A Clean Heart?

A sermon based upon Psalm 51, CEB

By Rev. Charles J. Tomlin, BA, MDiv, DMin.

Flat Rock-Zion Baptist Partnership, 

August 11th, 2019

“Cathy” was a gag-a-day comic strip that ran in American newspapers for 36 years, from 1976 to 2010.   Listen in on a conversation Cathy had with her husband Walter about feeling guilty:

Walter: "But, Cathy, my sweet ... This is a new age! There is no 'right' or 'wrong'

anymore."

Cathy: "No right and no wrong?"

Walter: "No, Cathy. There’s no ethical standard anymore. Nothing’s morally good

 or bad."

Cathy: "No ethics? No morals?"

Walter: "There are no rules anymore, Cathy. You can’t worry about breaking

 rules because there aren’t any rules!"

Cathy: "No rules."

Walter: "No right. No wrong. No ethics. No morals. No rules."

Cathy: "This leaves me with only one question, Walter.

Where does all this guilt come from?"

Today’s Psalm is about sin, guilt, confession, and David’s cry for God’s forgiveness.   But who needs to hear old-fashioned, antiquated ideas like this?  A recent commercial for Outback Steakhouse expresses the sentiment: “No Rules, Just Right!”   Like Walter told Cathy, “No right.  No wrong.  No ethics.  No morals.  No rules.  Get rid of your guilt!   But as Cathy answered, “If that’s true, this where does ‘guilt’ come from?”

I'VE SINNED AGAINST YOU-- YOU ALONE (Ps. 51:4 CEB)

In Psalm 51 David felt guilty because he was guilty, but did he really need to?  David was King.  Why would a King have to worry about right or wrong, since he is the authority. How can a King break the rules when the King rules?  He doesn’t answer to anybody.  Right?

Maybe that’s what King David’s first thought to himself when he saw a young, beautiful woman named Bathsheba, bathing on the privacy of her rooftop.  All the men had been sent off to war.  Who would know?  She was alone.  He was her king.  David was used to doing as he pleased; so he did. 

After Bathsheba informed David that she was pregnant, David felt the need to do something.  But instead of taking responsibility, instead of admitting his human weakness; facing his wrongdoing, David decided to to stage a cover-up, sending Bathsheba’s husband Uriah to the front-line, where the loyal, patriotic husband would die in battle.

So now, the King who could do as he pleased became the King who had cover up what he did.  Why did David feel the need to do this?  Why did King David not want to admit that he had ‘sexual relations with that woman’.  Why did David have to make it even worse?

Maybe he was worried about his legacy. 

Maybe he was worried about what his other wives would think;

Maybe he was worried about what his friends would think. 

Maybe he was worried about what the people might think,

or what the Husband would think,

or whether other good soldiers would still go to war for a King who took their generals wife behind his back?   Whatever it was, by attempting to cover up one sin, David was now guilty of two. As Sir Walter Scott said: ‘What tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.” 

But there’s something else to consider here.  After David committed this ‘royal rape’, which was clearly an abuse of royal power, what might have been done about it?  In ancient Israel, there was a somewhat complicated atonement process so sins could be forgiven.  Israel, was not like other ancient nations.  Israel didn’t have a normal process of crimes and punishments. Israel considered itself a ‘holy’ nation, believing that they were a unique, peculiar, special, God-called, set-apart, and ‘holy’ people.   A wrong committed by an Israelite was not only wrong, it was a ‘sin against God’ needing to be atoned for, making right the broken relationship with God. 

Again, since Israel, both Kings and people, were called to be holy, as God is holy, when a person in Israel committed a sin, they didn’t go to court, but they went to a priest.  Making full atonement for sin required some kind of ‘sin offering’, normally a living sacrifice.  This offering was not merely ‘payment’ or ‘fine’ for sin, but it was understood as a complete cleansing from sin and from guilt too.  This restoration process was necessary so the wrongdoer, who had sinned against God not just laws, could be restore into their rightful relationship to a holy God and continue to be the person called them to be.

In this system of sin, punishment or ‘atonement’, there were, according to ancient system, only two sins that could not be forgiven.   One was murder.  If you killed someone, you took away their life, that could not be restored.  The other unforgivable sin was rape.  If you raped someone, it was reasoned, you took away a person’s soul, and that soul could not be fully restored either.  Thus, in Israel’s understanding, the beloved King of this ‘holy’ people was guilty of not one, but two ‘unforgivable’ sins.

Still, David could have probably still gotten away with this.  He could have moved on with his life and taken a new wife, without much consequence.  David had been ‘voted’ in by popular opinion.  Since David was ‘a man after God’s own heart’, and most wanted to believe he could do no wrong, people probably would have sadly, looked the other way.  But, of course, after this David’s untarnished fame, would have become lackluster like everyone else.

