"Denial"

I am going to do something a little bit different today. Our focus is going to be on Peter. As Mark has been describing Jesus’ ministry and Passion – his path of suffering for us – he has given us snippets of Peter along the way. We have been going verse-by-verse through this gospel, but today I am going to trace a familiar narrative and will be jumping through some verses. We will be hearing some of these again in a later context, but I want to take Peter as a study today.

Read Mark 14:12-21, 26-31, 66-72

This is the Word of the LORD.

There may not be any more heart-rending verses in Mark. Peter’s arc is such a powerful narrative because it is so dramatic. He goes from utter devotion to utter devastation in a matter of a few verses – which, in real life, amounted to a matter of hours. How quickly things deteriorated. And, boy, do I feel for him: not just because of what happened, because that was awful enough; but also because so many of us remember this as a defining moment in Peter’s life. Imagine if your worst moments, your worst failures, your worst actions were known and remembered throughout all history. That’s Peter’s journey through the back half of Mark 14.

Let me try to put this in a little bit of context.

To really get the totality of Peter’s agonizing experience here, we need to do a little tracing back through the relationship Jesus and Peter had up until this point. Of course, we just heard Peter at the Last Supper declaring his unconditional devotion to Jesus, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” If that were all there was, we might be able to explain away Peter’s later denial as a rash vow made in the passion of the moment. However, there was much, much more that had taken place between them.

Peter was known as Simon. He was casting a net in the Sea of Galilee with his brother Andrew when Jesus called them to follow him. He was one of the twelve apostles appointed by Jesus as the ministry began to grow. Peter was part of the inner circle. Peter was the one who answered Jesus’ question, “Who do you say I am,” with the church’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It was a big moment.

Through the travels and the ministry and the deeds of power, Peter popped up a number of times as the voice or representative of the apostles. When Jesus was transfigured on top of the mountain, it was Peter, James and John who were with him. Peter, of courses, was the one who blundered in trying to speak, ““Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 

The impression of Peter we get from Scripture is a man with a big personality, big passions, a big heart, and a stumbling theology. We care about him because we can identify with him. He comes across so completely human. He has high moments, low moments, foolish moments, and spectacular moments. He stands for all of us.

And let me take one farther step back: think about what Jesus had been teaching for the three years that Peter had traveled with him. “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe the good news.” Within that teaching, Peter had heard the great commands over and over: Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. It seems like such a simple combination of commands. Yet these are the very things Peter failed.  They also are the very things we are most incapable of mastering. Without working too hard, let me just illustrate with events in this last week where we have seen the horror brokenness played out in frightening measure: continued riots in Portland, rising death tolls and frustration over the inability to deal with the virus, the unchecked anger underlying most of our civic discourse these days.

So often in times like these – though these are pretty strange times – someone will hop online with the helpful suggestion that everyone just needs to calm down and love each other. And what is my reaction when I read that? I roll my eyes and think, “Well, ok then. Like that suggestion is going to solve it.” My skepticism – cynicism? – is fairly hardened because I think our culture is delusional. We live in a country and culture where we like to believe that mankind is at its essence good. We think we can will ourselves into a better world. We really believe that evil can be handled with reasonable dialogue.

Nope.

The problem is that our culture is recklessly naïve and fails to take Scripture seriously. We are naïve because we fail to recognize the spiritual dimension of history and events. We fail to take Scripture seriously because we treat it as a moral code rather than God’s personal revelation. We end up not loving God because we blame God for what has gone wrong without ever blessing God for why things were right in the first place. We end up not loving neighbor as ourselves because we discover very quickly that our neighbor is different – and we are convinced that our way is God’s way. We believe we are righteous and good. 

Our verses today are Mark’s case-closing argument against man’s ability to be self-righteous. It took just a few hours for the strongest disciple to wither and fall away. But our verses also set the stage for revealing the remarkable, amazing, powerful love of God that was in Jesus Christ. 

Peter’s Arc

There are a couple of things to see here beyond the basic pathos of the moment. First, there is the way Mark structured the narrative. Immediately following Jesus’ bold affirmation of his own identity before the chief priests, elders, and scribes; Peter denies it in front of their servants. Let me say that again: in verses 53-65, Jesus affirmed his identity before the disbelieving authorities who would not recognize him; in verses 66-72, Peter denied his identity before the authorities’ servants who did recognize him. Mark wanted to highlight the tragic irony of Peter’s denial.

Second, we should note that Peter got progressively more adamant in his denial, from the evasive “I do not know what you are talking about,” to cursing and specifically denying that he knew Jesus. It is the culminating moment of Jesus’ complete and utter isolation and alienation for our judgment – even his closest friend curses at his name. That’s the last thing before Jesus was taken out to be crucified. And, oh, how Peter realized what he had done. He wept bitterly.

