All Rock, No Sham: The Heart of St. Patrick - Stephen

St. Patrick was believed to have died on March 17, around 460 A.D.[1] Over 1,500 years later, what was so great about his life that we have a holiday bearing his name complete with green clothing, pinching, and shamrocks (which we, for some reason, refer to only as three-leaf clovers every other day but this one)?

Here’s some things we know about the real St. Patrick that may surprise you: 

-       He wasn’t formally a saint because he was never officially canonized by the Catholic Church.[2]

-       He wasn’t really Irish either, having been born somewhere in Britain.[3]

-       He didn’t actually banish all snakes from Ireland because there were never any snakes there to begin with.[4]

-       He was kidnapped to become a slave on the Emarald Isle only to miraculously escape back to his home in Britain.[5]

I share all of this with you about Patrick to focus primarily on who and what he actually was, not on the person we have created him to be. 

 

He was truly kidnapped from his family and his home. 

He was actually forced into slavery in an unknown place. 

And he did miraculously make it back home alive. 

Yet, for some reason, he would later return to the place he was enslaved—not for revenge, to the chagrin of every Liam Neeson movie, but to share the truth that could spare them eternal destruction. Historical records even indicate that one of his very first converts in Ireland was none other than his former master.[6]

 

For decades, Patrick preached the Gospel to the island despite the risk that existed in doing so. He describes the danger as being “watched with malice,” “mangled and preyed upon,” and as “greedy wolves devouring the flock of the Lord.” [7]

 

 

If this was true, why did Patrick return? What was his true motivation? This goes against everything our natural wisdom and logic tell us. “Safety first” is not just some construction-site mandate but true of our innate defense system as human beings. “God spared your life from that place, why would you ever return?” we want to ask him. Thankfully, Patrick answers our question—because it was in Ireland he believed. 

 

It was there that the Lord opened up my awareness of my lack of faith. Even though it came about late, I recognised my failings. So I turned with all my heart to the Lord my God, and he looked down on my lowliness and had mercy on my youthful ignorance.[8]

 

 

Patrick not only returned but continued to be faithful in sharing the love of Christ to those in Ireland. This is the man we remember and celebrate every March. This was his heart. 

 

That is why I cannot be silent – nor would it be good to do so – about such great blessings and such a gift that the Lord so kindly bestowed in the land of my captivity. This is how we can repay such blessings, when our lives change and we come to know God, to praise and bear witness to his great wonders before every nation under heaven.[9]

 

After reading all of this, if there was one word to describe Patrick, what would it be? As you can see, he wasn’t known for wearing green, he didn’t go around pinching people for failing to do the same, and he was certainly all rock and no sham. Therefore, the word that comes to my mind to describe him would be steadfast—because nothing seemed to sway his commitment to loving others by sharing the love of God with them. 

 

How hard is this in the shifting sands of our everyday circumstances? When things are going well and both the figurative and literal sun are shining, it is easy to be committed to the Lord’s will. But on the days where the sun not only fails to shine but is nowhere to be found for seemingly weeks on end, how hard is it to be committed to the plan and mission of the One who is controlling the sun withheld?

 

Patrick wasn’t ever fully embraced for his efforts in Ireland. There was always difficulty and animosity from those who rejected the Gospel. But it was in those moments that Patrick’s true heart was revealed—the heart that was all rock—steadfast—and no sham. There was nothing fake about it. 

 

So, as you sport your green trousers, search your front lawn for a lucky clover, or merely find joy in continuously pinching the co-worker who failed to notice their calendar, remember Patrick’s heart. For it is his heart alone that is worth not only celebrating but emulating. 

 

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.”

[1 Corinthians 15:58]     

---

[1] https://www.history.com/topics/st-patricks-day/who-was-saint-patrick

 

[2] Ibid. 

 

[3] https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/03/16/10-things-to-know-about-the-real-st-patrick/

 

[4] https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/real-st-patrick.html

 

[5] Ibid. 

