Why Did Peter Deny Jesus?

Thank God for bible study groups.  They are a place to examine, learn, and explore stories and subjects that are much more complicated than how they initially appear.  Hearing the thoughts and beliefs of other participants, I continually expand my own understanding of both content and intentions embedded within the pages of the bible.

After considering many points of views, questions, and contemplations, I sometimes experience revelations.  And, I continue to ascertain a clearer understanding as a result of acquiring more knowledge and insight.  It is a healthy, perpetual experience that enhances my spirituality. 

I had a revelation just this past week that really excited me.  In a six-week study group met, we focused on some chapters in the Book of John as relevant reading for Lent.  [The incidents in this article are in John, Chapters 13-21.]We recalled that prior to his crucifixion, Jesus tells Simon Peter (who I will refer to as simply “Peter”) that Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows.  Soon thereafter while in a garden with the disciples, a detachment of troops and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees came looking for Jesus.  In defense of him, Peter cut off the ear of a high priest’s servant; but Jesus told Peter he should not have done it.  Peter no more does anything but observe and remain detached.  He ends up denying he even knows or follows Jesus – three times, and then the rooster crows.  We know that after Jesus is crucified, Peter is very sad and remorseful.

In time, Peter resumes being a fisherman.  One day, Peter and other disciples are fishing; and in the distance they see a man standing on the shore.  Once he realizes the man is Jesus, Peter rushes to the shore to greet him.  Jesus questions Peter about his love for him to ascertain that Peter truly loves him more than anyone and anything else.  Peter is able to convince Jesus that indeed, he does.  Jesus then bestows on Peter the task of taking on his responsibilities – to me, the highest honor anointed any believer.

The reaction and perception we usually witness is disappointment, even disdain, that Peter denied Jesus.  It is commonly thought he basically turned his back on Jesus … abandoned him.  It is also believed that upon being reunited with Jesus, Peter receives forgiveness and grace from him. 

For many years, I have not believed Peter denied Jesus in the way so widely accepted.  I felt that Peter loved Jesus so much and was so pained himself knowing and seeing the torture Jesus was going through that he felt compelled to defend Jesus and began his defense by cutting off the servant’s ear.  After Jesus chastised Peter for his action, Peter likely felt that admitting to being a follower of Jesus, when asked, might possibly make things even worse.  Better to just remain present but silent.  So when three times in various places Peter was asked if he knew or was a follower of Jesus, he replied, “No.”  My belief is that Peter was actually following, without understanding at the time, Jesus’s insistence that Peter deny him and not help him.  I further believe that Peter was not remorseful for having denied Jesus but that he felt anguish for doing something against what his heart was telling him to do in order to do, through Jesus’s instructions, God’s will.

I stated my perception of these interactions between Jesus and Peter to the study group.  At the next week’s meeting, we spent time focusing on Peter rushing to the shore when he recognized it was truly Jesus standing there.  After voicing that I do not have the impression that Jesus was forgiving Peter for denying him and reiterating earlier my train of thought about the denials, the group leader pointed out that Peter most likely really had no power of making things either better or worse for Jesus’s journey to his crucifixion.  Good point.  There was something, then, I was missing.

I still felt Peter was simply carrying out Jesus’s instructions, and therefore no forgiveness was necessary.  Otherwise, Peter would have been very afraid to stand before Jesus; but, no – upon knowing the man was Jesus, Peter plunged into the sea and hurried to be with him again.  It seems obvious to me that Jesus and Peter very much loved and trusted each other.  While driving home, I was pondering all this when it hit me:  God’s plan is always being played out, even when we cannot recognize or make sense of it.  It was Peter who was being protected by denying Jesus.  Why?  Because Peter was already chosen by God to be the church’s fully-human foundation.  Had Peter admitted to being a disciple, he could have been in grave danger and perhaps even killed, given the circumstances and mood of the crowd. 

That was my missing puzzle.  Through the sharing of thoughts and beliefs at the bible study, one of the participants made the comment that was the link for which I had been searching.  Peter loved and had so much faith in Jesus and God that he was willing to go against his own will to do the denying of which Jesus foretold.  When Jesus told Peter he should not have cut off the servant’s ear, Peter’s belief allowed him to stand back without questioning and just let things play out without any further involvement on his part.  Peter later went off, feeling horrible as well as confused but still knew Jesus loved him.