Remember that: Peter wept bitterly. Don’t gloss over that: Peter was broken. He was devastated. Weeping bitterly is what happens when all is stripped away and you are left with the un-nuanced truth – and it is not pretty. Given Peter’s situation, it is not difficult to understand why he wept bitterly; but it is important to realize how essential was this experience for him. It was the destruction of his pride that would lead to the repentance and receiving the forgiveness that Jesus had described. Without this experience, Peter always would have held out the notion that he was strong enough on his own to stand with Jesus. As awful as it was, it would turn out to be a blessing – not because of Peter but because of Jesus. As awful as it was, it turned out to be a blessing because “a broken and contrite heart, God will not despise.”

All that being true, we still have to ask: why would Mark include this story? Remember, the Gospel of Mark is generally thought to reflect Peter’s experiences and recollections of his time with Jesus. Mark was basing the gospel on things he had learned directly from Peter. He could have skipped this part or not mentioned Peter’s weeping bitterly.  Beyond that, all the disciples scattered, so why pick on Peter? Aside from verifying Jesus’ prophetic statement, why would Mark have felt it important to include this among all the things that happened?

The answer is simple: because Peter is us. He is you and he is me. Let me explain with a story. A number of years ago an attorney in Ventura, California posted the following:

I have been practicing law for almost 23 years. I have been a part of thousands of cases and have seen harsh, ugly, and bitter things in the courtroom.  …

I recently represented Shante Chappell. Ms. Chappell was charged with (vehicular manslaughter); [that is] being under the influence of Xanax when her car struck and killed Christopher Prewitt. Mr. Prewitt was a local teacher and had touched the lives of many in Ventura County. I do not exaggerate when I say that his death had a profound effect on the entire community, and his loss was mourned by thousands of people.

I met Mr. Prewitt on at least two occasions and I know many people in our community who also knew him. There were many people in my life who were upset with me for taking Ms. Chappell's case, thinking somehow my representation of Ms. Chappell was an affront to the victim and those who cared for him. I was asked by friends, family, and even people I work with not to represent Ms. Chappell. There was much anger about my possible representation of Ms. Chappell and hatred toward her once the charges became public. These factors convinced me to represent her. …

When I first met Ms. Chappell she insisted on pleading guilty to the charge at her earliest opportunity. She had accepted full responsibility and appeared completely remorseful for her actions. I had to convince her to allow me the opportunity to review the case before I could allow her to plead guilty.

In a case such as this, a deputy district attorney and I meet with a judge to discuss the case and a possible sentence before the plea is taken. Both sides present their positions and the judge typically gives an indication or just tells you what the sentence will be should the client plead guilty. Judge Ryan Wright, a man I greatly respect and whom I have known since we were in the DA's office together, was the judge for this case. The charge Ms. Chappell eventually pled guilty to carries a maximum term of 10 years in prison. The DA wanted a harsh sentence, her position was not irrational. Ms. Chappell had killed an upstanding member of our community and my client was proven to have been under the influence of a great deal of Xanax. I pointed out some mitigating factors, such as Ms. Chappell had shown complete remorse and had accepted responsibility almost immediately. With no prior record she deserved a sentence closer to what we call the low term – 4 years. Judge Wright let us know that he did not think this was a low term case, and that he would decide punishment at the sentencing.

I informed Ms. Chappell of the likelihood of a higher sentence, explaining that family and friends of the victim would have a strong voice in determining her sentence. I assumed the Prewitt family would be asking for the maximum, my assumption was based on the dozens of other criminal cases I've tried. After all, they had lost a husband and a father, a son and a brother, a teacher and a mentor; their loss was great and I represented the woman who admitted responsibility for it.

On the morning of Ms. Chappell's arraignment on the charges, her first formal court date on this matter, the courtroom was filled with people who knew and cared for Mr. Prewitt. At various points these people voiced their anger toward Ms. Chappell and even me. I'm used to such things, but Ms. Chappell is a young woman, and she was noticeably frightened. When I asked her if she was ok, Ms. Chappell told me she understood the anger; she felt it was deserved and did not complain.

Let me jump into the narrative for just a moment. “She felt it was deserved and did not complain.” There are two truths in this statement: one, that condemnation was deserved. That the anger of the others was appropriate for the wrong that was done. The second is that this young woman willingly bore it because she thought it was deserved.

I stop here because it is important we realize what a rock bottom moment this was. She was broken and she was contrite. So many people never get to this place to realize just how broken they are. Some people never get to this place and never truly understand the scope and consequence of their sin. They justify, explain, or mitigate. As a result, there is a lingering self-righteousness that tinges everything.

But I also stop here to point out that this also is where many fully broken people remain – even Christians. I have known people who have gone to church faithfully for years – years! – holding onto that one thing that that is too bad to confess, too bad to name, to personal to ever confront.  They never let God see it or deal with it. In holding onto it, they hope either that God overlooks it or else that they will be strong enough to deal with what they deserve.   

On June 27, 2014 we returned to court in order for Ms. Chappell to be sentenced. The courtroom was once again packed. On one side of the room sat those supporting Ms. Chappell and on the other side sat family, friends, and supporters of the Prewitt family. While the two groups were separated by an aisle, you not help but notice that the sides were also separated by the color of their skin. All of these people lived in the same town and were members of the same community, but they looked like they were from two different worlds. There were extra deputies present because of a concern that someone would act out violently. Deputies were even stationed outside the door of the court and I was asked to inform Ms. Chappell's supporters that anyone who caused a disturbance would be immediately escorted out of the courtroom. You could feel the tension in the room and you could see it on the faces of the court's staff.

