Judas and the Inverted Pyramid (a Steve Orr Lectionary reflection)

He said what?! To whom?!

My sophomore year in high school brought a lot of changes. One of those changes, a positive one and one most important to me, was that I could take a class in journalism.

For one hour each day, five times each week, for about 40 weeks, I studied the fundamentals of Journalism. Throw in homework assignments and working on our award-winning school newspaper, I spent about 500 hours that school year immersed in journalistic pursuits. Yes, I learned how to write a concise, complete, accurate, and readable news story. Beyond the writing, though, I also learned how to do the research and investigatory work necessary to produce the elements of those stories. As Mrs. Cooper taught us: conveying what you want to convey is one thing; knowing whether it is accurate is something else entirely.

For the writing part, we learned to apply the Inverted Pyramid; the organization of information so that the most important facts appeared first in the story, with subsequent paragraphs containing information of lesser importance. Employing the Inverted Pyramid style, the first paragraph of a news story should contain (or, at least reference) the main who, what, when, where, and why (and/or how) fact-set.

If I were reporting on the events described in this week’s selection from the Gospel of John, the first paragraph would go something like this.

Last night in Bethany, at the home of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, one of Jesus’s followers, Judas, criticized Mary for anointing Jesus’ feet with a pound of expensive perfume. Judas questioned why the fragrance was not, instead, sold for 300 denarii and the proceeds distributed among the poor.

That’s not a bad opening paragraph. The main actors are all named. The main event, the foot-washing, is referenced. And a possible conflict is identified. It’s enough to make the reader wonder what happened next.

In an exclusive to this paper, another follower, John, described the events. John indicated he and other followers were invited to join Jesus for dinner at the Bethany household. [You my recall this home from a story we reported not long ago. It is the same location where Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead!] During dinner, while Jesus visited with Lazarus, Mary brought in the jar of ointment, lavished its contents on the feet of Jesus and then proceeded to wipe it off with her hair!

This works perfectly in an inverted pyramid story. The second paragraph provides the background for the first part of the first paragraph. The third paragraph will address the conflict between Jesus and Judas.

As the scent of the expensive perfume filled the house, Judas was heard to say, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?" The reader might think this question was not aimed at anyone in particular; more of a rhetorical question than one seeking an answer. However, John tells us Jesus responded to Judas, telling him, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."

The good reporter uses the last paragraph to bring the story to a close ... or to as much of a close as can be engineered with the facts at hand.

There has been speculation as to not only what Jesus meant by the comment to Judas that he would “always have the poor” with him, but also why he directed the comment to Judas. Jesus is known to periodically pause and direct side comments to His followers. However, in this case, it is clear His remarks were made directly in response to Judas. There seems to be a brewing conflict between these two, one that bears watching. The reader can depend on our reporters to remain vigilant, and to bring you the news of whatever develops.

That would be the end of a news story. The facts were presented and unknowns were identified. Mrs. Cooper would instruct us to move over to the Opinion Page if we wanted to write anything else about those events. Let’s do that and see what might have been printed there.

Sharp words were exchanged last night at a home in Bethany. The well known preacher, Jesus, took to task one of his followers for criticizing the actions of their host (see related story on Page 1). It seems one Judas expressed dismay that a pound(!) of perfume was applied to the feet of Jesus by Mary, sister to Martha and Lazarus (see “Life After Resurrection” Page 8, for more on this mystery man). While it may seem bizarre to anoint someone’s feet with perfume (and then wipe it off with her hair), in our view, Mary was perfectly within her rights to do so. Her home, her perfume. However, this Judas opined that the perfume was expensive and could have been sold for 300 denarii(!). Further, he thought that value could have been more useful in the hands of the poor than on the feet of Jesus. It is hard to argue with the need of the poor, but ....

This Judas kept the common purse of Jesus and his followers and no doubt had money on his mind ... perhaps too much. We have it on good authority that this Judas said what he said “not because he cared about the poor.” Our source further accused Judas of being a thief, claiming that he “used to steal” from their common purse. Well, that puts a whole new light on his complaints about the poor! In our opinion, this Judas cares nothing about the needs of the poor, but only about his own pockets. It seems his master has caught him out as well, sending this parting shot his way: “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."

