|
Thought
for the Week Sunday 4 October – Trinity 17
Last
Sunday’s lessons were all about inclusion – in one form or another. Jesus had
to turn around the popular notion of “whoever is not for us is against us,”
instead proclaiming that “whoever is not against us must be for us”. His
teaching task was aimed at his own disciples who wanted to tighten the circle
around Jesus and themselves, to the exclusion of others who were also trying
to do some good works in the form of healings. Today
Jesus has turned his attention once more to the fractious Pharisees who have
cooked up some more hard and legalistic questions for him, hoping once again
to either embarrass or entrap him. Needless
to say, they did not succeed – at least not in their own devious ambitions.
Unfortunately, they seem to have succeeded in embarrassing and entrapping us
instead. To
offer a meaningful homily means that the preacher should understand the text,
and in this case, understanding the text means understanding a very
complicated set of rules and practices. These go back as far as Moses, the
author of the Book of Deuteronomy – itself the “Second Book of the Law”
implying that there had been previous rules and regulations to think about
and worry about. Without
delving into this mess, at least a little bit, we just can’t grasp what all
the fuss was about, in the account of the debate between the Jesus and the
Pharisees that we have heard about this morning. And unless we grasp what all
the fuss was about, then we have to face a disturbing question in our own
times and about our own lives and society. That question is – how have we
arrived at the stage of being so permissive nowadays, when the words of the
gospel seem so sternly at odds with what we readily accept? Firstly,
then, we are told in Deuteronomy that divorce is allowed. All a man had to do
was write a certificate of divorce, and he was rid of his wife. She had no
similar rights. In fact, Moses was actually adding an element of justice to
an old practice. Formerly, when a man divorced his wife she had nowhere to
go, and could not remarry, Moses changed the law, providing the woman an
element of mercy, and rescuing her from the poverty of abandonment. That,
then, explains Jesus’ comment about the law having been changed by Moses
because “of your hardness of heart”. Of
course, some of the old rules made practical sense as well. The Jews were not
allowed to marry near relatives or members of their own families. This rule,
like some of the dietary rules, does indicate that the leaders of the Jews
were very observant. Just as eating some foods seemed to increase the danger
of disease and illness, so they observed, did begetting children with close
relatives result in exaggerated family traits, and sometimes deformities or
serious other flaws, The
Jews were not allowed to marry outsiders – such as the Canaanites. Such
marriages would open the family to idolatry, or to straying from the worship
of the one God. By
marrying and having children within the Jewish faith system, the race became
stronger. It has been suggested that this rule, strictly enforced, was one of
the main factors in the restoration of the Jewish race after their return
from captivity in Babylon. It seems to make sense, because of course, many
other races disappeared – the Moabites, the Jebusites and all the other
“ites” we read about in the Bible. The
priestly tribe had very strict marriage rules too. Priests were not allowed
to marry harlots for instance. What!! I would certainly hope not! But
remember, ritual harlots were an accepted part of society, as was their
profession. They could marry almost anyone if they wanted to. A Levite priest,
however, was only allowed to marry a virgin Israelite. There
were a number of complications as well. One of them was the Roman law under
which the Jews were living at the time of this debate. Roman law did provide for a woman to
divorce her husband, and many women with cause took advantage of it. So,
with the rules for marriage clearly understood, (I hope), we return to the
matter of divorce. I’m sure Jesus was fully aware of an ongoing debate about
divorce – not only the basic need to have divorce available, but,
significantly, the grounds for it. One school of thinking insisted that the
only acceptable grounds for divorce were sexual misconduct. The other strong
school insisted that anything that displeased the husband, no matter how
trivial, was grounds for divorce. The
Pharisees as usual were using these various debates to try to get Jesus to go
in one direction or the other so that they could accuse him of partiality.
Not wishing to become embroiled in interpretive controversy, he instead turns
the focus towards what the ideal situation should be. He chooses as his
vehicle, the ancient words of the Book of Genesis that reinforce the equality
of two persons in a partnership. “Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh”
Adam says, as he is delighted with the companion God has made possible for
him. Not a separate species, not a new creation, but a person grown from his
very own elements. Perhaps
we can now put together the two components of what Jesus is saying. On the
one hand he wants to reinforce the best intentions of the joining of a couple
for life. His words indicate that the ideal situation is indissoluble, based
on two people deciding to live and act out their lives in a single accord,
free from influences which might cause them to stumble and part. On
the other hand, his references to Moses being tolerant and helpful, do indicate
that he knows that we do not live in perfect world. That expression –
“hardness of heart” – is usually meant to express sin. The world is flawed
and it is sin that intrudes, one way or another, on the ideal partnership. Maybe
you’ve been reading about the celebrated case of Father Cutie. Given the
circumstances I think his is an unfortunate name! Father Cutie is – or was –
a Catholic priest from somewhere in Central America. During his ministry he
met a young woman and fell in love. He left the Catholic Church and applied
to be received as a priest in the American/Anglican church. Not an unusual
story, really. Almost all priests who want to switch do so for what, I have
to say, are the wrong reasons – if it is fair to say that love is ever wrong! The
problem is that Father Cutie likes to live up to his name. He has become a
snazzy dresser and loves publicity. He likes to appear on Television and
gives interviews readily. The press loves this kind of stuff and have made
him the high priest of “Love conquers all”. Those who think catholic priests
should be allowed to marry, have made him an icon. One wonders though, that
if the vows of priesthood can be taken so lightly, what about his vows of
marriage? Nevertheless,
relationships sometimes die, and many factors can conspire in bringing about
the death of a marriage. Jesus allows that it can happen, and does not
prohibit divorce as an option, although he plainly supports life-long unions
as even we know them. I
suspect that this discourse with the Pharisees would have lasted quite a bit
longer had Jesus needed to know about, and understand, the full range of
requirements, ramifications and threats that a modern marriage must sustain. Marriage
and divorce in that patriarchal culture were primarily legal arrangements,
not sacramental ones. Today, marriage is both legal and sacramental. I can’t
say quite the same thing about divorce, which is mainly legal, though the
church is struggling to bring about a pastoral element. We already respond
pastorally to those encountering divorce – either party, or both, and there
have been some experimental liturgies to help make a parting of the ways
something we can accept as an opportunity to be healed and move on. The
Christian community is called to respond with healing, reconciliation and
compassion toward shattered relationships. We are called to accept, as
Jesus does, the realities of human relationships, and how vulnerable they
are, You
may be wondering what the last part of the reading today has to do with all
the above. It is that charming piece about Jesus making a fuss over the
little children and blessing them. The short answer is – nothing. The two pieces of the reading come from
different sources. The one event does not follow upon the other. Still, there
are two little connections that seem important to me. The first is that Jesus
reinforces his insistence upon inclusion. The children have every right o
come to him, to be included in the circle, and to learn from him. The
second is that Jesus reinforces community as an extension of family. In a nutshell, the whole gospel message today reinforces partnerships in the context of community, and reminds us that the care of every individual, grown up or child, is a responsibility we must all share. Revd Tony Jewiss: Anglican Chaplaincy
of Midi-Pyrénées & Aude To return to main Thought for the Week page, click X at top right to close this window. |