Second Sunday in Lent

March 1                      NOTES FOR REFLECTION                         Second Sunday in Lent

Texts:  Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16; Romans 13-25; Mark 8:31-38*

[The Lectionary offers as an alternative gospel passage, Mark 9:2-9, relating to the Transfiguration, without suggesting any alternative Lessons to go with it.  There may be some advantages in having the Transfiguration a week after the Baptism, but I have never found them particularly convincing.  On the contrary, it seems to me that the "consequence" of Jesus' decision in the wilderness to resist the temptation of other ways is his suffering and death on the cross: hence it is more appropriate to have the reading concerning the first of his predictions of his Passion.]

Theme:  Something simple and straightforward, unadorned, seems more appropriate for the Season of Lent.  Perhaps "Trusting in God" is what it is all about this week (and every week?).  More theological, perhaps, could be "Life in Death", or "Life out of Death", but that may be getting ahead of ourselves.  "Taking God on Trust" has some rich possibilities.

Introduction.  We begin this week with one of the multiple "annunciations" to Abram (a.k.a. Abraham).  Read chapters 15-17 and count them for yourself.  Today's version reminds us that Sarah was not the only one who laughed hysterically at the very thought of having a child at their age.  So when Paul waxes lyrical in his letter to the Romans about Abram's unquestioning faith in God he is guilty of re-writing history just a tad.  But the point is clear enough.  The question is always about the authenticity of the revelation, not about whether something is or is not feasible.  If the message is from God we rely on it in faith, however crazy it might seem to our logical brain.  That is a lesson Peter had to learn the hard way in today's gospel passage.

Background.  Once again this week the ODT World Focus came up trumps with a reprint of an article from The Guardian headed "Get high and higher grades".  It taught me a wonderful new expression "cognitive enhancement" which is to intellectuals what "performance enhancement" is to participants in the Tour de France.  The article opens with the anguished cries of an Edinburgh student named Suzy, still three months away from her finals exams, already feeling the pressure.  "I feel like I wouldn't even have a chance if it wasn't for modafinil," she says.

For what?  "Modafinil: a prescription-only medication for narcolepsy that the NHS' website describes as a central nervous system stimulant [that prevents] excessive sleepiness during daytime hours".  It's apparently the "narcotic of choice" for this generation, according to the author of the article, and not just among tertiary students.  In the USA students in high school (no pun intended), where drugs of this kind are widespread, call them "study aids".  The article goes on to raise the many ethical issues surrounding the use of such drugs, and the near-impossibility of drawing reasonable boundaries.  In Duke University in North Carolina the student body lobbied the authorities to amend the academic honesty policy to make it clear that "using drugs to enhance academic performance constitutes cheating".  Which sounds all very right and proper, until the next question comes along: what about antidepressants, or medication for ADHD or anxiety?  And then there's caffeine and nicotine, both well-known "cognitive enhancers", apparently.  And what about sleeping pills, since a good night's sleep before an exam is also a great aid to cognitive performance in the exam? 

Of course, there are medical worries about side-effects, and little is known about the effect of long-term use of these drugs.  But the ethical issues arise because of the increasingly competitive nature of society.  That in itself deserves far more reflection and consideration than the drug-use itself, but is unlikely to get it.  Given the burden of student-debt, the increasing exploitation of unpaid internships, and the sheer difficulty of securing well-paid employment in their chosen fields of study, the author finds it understandable if today's students see nothing wrong in seeking out such "study aids":  "And in this scenario, if you were offered a small white pill that held the promise of enhanced productivity, greater focus, more hours in the library, and, ultimately, the potential of a better degree, well, it's not hard to see the attraction."

Ah, yes, the lure of the pill!  The simple fix to the complex problems of being human.  The dream of a Nobel Prize winner whose name now escapes me (the co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule) was to create a pill that would enable us to eat as much as we wanted without getting fat!  So much easier than resisting the temptation to give full reign to our greed!  We live in a society that refuses to accept the limits of our physical nature, including those that are a natural part of the ageing process.  Here's another question from the article that all of us of a certain age might wish to ponder: "if you take one of these drugs, are you enhancing yourself?  Or restoring yourself to what you were?"  The implication seems to be that the latter is more acceptable than the former, but is it?