Sounds to us like Jesus was not really commenting on the poor, at all. That, by using ‘the poor” as a metaphor, He was telling Judas that he could steal from the purse at any time, but that there would not be another occasion when Mary could express her feelings about Jesus. As for our newspaper, it is our hope the authorities will take note of this man and his love of money. For, as we all know, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil.

It might be interesting to read what this fictional newspaper would write about subsequent events. And what opinion pieces might grace its Opinion Page. But that’s it for now.

At least we now know who said what to whom.

_________________________
GRAPHIC (a great link to lessons for writers and wanna-be-writers): https://writerswrite.co.za/why-you-need-the-inverted-pyramid-when-you-write/inverted-pyramid-in-comprehensive-form/

__________________________
READINGS FOR THE COMING WEEK
Fifth Sunday in Lent (April 7, 2019)
https://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu//texts.php?id=122

Isaiah 43:16-21
Psalm 126
Philippians 3:4b-14
John 12:1-8

_________________________

One Friday closer to Easter! Join us for DaySpring’s Lectionary Breakfast at the Waco “Egg and I” restaurant. We start at 8:00am, packing an hour with good news, good food, good fellowship, good discussion, and a belly laugh or two. You should join us.

Blessings,
Steve

The Sting (a Lectionary reflection by Steve Orr)

Robert Redford plays Johnny Hooker and Paul Newman plays Henry Gondorf in the film, The Sting. In brief, for those you have yet to see it: the movie is about two con men who swindle an evil mob boss out of half a million dollars during the Great Depression (1930's). They mount the con as revenge for the mob boss murdering their friend. It was nominated for ten Academy Awards and won seven. Redford and Newman were, of course, handsome, debonair, and wholly likable.

Almost everyone has seen it and enjoyed how the complex plot results in the comeuppance of the evil man. Ocean's Eleven (12, 13, etc.) have a similar plot skeleton, as has several stories and movies. We like these stories because we like seeing bad or greedy people get what we believe is due them ---the pain of losing something dear to them (in this case, money)--- and done so in an entertaining way.

What's not to like?

Well, maybe a lot.

In reality, there really was a Gondorf (Fred). He and his brother (Charley) really did work this scam. But they did it for money, not for justice. The actual "sting" was pulled on an Englishman in 1914 who was cheated out of real money: $10,000 (a very large sum in 1914). The Englishmen took his complaint to the real police and Gondorf went to a real prison. The money, of course, was long gone.

In reality, ordinary people are scammed out of their hard earned money every day. They almost never get it back; even if the perpetrators are caught; even if the con artists go to jail. Worse than that (hard to imagine something worse, isn't it?), widows and widowers, the poor, and the homeless are common targets, as well.

Wait. What?!

How can those who are "in need" be targets of scams?

Contrary to the movies, most con artists are heartless criminals with no concern for anyone but themselves. Most will stoop to anything, including murder, to get what they want. And that brings us to this week's Lectionary selection from Mark. Jesus identifies an even lower level of con artist scum.

I'll grant you, there were likely some good "scribes" living and plying their trade in those days, but my money is on Jesus being correct in his charging the greater majority of them with something worse than criminal behavior: using their understanding of God's Law to swindle widows and their families out of the little they had. I know, it's really difficult to believe someone could stoop so low.

Remember, Judas loudly decried the "waste" of the expensive perfume used to anoint Jesus' feet because it could have been sold and the money distributed to the poor. Scripture tells us he didn't mean it, that he just wanted the money placed in the ministry purse so he could embezzle it. That's a man personally selected by Jesus to be one of the original 12.

Yes, sad as it is to contemplate, there are people among us who will swindle us out of our money; using God, Jesus, the Bible ---whatever works--- to move our property from our control the theirs. And they absolutely do not care if their "marks" are already impoverished or hurting from the loss of a loved one. All they care about is whether they can successfully scam the mark.