Had it not been the prophet named Nathan, we may have never known what really happened.  One thing for sure; Psalm 51 would have never been written.  At least that’s what the heading of this Psalm says.  Psalm 51 is a song that was given to the ‘chief musician… when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba (Ps. 51:1 KJV).  Had Nathan not blown the whistle, not confronted this ‘picture-perfect’, gifted, blessed, Hollywood-looking King, this whole fiasco could have been swept under the ‘proverbial’ rug.

But, in the biblical story, the LORD revealed David’s sin to the prophet (2 Sam. 12:1ff).  The Lord instructed the prophet Nathan to approach the King, undaunted, and fearlessly; but not without using care and caution.  So, as you know, instead of telling David the problem upfront, Nathan gave King David a problem to solve. 

In short, Nathan appeals to the ‘humane’ side of David’s nature, informing the King about something the prophet may have observed in David’s kingdom: A wealthy man needed to fix a nice meal for one of his traveling guests.   Even though, this wealthy man had plenty of money and plenty of lambs of his own, the rich man demanded to take one of the little lambs from his poor employees flock; a little lamb that was a beloved pet to the employee’s children.  Hearing of a rich man taking unfair advantage of his poor employee, King David was incensed: “Who is this man?” “Where is this man?” “He deserves to die!”  (2 Sam. 12:5).

“You are that man,” the prophet suggested.   

Such a daring confrontation could have endangered the life of this prophet.  Even in a religious state like Israel, prophets were only advisors to kings; they had no ‘real’ power.  The King was free to listen or ignore the prophet’s counsel.  Furthermore, if the king didn’t like the prophet; he could fire him, or worst, if the King felt the prophet to be undermining his authority, or his ‘right’ to be King, the King could have the prophet executed as a ‘false prophet’.  That was always the king’s prerogative.  Here, through this prophet, God was revealing his own prerogative, revealing what is true for everybody, even a King.

Considering such a daring confrontation, we should also dare to think about our own feelings and how we might all connect with this Psalm.  When David poured out his feelings of guilt, shame, and sin, both in confession, contrition, and repentance; and he did it not just privately, but also publicly, toward God, and before all the people; out of this great human drama comes a question that is still very relevant for us, or is it?

Are feelings of sin, guilt, and acts of contrition for forgiveness and restoration; such matters of the heart, issues we should concern ourselves with today?  Besides, who confesses sin, either privately or publicly, anymore?   Didn’t Walter tell Cathy when she felt guilty: “We live in new age, now!  Ethical standards and old rules don’t matter anymore!  There are no standards of right or wrong; nothing morally good or bad!”

What Walter was basically suggesting is that today, we all live like Kings.  We are people who are born with entitlements, rights, wealth, knowledge and privilege, which are far greater than those of ancient kings like David, emperor’s like Caesar, or rulers like James, Louis, or Charles.  Those kings never dreamed of the kinds of opportunities, freedoms, or responsibilities we have, or should I say, we should have.

HAVE MERCY ON ME, O GOD (Ps. 51:1 CEB)

Before we address whether or not old rules’ and ancient or modern ethical standards still matter, I want us to listen to another comic strip conversation, where this time, Cathy is talking with her Mother.  Most interesting about this, is that the main point comes from what Cathy’s mother doesn’t say:

Cathy: "Guess what? Roger is moving in with Judy."

Mother: "That’s nice."

Cathy: "Dianne and Tom just had a baby and they named it after Dianne’s old boyfriend."

Mother: "That’s nice."

Cathy: "Claudia’s going on a 5-day canoe trip with a guy she met last night!"

Mother: "That’s nice."

Cathy: "What’s the world coming to? I can’t shock my mother anymore."

Don’t we accept things we didn’t fifteen years ago?  Why did David really have this need to confess sin and beg God’s forgiveness?   But even if he did then, haven’t we freed ourselves from such demanding moral or religious chains, so that such negative and oppressive feelings have practically disappeared and gone out of style?  ‘Whatever became of sin? Why do fewer and fewer take sin, guilt and confession less seriously in our modern lives? 

Perhaps it’s partly because today sin is no longer taken personally, but is considered more like an ‘illness’, a ‘disease’ or a ‘symptom’ needing to be treated and cured rather than a wrong to be admitted or confessed (Freud)?  Perhaps its also because human behavior is now theorized to be more predetermined or wired within us (in our genes), not as much our own choosing, but a defect that can’t be stopped (B.F. Skinner)?  