 

[6] Ibid. 

 

[7] https://www.confessio.ie/etexts/epistola_english#undefined

 

[8] https://www.confessio.ie/etexts/confessio_english#undefined

 

[9] https://www.confessio.ie/etexts/confessio_english#undefined

The Ministry of Presence - Ben

As a pastor, I’m often in what I like to call “care mode.” Usually, I enter this posture when someone needs counseling or is mourning the loss of a loved one. And, sad to say, I’ve had to do quite a few of both in the four years I’ve been a senior pastor.  

Interestingly, I learned early on that, in these moments, someone who is hurting isn’t necessarily looking for advice; instead, they want to know they’re not alone. I had a friend describe this as the “ministry of presence” (shout out to Brandon May) where we’re not fixing a problem but making our company known and felt. It is as simple as being there. Because, when your there, in those hard moments of life, you’re not only sharing the burden but you’re also readily available to offer comfort. And that comfort can be nothing more than a hug, holding someone’s hand, or patting their shoulder. Touch can be powerfully effective. 

But I just don't know this from experience. Jesus often used touch when he ministered. One of the most extraordinary examples of this comes in the Gospel of Luke. 

“While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. And he charged him to tell no one, but “go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”” 

Luke 5:12-14 (ESV)

Leprosy today (also called Hansen’s disease) isn't necessarily the same disease called “leprosy” in the first century. The term means “scaliness” and could refer to various skin-based diseases such as psoriasis, lupus, favus, or even ringworm.[1] In fact, Jewish texts identify as many as seventy-two different kinds of leprosy, including blemishes that might appear on clothing (cf. Lev. 13:47-48) or buildings (cf. Lev. 14:34-53).[2]

But, generally speaking, the effects of leprosy can be characterized by three things: 

First and foremost, it was an isolating disease.[3] Regardless of the severity, should a person contract any form of leprosy, they must be quarantined from their community to prevent it from spreading (cf. Lev. 13:45-46). So much so that they were required to stand at a distance of fifty paces from others.[4]  Not only were they required to self-isolate, but they also had to wear unique clothes, leave their hair in disarray, and cry out "Unclean! Unclean!" whenever they were around people.[5] “Lepers were required to make their appearance as repugnant as possible.”[6] This may seem cruel, but in a society that had no means of curing such a disease, it was necessary. 

Secondly, aside from the impact this disease could have had on the body, leprosy also had severe psychological ramifications.[7]  The leprous person would understandably feel ostracized by society. No one would come near them. They would have to sever ties with their family. They would never be touched by another human being again. Or, if they were touched, it was likely by another person who also had leprosy. “The leper was not just ill; he was an outcast.”[8]  He was a pariah. As such, lepers experienced something akin to a “living death.”[9] 

Lastly, it was also a disease that didn't only need healing but also "cleansing," as a person was considered to be ceremonially unclean if they contracted leprosy.[10] It was a spiritual disease as well as a physical one. Should they be cured, they'd have to go through a rigorous religious process that involved multiple sacrifices (i.e., two birds and three lambs)[11] and would take upwards of a week or more to complete. As such, people were just as afraid of becoming spiritually defiled should they come in contact with a leprous person as they were about contracting the disease. 

So, in light of all that, imagine how shocking it was for Jesus to touch him. Today, we know how powerful touch can be.[12] Skin-to-skin contact in the first few moments after birth regulates a baby’s body temperature, assists in the development of the neurological function, and even helps to improve weight gain for both premature and full-term babies.[13]  In fact, we know that children who aren’t given the proper loving care exhibit “behavioral, emotional and social problems as they grow up.”[14]  Even worse, “Babies who are not held, nuzzled, and hugged enough can stop growing, and if the situation lasts long enough, even die.”[15]  

But the benefits of touch are not just for children; adults need it too. “The right kind [of touch] can lower blood pressure, heart rate, and cortisol levels, stimulate the hippocampus (an area of the brain that is central to memory), and drive the release of a host of hormones and neuropeptides that have been linked to positive and uplifting emotions. The physical effects of touch are far-reaching.”[16]

More than any other gospel writer, Luke mentions how Jesus often employed touch when healing (cf. Lu. 7:14; 13:13; 18:15; 22:51).[17] And we know from Mark's parallel that Jesus had compassion at this moment (cf. Mar. 1:41). His touch was motivated by love. 

