I worked for a large corporation for a long time, and that means that I heard lots of stories about the misadventures of upper management. Sometimes the people running the company are called upon to go on trips to places they’d rather not visit. For example, visiting a country that has food that you have a hard time eating is an example of why someone might resist the travel. But there are times when the business hinges on critical meetings with other companies, so managers have to go if they want to stay in their role as an executive.
In one particular case, a manager who was running a large division in Idaho had to make a trip to Japan. In fact, about fifteen people in total from my company traveled to Japan and met with another fifteen people from a big corporation headquartered in Japan. They all gathered for several all-day meetings. Which means that the host company provided meals so that they could continue their meeting without taking a lunch break. The company wanted to make a big impression on my company, so they pulled out all the stops and provided what they considered to be the best possible food one could have.
The manager from my company noticed that shrimp were served, which was fine with him. He loved shrimp. But he also noticed that they were served completely intact, with all the eyes and antennae. He feared that if he didn’t eat the food he would bring dishonor to his hosts, and he very much wanted to play the role of a gracious guest. But he didn’t want to eat the shrimp that seemed to be looking at him. So he developed a sneaky plan where he would be seen by everyone in the room with the shrimp in his hand as though he was about to eat it, but he would still avoid eating this shrimp.
He concluded that if he were to pick up a shrimp right as he started talking to everyone in the room, he could hold the shrimp in his hand, maybe wave the shrimp around as he gestured, and then kick the conversation over to someone on the opposite end of the table. Once everyone’s attention was drawn away from him, he would then ditch the shrimp.
Soon enough, the opportunity came for him. He started talking as he grabbed a shrimp. He gestured while holding the shrimp, making sure that everyone in the room saw that he was holding the shrimp. This took some time, but he could talk his way through it. However, something went horribly wrong with his plan. It seems that the shrimp was not actually dead. It was just really cold and appeared dead. This was a highly prized dish in Japan, and the hosts were pleased to share it with their guests. His hand, however, warmed the shrimp up and it began to move, very much to his surprise. He reflexively threw the shrimp away from him as he let out a bit of a high-pitched scream.
Instead of cleverly bypassing the shrimp obstacle, he inadvertently brought a great deal of attention to him and his affinity for shrimp. In an attempt to reduce the fallout from his treatment of this highly prized dish, he consumed several of the cold and not-really-dead-yet shrimp. In the moment, he loved the shrimp. Good. But many people heard the complaining that he did when he was back in the United States. He was clear that he appreciated their generosity, but he really didn’t like having to eat the shrimp.
This story illustrates the Gospel. The manager went to Japan not because he wanted to go. He did so because he was obligated to go. He did not desire to play the role of gracious guest. He wanted others to believe that he was happy to be there and think that he shared their joy at the special food given to him. But his complaining exposed the reality that he really wasn’t like that.
Martha complains about her role in this Gospel. She has taken on the role of host and is doing a great deal of work to serve her guests. This was both Martha’s and Mary’s home, so one could reasonably assume that they both could play the role of host. But Mary does not feel the same obligation to serve the guests that Martha does. Mary sits and listens to Jesus while Martha works on serving. Now, if Martha was loving the role of serving, she wouldn’t be complaining. So the complaining that Martha is doing demonstrates something important. Even though she is literally serving Jesus, she is not enjoying it. She’d rather be doing something different.
I do wonder how many people serve God in this way. They do something even though they’d rather not. What do you think God wants in these cases? Does he really want us to do things not because we desire to serve God, or not because we want to become closer to God? Jesus says Mary chose the better part.
In Luke chapter 10, in the story of Martha and Mary, consider the difference between the way Paul experiences his service to God and Martha’s experience. Paul says, “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake.” In the second letter to the Corinthians, Paul tells us about some of these sufferings. He said, “Five times at the hands of the Jews I received forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I passed a night and a day on the deep; on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my own race, dangers from Gentiles.” His list continues from there. Yet Paul says, “I rejoice in my sufferings.” That is an entirely different approach to service than the example we see from Martha.
This list from Paul, a mentally healthy person would not like any of it at all, and clearly Paul didn’t like any of it either, because he refers to it as his suffering. But he chooses to rejoice because he knows that he is serving God. Martha had the opportunity to do the same thing. She could have said, “I don’t like this work that I’m doing. It’s not fair. But I choose to rejoice in this work because I am serving God.”
Now, if Martha had the opportunity to make that choice then, how much more do we, who have the advantage of hearing the stories of both Martha and Paul, how much more can we rejoice in the difficulties we experience as we perform service for both God and neighbor?
Service done begrudgingly, and out of obligation, does not actually serve at all. The person is just trying to earn something in return, even if it is just people’s good opinion of them. God doesn’t want that kind of service, because it’s not good for us. We’re no closer to God when we serve like that. It’s all about us, earning the good opinion of others. It would be a good exercise for us to consider the things that we choose to do, all the while also resenting them. That’s a good indication something needs to change, because when that’s happening, there’s a disconnect. Jesus doesn’t want to be disconnected from us. Instead, he wants us to choose the better part.
If you say yes so you will look good, then resent the yes you gave, start with the two moments. He held the shrimp up so the room would see a gracious guest. Later he complained that he had not wanted it. The performance and the complaint are the same yes. Write the thing you are doing. Write whether you want it. If the second answer is no, the first answer was for the room.
Mary chose the better part. That does not mean every task disappears. It means the task done to earn the opinion is not service. Pick one resentful yes this week and either drop it or say the true sentence before you do it. I do not want this. I am doing it because I said I would, and I will not perform liking it. Paul rejoiced in sufferings he did not like, because he knew who they were for. If you cannot say who yours are for, besides the good opinion, it is the shrimp.
Do not eat the thing that harms you in order to protect a host. A real injury is not hospitality. The practice is for the yes you gave so you would not be seen refusing. Name it. Then either keep it without the performance, or let it go.
This is a pastoral reflection, not clinical care and not a substitute for it. If you or someone you love is in immediate danger, call 988 or local emergency services.Drawn from a homily first preached in 2022. 