It's bad enough that these kinds of people walk our streets. It is far worse that they walk the aisles of our churches. They don't just "sting" their marks: they destroy them, wound their faith, and drive them away from God. We have to be alert to these wolves in sheep's clothing. Still. And we need wisdom to discern the wolves from the real sheep. For most of those who have fallen prey to these wolves, there is only one consolation:

Jesus promised “These men will be punished most severely.” (Mark‬ ‭12:40‬ ‭NIV‬)

_______________________________

READINGS FOR THE COMING WEEK
Proper 27 (32) (November 8, 2015)
First reading and Psalm
Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17
Psalm 127
Alternate First reading and Psalm
1 Kings 17:8-16
Psalm 146
Second reading
Hebrews 9:24-28
Gospel
Mark 12:38-44

_____________________________________

Breakfast, scripture, fellowship, and fun. How do you beat that combination? Join is Friday mornings for Lectionary Breakfast at the Waco "Egg and I" restaurant. We meet at 8:00 for about an hour.

I wouldn't steer you wrong.

Enjoy the week!
Steve

The Fifth Widow

The Fifth Widow
(A brief Lectionary reflection by Steve Orr)

Looking back at that title, I now realize it sounds like one of those "cozy" murder mysteries from the UK with one of Agatha Christie's characters tracking down the connection between the first four widows to prevent the untimely death of the fifth; or maybe one of Steve Berry's globe-hopping adventure romps where the "the fifth widow" turns out to be something Napoleon had hidden away and that nefarious people are willing to kill for.

Sorry. No. Nothing that dramatic. But hang with me. There IS something to see here.

There are five widows in this week's Lectionary selections. Can that be coincidence? It seems highly unlikely that such a confluence of widows could be accidental. I think someone is trying to focus our thoughts.

We start with Naomi and Ruth, two widows barely getting by on the seasonal work Ruth can get "gleaning" (the law allowed the poor to gather any grain missed by the harvesters). Times are tough for the two widows; plus there's a spirit of lawlessness about that even moving back to Israel could not spare them from. Rape is a serious concern. So an aging Naomi comes up with a daring plan to ensure her daughter-in-law Ruth is protected and provided for. As I keep stating, Ruth, at only four chapters, is one of the shortest books in the Bible. You should read it.

And then there is the widow of Zarephath in 1st Kings. She has almost nothing. In fact, it is so close to nothing she expects to use the last of it to make her final meal in this life. Here is another woman who, like Ruth, was a Gentile and thus had no right to claim anything under God's laws. And once again, God does something contrarian: because this widow agreed to use the last of her resources to serve God's prophet, she was rewarded with enough food to last her family the entirety of the drought. There is more to this story and it is worth your time to read about what comes next.

The fourth widow is in the Mark passage. Her generosity leads to her being immortalized in scripture. Right after Jesus warns the crowd to beware the Scribes who "devour widows' houses," he observes a widow place two coins in the temple treasury, far less than amounts given by others that day, but they were all she had. And as Jesus points out, there is nothing greater than ALL. Like the widow of Zarephath, she trusts God with her resources.

These four widows have something in common. They are all needy. It was a common state in those days: widows, orphans, the disabled; they were all dependent on God's people honoring God's commands to care for the needy. Something that is often in very short supply among God's people FOR God's people.

And that brings us to the fifth widow. She's in Psalm 146. In a way, even though no name is given, she is the most important of the five. That's because she is every widow. She is OUR widow. The psalm (and the other passages) makes it plain that God intends good for the widow (and the orphan, the blind, the oppressed, the stranger, the hungry, the prisoner . . . all those "bowed down" by the circumstances of their lives . . . regardless of how they got that way . . . regardless whether they are counted among the "chosen" or not). Should we treat them any differently than does God? No. There are reasons God wants us to follow His example in this regard. And I bet you can think of them with a little effort.

In any case, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27 NIV)

###############################
READINGS FOR THIS WEEK
http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu

Proper 27 (32) (November 11, 2012)
Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17
Psalm 127
1 Kings 17:8-16
Psalm 146
Hebrews 9:24-28
Mark 12:38-44

THE EGG AND I: we're giving it a try out this coming Friday (11-16-2012). Join us there (corner of New Road and Franklin, behind Outback) if you can, at 8:00 a.m.