Imagine the joy and excitement, then, Peter felt when he saw Jesus on the shore.  Of course he went to him straight away.  There was no reason to be afraid or ashamed – he did what Jesus asked of him, and the reward was to see and be with Jesus again!  Only Peter stopped the fishing and left the boat to reunite with Jesus.  So when Jesus asked Peter if he loved him “more than these,” I take that to mean that Jesus is seeking confirmation from Peter that he will give up all earthly things, including his source of income, to carry on any commands from God.  Jesus gave him three opportunities to shun that acceptance, but Peter was steadfast and dependable.

To be honest, I was not there during these events.  None of us were.  All we have are the bible stories that exist for everyone’s interpretations … not just believers.  My insights are based on the personal relationship I have with God and my views about His characteristics.  I believe that because Peter was pre-ordained to take over many of Jesus’s responsibilities, God orchestrated the path Peter needed to follow to remain safe and ultimately able to accept and take on the role God intended for him.  Part of that path meant Peter had to deceive some people in order to do God’s will.  What a testament Peter remains to this day of unconditional and unquestioning belief, love, and faith.  “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”  Thus sayeth the Lord [Hebrews 13:5].

Copyright © April 2017 by Maeke Ermarth

               Ocean City, Maryland

Post-Election Acceptance

Every four years, a large group of people basically go into a state of mourning. And there is no way to be consoling. After each election year, the best thing supporters of the not-elected candidates can do is be happy for the ones whose candidate did win and then pray that: 1) the next four years go by quickly, or 2) the upcoming four years prove to be actually pretty good. The elected candidate's supporters (I won't even say "followers" this go around since a good number who voted for Trump do not like the man personally) are not going to feel guilty, and the non-elected candidate's supporters are not going to jump for joy. So why do we keep wanting that from each other? Wasted personal energy -- mentally and emotionally. In my opinion, neither candidate is worth me being upset. Nope -- neither one.

Copyright © November 2016 by Maeke Ermarth

               Ocean City, Maryland

Perception and Speculation

Question: Were WWII, 9/11, Putin and ISIS preventable? Can computer models and algorithms be used to greater effect?

During/after Vietnam, our government was slammed for keeping troops in-country so long. Anti-war-ers bullied returning troops! Now our government gets slammed if we leave prematurely.  Even men and women who are/were engaged have differences of opinions. I thank God they do. Ones who remain guarded keep everyone alert. The others keep us from over-reacting.

Long-term consequences are anyone's guess. Castro started as an up-standing man--look what happened. And who would've suspected the Reagan and Gorbachev relationship?  Hippy ideals and technology worldwide impacted their ways of thinking and respect for each other.  Now it’s back to when one side is kind, an opposing side takes advantage.

One of my husband’s groups focused on pertinent questions. Answers were only springboards;  responses and results were monitored constantly.

1) When is enough, enough--body count of our dead?  size of territory captured and contained?  when munitions become scarce? when public outcry reaches a certain level?

2) What’s involved to keep our troops supplied and safe? Are civilians supportive?  When does sending war-time needs abroad make our homeland vulnerable?

3) What about transparency?  Open comments about pull-out dates or troops and munitions being sent in or taken out help the enemy know our intentions and locations.

4) What are our rules of engagement when the enemy plays by rules our troops have never seen the likes of? Other cultures have different levels of values, including life and death.  How much restraint must our troops use in order to "walk our talk" versus throwing our own values to the wind to "get 'er done?"

At brain-storming meetings, even the brightest minds and experienced bodies could not agree 100%.  But all had experienced more than one rodeo and could attest that no two engagements are the same.  It is hard to rely on past experience or current algorithms and theories. Our leaders need to know how much human energy we have, what our stockpile of materials is, how long we can afford to remain engaged, plans we have for within our own borders; turn a deaf ear to the public, read/listen to Intel and witness of troops and others; let people savvy in warfare formulate the best strategies, insights, actions. 