Admittedly, we're not told how long this man had been a leper, but, as COVID proved, even a little bit of isolation is almost unbearable.  And considering he was “full of leprosy,” we can safely assume he had this condition for some time.[18]  And so, because he had been in this state for so long, we can see now why Jesus touched him. 

We know that Jesus didn’t need to touch someone to heal. He performed many miracles without physical touch (cf. Matt. 5:5-13; Mar. 5:21-34). But the Lord touched the Leper because he wanted to heal more than just his physical ailments; Jesus also wanted to heal the emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects of that disease. Consequently, after Jesus' healing touch, this man could reintegrate into society again.[19] Jesus even tells the man to show himself to the local priest and offer up the required sacrifices (vs. 14), not because he needed further cleansing but because this would be how he could get a clean bill of health. The Lord wanted him to get a doctor's note. Jesus wanted to cleanse him from leprosy and reunite him with his friends, family, and neighbors. 

The sin-sick need the healing touch of Jesus, but sometimes their sin is such a deterrent to us that we are unwilling to approach them with the good news. Are we willing to offer a healing hand when we see someone hurting? Or are we content to leave them in their leprous state for fear that they may “contaminate” us?  The hands of Jesus are willing to heal all. This story proved at least that. But so often we don’t want to get our hands dirty. 

It is time for us to set aside our spiritual haphephobia and reach for the pariah. They need Jesus. 

 

[1] Danker, Frederick William, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, (Chicago, IL; The University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 592.

[2] Garland, David E., Luke, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan 2011), p. 238.

[3] Green, Joel B., The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans Publishing, 1997), p. 236.

[4] Edwards, James R., The Gospel According to Luke, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans Publishing, 2015), p. 160.

[5] Youngblood, Ronald F., Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, New and Enhanced Edition, (Nashville, TN; Thomas Nelson, 2014), p. 684.

[6] Edwards (2015), p. 159.

[7] Morris, Leon, Luke, The Tyndale New Testament Commentary, (Downers Grove, IL; InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 135.

[8] Wilcock, Michael, The Message of Luke, The Bible Speaks Today, (Downers Grove, IL; InterVarsity Press, 1979), p. 52.

[9] Bock, Darrell L., Luke 1:1-9:50, The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Academic, 1994), p. 473.

[10] Morris (1988), p. 135.

[11] Edwards (2015), p. 161.

[12] Carey, Benedict, “Evidence That Little Touches Do Mean So Much,” February 22, 2010, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/health/23mind.html?scp=3&sq=touch&st=cse, [accessed, February 23, 2023].

[13] Greicius, Julie, “The benefits of touch for babies, parents,” September 22, 2013, Standford Medicine, https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2013/09/the-benefits-of-touch-for-babies-parents.html, [accessed February 23, 2023].

[14] Harmon, Katherine, “How Important Is Physical Contact with Your Infant?" May 6, 2010, Scientific America, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/infant-touch/, [accessed, February 23, 2023].

[15] Szalavitz, Maia, “Touching Empathy: Lack of physical affection can actually kill babies,” March 1, 2010, Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/born-love/201003/touching-empathy, [accessed, February 23, 2023].

[16] Konnikova, Maria, “The Power of Touch,” March 4, 2015, The New Yorker, https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/power-touch, [accessed February 23, 2023].

[17] Bock (1994), p. 473.

[18] Edwards (2015), p. 160.

[19] Garland (2011), p. 238.