” and keep the masses from getting upset at him than to do justice and set Jesus free. In other words, Pilate is willing to do the expedient thing to keep his job easier and keep Rome’s grip on the people good and tight, rather than the just thing. Pilate thought that by doing nothing directly to get Jesus crucified, he was off the hook. But of course, doing nothing is still picking sides—it is a vote for letting things continue on their present course. Pilate might not have been the one to thrown Jesus under the bus, but he is the one driving the bus, and he had plenty of chances to hit the brakes.
In fact, Pilate steps on the gas. Did you notice that in addition to letting Jesus be taken to be crucified, he has Jesus flogged? All in the name of "keeping the peace" and "ensuring safety" and "maintaining law and order" and asserting Rome’s control over the situation. Pilate doesn’t believe Jesus deserves it, but he has the man beaten and whipped before a torturous execution because it will both show everybody that Rome is calling the shots and it will quiet the crowds. Pilate is the worst kind of coward of all—the kind who wants to make people think he had no choice. He thinks that doing nothing keeps him from being guilty of Jesus’ death, but it is just the coward’s way of picking sides.
Theologians talk about sins of "commission" and sins of "omission"—that is, the wicked things we shouldn’t have done, and the good things we should have done, but didn’t. Pilate’s story reminds us that the second are just as awful in their consequences as the first. In fact, his sin of omission—not sticking up for a man he believes is innocent—is just the flip-side of the same coin as the crowds and their sin of commission—crying out for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate thinks it is doing nothing, but he is making a choice. He is picking sides… against Jesus.
There come moments in our lives where choices like that are put to us: to stand with the people who need an advocate, or to walk away. Often, we choose to walk away, to remain silent, or to look the other direction, and we think that our not doing something can’t be held against us. After all, we haven’t done anything wrong… right? But by our hesitancy to speak, our failure to act, our refusal to stand with ones in the margins, we are picking sides already. We are just doing it the coward’s way.
Now, I suppose this raises one vital question: what is the difference between Pilate’s cowardly act toward Jesus, and, say, Simon Peter’s denial of Jesus? Why is that that Peter can be forgiven and reinstated among Jesus’ followers, if his denial of Jesus was hardly different from Pilate’s “do nothing” approach? And should we, then, be more afraid when we look back on our past and see the times we have left things undone and passively picked sides against Jesus?
I would offer these two observations: first, after the rooster crows at Peter’s last denial, he realizes what he has done and weeps over it. That is, he quits pretending that denying Jesus was just about staying neutral and out of trouble. He realizes that by saying he didn’t even know Jesus, he has taken sides against Jesus—and it breaks Peter’s heart. And he realizes that his hands are dirty, too, now. Pilate, on the other hand, keeps himself in the illusion that he is righteous and just, because, after all, he didn’t try to get Jesus into trouble. Pilate walks off the stage of the story (and this is the last we’ll see of Pilate until after Jesus is dead) still thinking he has kept himself neutral and untainted, while Peter breaks down realizing that doing nothing is still picking sides. And so, Peter realizes, it’s all he can do to entrust himself to a God who does not treat us according to what we deserve, a God who can love even enemies, a God who refuses to stay at arm’s length from us trying to stay “neutral.”
When you compare Pilate and Peter, then, it becomes crystal clear: redemption is about the grip of God’s hands on us, and not about our self-declared "clean" hands. It is about a God who chooses our side.
May we today find the courage not to do nothing, the courage to stand with Jesus and his friends at the margins, the courage to admit our past failures. And let us then be gathered to Jesus’ side... since Jesus is what it looks like when God leaves behind "neutrality" to stand on the side of a sinful humanity.
Lord Jesus, we are yours. Let us own it today. Let us never be neutral about you.
Pilate spoke to [the crowd] again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” They shouted back, “Crucify him!” Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” but they shouted all the more, “Crucify him!” So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified. [Mark 15:12-15]
Doing nothing is still picking sides. Let’s just be clear about that.
While it’s obvious that the crowd in the story has been stirred up against Jesus, Pilate makes for more of a subtle, insidious opponent of Jesus—a cowardly one. Try as some folks have done over twenty centuries, you can’t make Pilate into a good guy trying unsuccessfully to spring an innocent man, or even a neutral party. And even though he tries to wash his hands of involvement in this mess—literally, according to Matthew’s parallel version of the story!—Pilate can’t get the stain of guilt off his hands. He’s Lady Macbeth a millennium and a half before Shakespeare.