Copyright © November 2015 by Maeke Ermarth

                   Cheyenne, WY

Targeting Young Black Men - A Parent's Conversation

This week on Facebook was a video posted of a mother talking to her son about police profiling young black men with a comment that no mother should have to have that conversation with her son.  True, because “wise” people will examine all angles.  1) Why are young black men primarily the ones confronted?  2) Exactly who are the police protecting?  3) In the wide-angle lens, who is asking for protection?  Don’t jump on a bandwagon based only on “surface” information or from initial emotional feelings.  Do a little digging before solidifying your own point of view.  1) Young black men commit the majority of the crimes, proportionately – statistically proven time and again.  2) The police protect the public – that includes people who work in places of business, live on any given street, and who are being preyed upon by criminals.  3) Most help is requested from people being harmed or threatened or who in some other way are in need of assistance.

For years we lived just outside of Washington, DC.  It is not uncommon for small businesses where people approaching the establishment can be readily seen for even the black owners or employees to engage their automatic locking systems when they see black teens and men entering their places if of a certain age, clothed or acting a certain way, etc.  Most crime committed against a black victim is done by other black people.  When people of one race are skeptical about others of their own race, it boils down to learning who is most likely a threat or who is likely to be harmless.   The kid in the video says he stays indoors a good part of the time.  But if he’s not running with a gang (which would offer protection – so the thinking goes), he’s acting the way many other people his in his environment act because they are more likely to be targets of the rougher youngsters on the block than they are targets for the police. 

Keep in mind that the police protect most law-abiding residents, and that includes black residents.  It might be surprising to find statistics of how many officers are injured or killed while defending one black person against another.  Oh yeah, those facts are overlooked, aren’t they?  Rarely does the news media show stories of blacks who are grateful for service they were given from the police, and yet you can find those people every … single … day.  Probably even every … single … minute somewhere in these United States.

There used to be more stories and documentaries on public TV where neighborhoods, realizing their police departments were short staffed, took it upon themselves to set a higher standard for how to live and speak in their communities.  Realistic, responsible adults took on leadership roles to “clean up the hood” and be role models.  They did not buy into the pity parties that led to a victim mentality.  No.  They saw things for what they were, pushed up their shirt sleeves, and took care of business.

And it was not just the older adults getting involved.  Remember that in the late 1970s the Guardian Angels group was formed.  They still exist today.  They were very successful in NYC, and they became recognized worldwide (and still are).  These were mostly young thugs -- or people who would’ve potentially been good thugs -- who were fed up with crime and also fed up with no one jumping in to help alleviate the problem versus sitting back and just bitching or even adding to it.  Inaction or complacency can sometimes be just as harmful as the crimes being committed.  Requests from all over came in for the Guardian Angels’ assistance, and groups of Angels were formed in numerous places.  “Google” up the Guardian Angels to read about their history and also see their current web site depicting how they are still active today.  They continue to go through three months of training and remain loyal to and respectful of rules and rituals.  It’s worth learning about them, or recalling them to memory for those of us who already know about them.

So, the conversation every mother should have with her teen – male or female – is how to be a responsible, productive person; and accept the fact that sometimes the way you are treated is not against you personally but is based on the perception other people your age and color have imprinted on the minds of others.  Instead of always expecting other people to understand you, start trying to understand them!  If the perception is wrong where it concerns you, then behave in a way that will show others that you are the exception.  Then go a little further and step up to be a role model instead of someone hiding behind doors, expecting someone else to take care of unpleasant realities.

Many police departments provide the “ride along” program where a citizen can ride along with an officer during part of a shift.  I highly suggest everyone do that at least once.  I’ve done it, and the view can look a lot different when you’re in the other seat. 

Bottom line for every individual:  Be respectful and trustworthy towards others, and pray others will be respectful and trustworthy, too.

Copyright © December 2014 by Maeke Ermarth

               Ocean City, Maryland

Relative Differences

Relationships can be complex, confusing and frustrating -- and those within a family especially so.  Why?  Family members assume they all know each other like no one else can because of shared blood lines and stories in common.  But each family member has a unique perspective of the other members and events because of where each one stands, how each one is personally affected by those events, and how each one is regarded by the other relatives.  For this article, it is the “immediate family” being discussed – including “step” and “half” relatives.