Enjoy the week!
Steve

What You Have

What you have
(a brief Lectionary reflection by Steve Orr)

"Is it OK for God's people to have stuff?"

That's the question, in one form or another, I get from time to time. The questioner is concerned about materialism. And more specifically, they are concerned about the conflicting messages they are receiving from well-meaning believers and spiritual leaders.

On the one hand, we are bombarded with messages that say, in effect, if we DON'T have stuff, it's because we don't have enough faith, or enough of the right kind of faith. The message: your lack of stuff is a direct measure of your lack of faith. Simultaneously, we are bombarded from the complete opposite direction with messages telling us that we must NOT have stuff (or only have very little stuff) because stuff gets between us and God. The message: the less stuff you have, the closer to God you are.

To say the messages are confusing is somewhat of an understatement. As a result, it is quite common for us to just PICK A SIDE rather than remain confused . . . even though we are often unable to fully explain the Biblical basis for our choice.

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that we are not asking the right question. Behind the question, "Is it OK for God's people to have stuff?", is what we really want to know: "Is it OK for ME to have stuff?" As it turns out, that is a much better question, and one we can address through scripture.

Throughout the Bible there are many people depicted as having stuff; all the kings, for example. Also, there are many large land owners in scripture---including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob---who have large households, thousands of head of cattle and/or sheep, productive farming operations with many employees to perform the many tasks that attend such estates. These would be the equivalent of today's super-rich.

There are good kings and bad kings, good wealthy people and bad wealthy people. In fact, it is quite rare that the reader of scripture encounters a person who is lauded for their wealth or their lack of wealth. We read of Joseph, who comes from a wealthy background, gets sold into slavery, goes to prison, and then rises to the highest position under Pharaoh. We read of David, also from a well-off family, who goes from shepherd to soldier to sovereign.

Moses had it all and gave it all up to flee a murder charge, but ends up leading a nation. Job had it all only to see it all taken from him, and then, eventually, received even more than he had to begin with. The Prophet Elijah lives for a while on just what God gives him to eat and drink, but later has a servant and a residence. Then there is the Prophet Obadiah who worked for an evil king, lived in relative luxury during the famine, but served God honorably. Rahab is a prostitute who becomes a princess. Ruth is a widow who marries a wealthy land owner. Esther, a slave, enters a beauty contest and becomes the queen of a nation.

And then there's Solomon, someone who never knew anything but wealth. When pressed for a definitive answer, this week's scripture about Solomon is where I point people. Is it OK for you to have stuff? Personally, I don't think the answer lies with the stuff; it lies with you.

What you have
Has you.
Neither bad nor good;
Just true.

What is your relationship to the stuff? I ask that because this question about whether it's OK to have stuff is a "first world" question. It's not a "third world" question. We only ask the question because we live in a place where there is plenty. In undeveloped or underdeveloped countries, they're asking much more fundamental questions. There is not a surfeit of stuff with which to be concerned.

If God asked you, as he did of Solomon, what you want, what would your answer be? Solomon's answer perfectly reflects the idea of "Seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you."

Do you have questions about materials things? or about ANY thing? Do as Solomon did: ask God for wisdom. He will give it, and more. The question then becomes, not WHETHER you may have stuff---you live in the first world; there's a LOT of stuff here---but rather what does your God-given wisdom tell you to do with it?

###############################
READINGS FOR THE COMING WEEK
http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt

Proper 15 (20) (August 19, 2012)
1 Kings 2:10-12; 3:3-14
Psalm 111
Proverbs 9:1-6
Psalm 34:9-14
Ephesians 5:15-20
John 6:51-58

Lots of great selections this week on wisdom. Soak it up! :-)

We will be enjoying each other's company and some great food this Friday morning at Cafe Cappuccino (downtown Waco, on 6th near the Courthouse). Join us at 8:00 if you are in town.

Enjoy the week!
Steve