In fact, you could say that Pilate’s crimes are worse than the crowd’s. The crowd at least believes that Jesus is guilty of something. The chief priests and other religious professionals have pointed out to them that Jesus has said and done things that only God is allowed to do. Unless he really is God-in-the-flesh (and of course, that is precisely what we Christians do believe about him), Jesus is a blasphemer, guilty of sullying God’s reputation and cheapening God’s name. And those are serious crimes, by Jewish law. They are Third-Commandment kinds of crimes—a matter of slandering God’s name, at least if Jesus were not actually God in the flesh. And that is an idea that the crowd cannot imagine. So the only option left to them, if they are going to take their own commandments and God seriously, is to call for Jesus’ death. Misguided as they are (because it turns out that Jesus really is who he says he is), at least there are matters of conviction at stake here.
Pilate, on the other hand, doesn’t recognize the crime of “blasphemy” and doesn’t particularly care what Jesus claims to be. Jesus could believe he was Napoleon Bonaparte, a poached egg, or the lost heir of the Russian czars, for all Pilate cared. Pilate doesn’t believe that Jesus is guilty of anything that he can see, much less something worthy of capital punishment. But that doesn’t stop him from handing Jesus over to be killed. It is more important to Pilate to “satisfy the crowd” and keep the masses from getting upset at him than to do justice and set Jesus free. In other words, Pilate is willing to do the expedient thing to keep his job easier and keep Rome’s grip on the people good and tight, rather than the just thing. Pilate thought that by doing nothing directly to get Jesus crucified, he was off the hook. But of course, doing nothing is still picking sides—it is a vote for letting things continue on their present course. Pilate might not have been the one to thrown Jesus under the bus, but he is the one driving the bus, and he had plenty of chances to hit the brakes.
In fact, Pilate steps on the gas. Did you notice that in addition to letting Jesus be taken to be crucified, he has Jesus flogged? All in the name of "keeping the peace" and "ensuring safety" and "maintaining law and order" and asserting Rome’s control over the situation. Pilate doesn’t believe Jesus deserves it, but he has the man beaten and whipped before a torturous execution because it will both show everybody that Rome is calling the shots and it will quiet the crowds. Pilate is the worst kind of coward of all—the kind who wants to make people think he had no choice. He thinks that doing nothing keeps him from being guilty of Jesus’ death, but it is just the coward’s way of picking sides.
Theologians talk about sins of "commission" and sins of "omission"—that is, the wicked things we shouldn’t have done, and the good things we should have done, but didn’t. Pilate’s story reminds us that the second are just as awful in their consequences as the first. In fact, his sin of omission—not sticking up for a man he believes is innocent—is just the flip-side of the same coin as the crowds and their sin of commission—crying out for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate thinks it is doing nothing, but he is making a choice. He is picking sides… against Jesus.
There come moments in our lives where choices like that are put to us: to stand with the people who need an advocate, or to walk away. Often, we choose to walk away, to remain silent, or to look the other direction, and we think that our not doing something can’t be held against us. After all, we haven’t done anything wrong… right? But by our hesitancy to speak, our failure to act, our refusal to stand with ones in the margins, we are picking sides already. We are just doing it the coward’s way.
Now, I suppose this raises one vital question: what is the difference between Pilate’s cowardly act toward Jesus, and, say, Simon Peter’s denial of Jesus? Why is that that Peter can be forgiven and reinstated among Jesus’ followers, if his denial of Jesus was hardly different from Pilate’s “do nothing” approach? And should we, then, be more afraid when we look back on our past and see the times we have left things undone and passively picked sides against Jesus?
I would offer these two observations: first, after the rooster crows at Peter’s last denial, he realizes what he has done and weeps over it. That is, he quits pretending that denying Jesus was just about staying neutral and out of trouble. He realizes that by saying he didn’t even know Jesus, he has taken sides against Jesus—and it breaks Peter’s heart. And he realizes that his hands are dirty, too, now. Pilate, on the other hand, keeps himself in the illusion that he is righteous and just, because, after all, he didn’t try to get Jesus into trouble. Pilate walks off the stage of the story (and this is the last we’ll see of Pilate until after Jesus is dead) still thinking he has kept himself neutral and untainted, while Peter breaks down realizing that doing nothing is still picking sides. And so, Peter realizes, it’s all he can do to entrust himself to a God who does not treat us according to what we deserve, a God who can love even enemies, a God who refuses to stay at arm’s length from us trying to stay “neutral.”
When you compare Pilate and Peter, then, it becomes crystal clear: redemption is about the grip of God’s hands on us, and not about our self-declared "clean" hands. It is about a God who chooses our side.
May we today find the courage not to do nothing, the courage to stand with Jesus and his friends at the margins, the courage to admit our past failures. And let us then be gathered to Jesus’ side... since Jesus is what it looks like when God leaves behind "neutrality" to stand on the side of a sinful humanity.
Lord Jesus, we are yours. Let us own it today. Let us never be neutral about you.
No comments:
Post a Comment