From a child’s view, parents are providers of basic needs and the people to turn to for security, protection, health and survival.  For this reason, among others, children initially strive to have a continual relationship with their parents.  Depending on family dynamics, there are households where the children become the caretakers of the adults and/or other siblings.  In such homes it is not uncommon that it is the oldest child or older children who take on that role, but not always.  The way the care taking is performed has an effect on how it is received.  When done with love and compassion, it is usually easily accepted, welcomed, and even encouraged.  When done as an unwanted chore, it will probably be received up to a particular age, and then the recipient will likely become resentful of the caregiver if the caregiver does not stop playing the role of the commanding and demanding sibling.   

The way parents interact with a child influences that child’s feelings toward them as well as toward other siblings.  When a child feels wanted and parents show their enjoyment of being parents, a child harbors little or no fear or skepticism toward the parents.  If the child does not feel wanted and senses that parenting is an obligation and/or nuisance, the child will not likely develop an unencumbered joy of being a member of the family.  The same can also happen when it is evident that parents favor one or more children over another child, and it can create a wedge between siblings.

Old sayings usually arise out of frequency.  The one about there being a black sheep in every family suggests most, if not all, families have at least one person who is considered rather low in the pecking order and is the one most criticized and chastised.  Picking on a family member is either voluntary or is done so as to establish oneself on a higher ring of the ladder and not be a victim. 

In some families continual turmoil, chaos or drama is the glue that holds them together.  In others, it is what tears them apart.  Is there any resolve for the families that suffer broken ties?  I believe there is; but it takes a willingness of all participants to put feelings and perceptions out on the table for examination, explanation, and discussion … and for them to then be willing to understand and accept one another’s feelings, thoughts and beliefs without prejudice.  It may very well be that this could open a can of worms if anything is addressed that someone is unable to handle.  Everyone has a comfort zone, and the distance a person can step out of it without injury is different for each individual.  So if family members choose to engage in this type of communication to bring the family unit or members of a family closer together, willing participants should realize some backfiring could result and be ready to know when to change the topic or to place focus on someone or something else. 

Every individual would benefit from knowing what is personally needed from a family relationship and whether the comfort zone resides where everything is transparent, shaded, or completely draped.  If that cannot be attained, then it is time to step back, wish everyone well, move on to where the most comfort can be found.  It may result that making no changes is best.  Otherwise, there is always the option of creating a new family (which needs not be biological) for oneself!

Copyright © November 2013 by Maeke Ermarth

               Ocean City, Maryland

Dealing with Afflictions

In speaking with several people lately, it has dawned on me that we naturally get "shaken" by times of focus.  Women friends getting all keyed up about hosting a Thanksgiving gathering -- the setting, will everyone like what is served, what to wear, how everyone will interact, etc.; friends attending the event elsewhere -- will people like what they bring, what should they wear, will so-and-so be there and, if so, how will that work out.  People dating -- what to wear, what to say, what are the boundaries, what if they want to leave early, how will they fit in if going to a social event.

        It occurred to me that what might be at the base of all of these feelings is the fear of people finding out our flaws (or what we perceive to be flaws).  When a person is an alcoholic, everyone watches to see how that person will handle its presence.  When someone is a diabetic, everyone watches to see how they handle food consumption.  When someone is self-conscious about anything, how will they compare to everyone else?  You get my gist.

         Thinking now about people with eating disorders, it appears to me that the ideal situation would be more buffet-style atmosphere that provides both food-as-wanted and an all-inclusive feeling of participation.  A place where people can nibble, not eat anything but just socialize, or totally indulge -- and all of these actions being acceptable and normal and having no expectations.  My personal part as a family member or friend to the person with the disorder would be to let my person know that I am aware of the disorder but let him/her know I find it no big deal to obsess over but rather something the afflicted person needs to handle wisely in a manner that feels comfortable to her. Over time comes the recognition that what we think people are watching and thinking  is exaggerated in our own minds, and we reach a point where we stop obsessing about ourselves and start enjoying life while at the same time taking good care of ourselves. 

          I have a lot of respect for people who ask for what they need.  I can work my life around what is best for both of us if I know what my friend needs, and sometimes I need to ask what that might be.  Years ago a recovering alcoholic confided in me that she is more inclined to attend functions if someone she knows will also refrain, as she has to, from drinking anything alcoholic.  She feels less conspicuous if there is another adult not indulging.  She has now found that often times other attendees feel less pressured to drink, and therefore don't.  The sense of being the focus of attention, then, is diffused and eventually totally eliminated.