Even today, when someone says ‘the devil made me do’, they don’t really mean the devil.  They are meaning rather, that they were born this way, their parents were bad, others influenced them, or their bad behavior is because of a sick society.  The great irony here is that rather than make us free to do what we want, we become slaves to our own bad, degrading, and dehumanizing choices.  Since what’s wrong in us is someone else’s fault or we say ‘we can’t help ourselves’, we have less to be ashamed of, less to be sorry for, less blame to take, and of course, much less that we should feel guilty about.  This might seem like a better way to proceed forward with life, until it finally dawns on us, that by not having any, or less moral responsibility, we have also denied ourselves of the human freedom it takes to make the moral choice to do what is right.

Interestingly, all this shirking of personal or public responsibility takes us right back where it all started. As the great psychiatrist Karl Menninger said: “To some extent, all of us repeat the experience of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden...”  Our own rebellion, which is our failure to seek God and answer to God’s goodness, shows up, not only in the wrong choices we make, but it also shows up in the right choices we don’t make. For example, I was talking to my postman just the other day, and he told me that after his divorce from his first wife, he now has a new Fiancée.  After congratulating him, I asked when he was going to get married.  He answered that they hadn’t made any plans, and probably he wasn’t planning on getting married again at all.  “Getting married”, he said, is like ‘betting on losing half of everything you’ve worked for all your life.”  “It’s just not worth it,” He said.  Now, at least to him, no decision, no commitment, and no choice, seems to be the best.

When people live their ‘best life’ by their non-choices, their non-confessions, and their non-plans, what will finally be the value of anything?  Doesn’t this lead to a much lesser ‘you’? and a much lesser life?   No wonder the great reformer Martin Luther once said, ‘Sin boldly!’   Luther wasn’t recommending to try to sin, as he knew, like we all know, that sin will happen, naturally.  What Luther was recommending was a bold, risk taking, daring life, depending boldly and firmly upon God’s grace every step of the way.  Luther wrote: “God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but LET YOUR TRUST IN CHRIST BE STRONGER, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.” 

In thinking practically about Luther’s idea, along with the reality of a great King’s great sin, isn’t it better to have a car that takes you places, even if it sometimes has mechanical problems or has dents in it?  A car with no dents, no scratches, and no problems is a car that never goes anywhere but stays in the garage. What good is that? 

CREATE A CLEAN HEART…, O GOD;  (Ps. 51:10 CEB)

Not only because David felt his guilt, but also by acknowledging and confessing that he had sinned against God, David experienced God’s cleansing love and the fullness of God’s restoring, and soul-healing forgiveness.  This is the spiritual healing that makes life positive and possible for sinners like David, and sinners like us too.

Psalm 51 also shows us how and why God forgives.  When we, like David, fall short of God’s intentions, guilt comes to remind us of what is good and right, even when it feels very bad.  But these negative guilt feelings are only good for us, IF our guilt turns us toward God’s redeeming, forgiving love.  God’s love is always offered through honest confession of sin, bringing us reconciliation with God and others, so that we can move ahead in goodness and with gladness.  If guilt remains unconfessed or unforgiven, our spirits become negative and neurotic.  The great theologian Paul Tillich once explained that having the courage to affirm and ‘accept’ oneself, in spite of our sin and guilt is "rooted in the certainty that God forgives.”   This kind of unconditional “acceptance” is crucial to both the healing our guilt of sin and for growing love within our hearts.  

Clint McCann, in his work on the Psalms in The New Interpreter's Bible notes, "Any good history book is mainly just a long list of mistakes, complete with names and dates. It is very embarrassing." And this is especially true of the Bible. Israel's story is a long list of mistakes. King David's story is very embarrassing. So is the behavior of the disciples in the Gospels. So is the situation of the early church, as is painfully obvious in the letters of Paul. So is the history of the Christian church throughout the centuries. So are the denominational and congregational lives of the contemporary church. So are the details of our own life stories, if we are honest enough to admit it.

In short, McCann writes, "Psalm 51 is not just about Israel or David, it is also about us! It is about who we are and how we are as individuals, families, churches -- sin pervades our lives. It is very embarrassing."  T But it is the very ‘bad’ news about us that leads us to hear the ‘good news’ that comes from God’s forgiveness, revealed in the redeeming and soul healing love of God in Jesus Christ.

“A broken spirit is my sacrifice.  God won't despise a heart that is broken and crushed?   David didn’t need to hide his sin, because David could accept his failure, as a failure by him in his life, but not the failure of his life.  This is the kind of saving and reconciling difference that a loving, forgiving, and redeeming God can make.  Amen.   (Ps. 51:1-19 CEB)