At a sentencing of this nature, the Court often receives victim impact statements from the family and friends of the victim. For those who don't know, victim impact statements allow those most affected by the defendant's crime to directly address the Court and speak as to how they think the defendant should be sentenced. These are often emotional and confrontational. I have seen victims yell at defendants for what they have done, call them names, and usually they conclude with asking the Court to level the severest penalty possible. Prior to the sentencing I warned Ms. Chappell about what can occur during witness impact statements. I told her the Prewitt family and those who would give impact statements may confront her in this manner. Even though I had previously met Mr. Prewitt, and know people who spoke of his character and his desire to make the world a better place, I still expected Ms. Chappell to be confronted and possibly verbally attacked. Ms. Chappell indicated she understood and assured me that no matter how angry or confrontational anyone became, she would not respond with anything but humility and regret. I told Ms. Chappell's supporters that we would not counter anger with anger, and asked them to be the classy and well-intentioned people they had repeatedly shown me they were.

Mr. Prewitt's wife, his sister, and a close family friend delivered the victim impact statements. As Mr. Prewitt's sister approached the podium, the tension mounted. I was anticipating the worst and I hated the thought of reliving these people's pain. … All of the speakers, on behalf of the Prewitt family, made it clear that they have suffered a tremendous loss, they told of the impact Mr. Prewitt had on their lives and on our community, and they spoke about the life he had lived.

[But] after doing so, they had one more goal to accomplish: all of them wanted to make it clear that they forgave Ms. Chappell. This act of mercy was delivered with love and a sincere desire for Ms. Chappell to know that they harbored no anger toward her, and that they want the best for her and her family. All of them spoke of their strong belief in God, letting us know that Mr. Prewitt held the same belief. If he were alive, they said, he would want his friends and family to forgive Shante—they did, one by one—offering their grace and mercy.

The entire courtroom was affected; seasoned veteran sheriff's deputies were moved to tears; the court clerk was openly sobbing; the defense attorney could barely compose himself enough to speak; and the judge felt compelled to excuse himself for thirty minutes to get ahold of his emotions.

During the recess, the Prewitt family and their supporters approached Ms. Chappell and hugged both her and her family. Mrs. Prewitt and Ms. Chappell openly embraced one another in the middle of the courtroom. Ms. Chappell sobbed in Mrs. Prewitt's arms and Mrs. Prewitt told Ms. Chappell it was time to forgive herself. Supporters on both sides greeted each other, shook hands, and hugged. The act of extending God's grace to another human being instantaneously affected all those present. I will remember this day as one of the most powerful experiences I have witnessed in a courtroom or anywhere else.

After Ms. Chappell was sentenced, she was taken into custody as required. Before being taken to jail, I met with Ms. Chappell in the detention area of the courtroom. I expected to find her in tears, but instead she was smiling. I told her I was surprised to see her smile. Still handcuffed to a bench, she responded, "For the first time in a while I actually feel free."[1]

Why does Mark include this story about Peter? Mark included it because Peter could not have known the full measure of God’s grace without experiencing the full measure of his own sinfulness. Neither can we. Until you come face to face with the consequences of your rebellion against God; your disloyalty; until you realize how you have hurt or wronged others, the ways in which you have chosen selfishly versus obediently; until you see the blemishes in your life the way God does; until you sit in the defendant’s seat knowing you deserve condemnation, you will always believe you are strong enough on your own to stand in righteousness.

You are not strong enough. 

Mark tells us this story because Peter’s experience is universal.  We all know it. We all know the bitter tears Peter cried.

Mark tells us this story also because it demonstrates how amazing is God’s grace for us in Jesus. Remember, Jesus told Peter that Peter would deny him, but he did not condemn Peter for it. It was how it had to be in order for Scripture to be fulfilled. Jesus’ love for Peter did not die or end with Peter’s denial. Jesus’ love for Peter extended through it. That does not make what Peter did right or good; but what Peter experienced as his own evil, God turned for good. Peter’s bitter tears were met with Jesus’ grace; not in the moment, but ultimately. In Jesus’ grace Peter was made free. And in that grace, Peter would find true life. What would it take for you to receive God’s real grace?

Friends, Peter’s denials were awful. His bitter tears were appropriate. Our sins are just as awful – no matter how we rationalize them or compare them with the sins of others. We need to know that same brokenness if we want the hope of God’s complete redeeming grace.

And then we remember these words of the old hymn, “Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me, and that Thou biddest me come to Thee, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.” Or, as someone else said, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in him would not perish, but have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

Through our brokenness, Jesus has redeemed us and made us free.

Friends, that is amazing grace.

Amen.

[1]  http://www.bamieherickson.com, (found on the site in 2014) – not sure if it is still available.