          When I am with friends or acquaintances who have any kind of noticeable disability, we do what needs to be done to accommodate the disability without making it a big deal, and it lessens the amount of "gawking" from outsiders.  It provides a feeling of being normal -- which it is, given the circumstances.  Here is the disability, and here is how we handle it so we, too, can enjoy ourselves -- just like everyone else!

          If someone I lived with had an eating problem, I would leave it up to her (or him) to buy what she wants, let her eat when the desire to do so hits, and be available to be an "ear" whenever she wants to talk about it.  However, I would also retain my own routine because it is one that suits me best.  In a nutshell, the understanding would be that we would just accommodate each other's needs and ways of handling the situation if they are within reason and do-able.

           A person grows into feeling good about herself and becomes less concerned about how they are perceived by others.  I think some awareness will always be present as it actually serves a purpose by keeping us from going too far in one direction or another, but it is reduced to the point where living is more free and unencumbered. 

            If you are a person with an affliction of any kind, let others know what you need from them in order to help yourself heal.  If you recognize that someone has an affliction and is suffering from it, ask them what you can do to help them recover.  No one can know what they do not know.  All too often we assume people know more than they do.  Like most things in life, it's a two-way street, and we have to communicate in order to start going in the right direction.

Maeke Ermarth ©November 22, 2012

            Fairfax, VA

Suicide -- Is It a Taboo?

How do people view or react to acts of suicide?  Everyone's "truth" is different as it is an accumulation of personal experience combined with education, hearsay, culture and spirituality.  Is suicide a "taboo?"  My guess is that in general it is -- worldwide, even.  But I also know from a personal experience that how it is viewed depends on where a person resides, spritual connectedness, or how other people react to it. 

 

I grew up (age 4-12) in Winter Garden, FL, which was a pretty caring and sharing town in the 1950s and 1960s (and hopefully still is).  When I was in the fifth grade, a classmate's mother committed suicide.  She suffered seizures and other afflictions.  I recall the townspeople being "neighborly" -- taking over meals upon occasion, helping keep the kids busy with activities, etc.  In essence, they were "family."  When the mother died, there was no shame.  Surviving family and friends did not hide the fact of suicide.  They allowed their grief to flow and welcomed support and understanding offered to them.  No one needed to feel shame or blame, no "secret" had to be kept, no judgements of condemnation were made. 

 

The town folks handled this tragedy, as well as many other circumstances, as a happening that needed to be accepted and handled with compassion, dignity and respect.  Suicide, to our community, did not mean a lack of love or an act of revenge.  It simply meant the person was in too much pain to want to keep going, and no mortal (our religious upbringing) can determine what an individual can or cannot handle.  That is a dialogue and decision between the suffering person and God.

 

So for me, and for likely many other people who are fortunate enough to have such an indoctrination, suicide is not a "taboo."  In the worldly picture, though, I realize that it is.  I was a listener on a suicide hotline for four years, and many of our calls were from family members and friends (survivors) who did not feel they could have a conversation with anyone else about the suicide of their relatives or friends.  I find many people have trouble even saying the word "suicide."  

 

My thinking, based on my experiences, is that the act of committing suicide is not actually a taboo but rather is the inability of survivors to talk about it and for listeners to hear about it because it causes people to uncomfortably realize how frail and vulnerable the human being is.  We prefer to feel and think we are strong and empowered because slipping away from that can mean we are giving in and giving up.  Our natural instinct is to survive, and giving in or giving up goes against our DNA which, in turn, may cause a judgement label of "wrong" or "bad."

 

Praise God for the people and places He has placed in my life so that I am not haunted or silenced by events that are parts of living that should be recognized and improved.  I plan to always be involved to some degree in programs that can help take away the stigma of a variety of woes people suffer -- providing in-home care as a Certified Nursing Assistant to mostly elderly people with Alzheimer's disease, being a long-time member of Al-anon, volunteering at the local VA hospital, being politically involved in some of these issues, and more.  These are all existing realities in life, and shame on any of us who try to ignore or dismiss them.  They, too, deserve loving, caring and open attention.  ~  Maeke