The whole article is well worth getting hold of and pondering at some depth; but for me the most interesting bit comes near the end.  Here is a quote from Anders Sandberg, a computational neuroscientist at The Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, who strongly believes that cognitive enhancement "is absolutely part of our future": "But we could be thinking about enhancements that make our lives happier and more fulfilled.  We asked people if they would take a supplement that enhanced their kindness and empathy and only 9% wanted that."

Today giving birth regardless of age is no longer a laughing matter: it's a scientific challenge, one it seems, that some are determined to meet (I think the present record is 62, isn't it?)  If only there was a pill that Jesus could have taken to avoid the cross, wouldn't that have been tempting?  Even Peter would have gladly swallowed that.  Who wouldn't?

Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16.  As hinted above, I've never quite bought into the idea of Abraham as a paragon of unquestioning faith.  What I call "Abraham's Annunciation Saga" goes on through 4 chapters, and includes, let me remind you, his own plan B, which resulted in the birth of Ishmael (chapter 16), and took place after God's first promise to Abraham (chapter 15).  Then months and quite possibly years later God again promises Abraham an heir, spelling out that it will be Sarah who bears him, prompting, not thanksgiving and praise, nor Mary-like submission to the will of God, but outright disbelief accompanied by hysterical laughter.  So, with all due respect to St Paul, Abraham's faith went through a long and difficult gestation period.  But here, surely, is its true value for us.  Such faith does not come easily to us either – it usually requires years of struggle, often because we struggle with the wrong question.  The real and only question should be: is this truly the voice of God?  But so often we take the same route that Abraham takes in this passage: how can this be?  In his case (and even, with deep respect, Mary's case) the obstetrical difficulties distract him.  He does not doubt that God is speaking to him, but he doubts that what God is saying is feasible. 

Taking It Personally.

• Take time this week to go slowly through the whole of Abraham's Annunciation Saga (chapters 15-18), looking at it as a prolonged struggle of faith.  Are there any parallels, do you think, between this story and the story of the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness?
• In broader terms, what does this saga tell us about the faith journey?  How might the birth of Ishmael represent our human tendency to seek apparently easier, but false, paths to spiritual growth?
• Looking back over your own faith journey so far, what parallels do you see between Abraham's experiences and responses and your own?

 

Romans 4:13-25.  This is a wonderful (if rather difficult) example of a biblical reflection carried out by a master teacher.  (The author of the Fourth Gospel is also very good at this.)  The issue for Paul is clear: how can we be weaned off the idea of earning God's love through obedience to his Law, thereby understanding that our relationship with God is about grace on his part and faith on our part?  Who better to call in aid than Father Abraham himself!  One of his great virtues is that he "pre-dated" the giving of the Law to Moses.  So whatever difficulties we may have in seeing Abraham as a model of immediate and faithful response, we can at least rely on the fact that his virtue owed nothing to lawful obedience.  He (and Sarah) came eventually to believe in the promises of God through faith.  Moreover, those promises extended way beyond the birth of a son and heir – they extended to many generations of descendants and could never have been entirely fulfilled in Abraham's lifetime.  Yet, says St Paul, he believed: and it's worth us pausing to remember that St Paul is writing this when the "children of Abraham" were still very small in number, certainly not "countless as heaven's stars".

 

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Read slowly though this passage in the light of the Genesis story.  Notice how St Paul is reshaping that story to suit his theological purposes.  Does that bother you?  Or is it more important to "get" the truth that St Paul is drawing from it?
• Is "hoping against hope" the same as "believing against belief"?  Is that what we are being asked to do in stories of this kind (and "miracle stories" in general)?
• Reflect deeply on verses 24 and 25, the conclusion of St Paul's argument.  What does it mean to you?

 

Mark 8:31-38.  It's a pity the Lectionary begins at verse 31, when the passage only makes sense if we start at verse 27.  It is in response to Peter's proclamation of faith in Jesus as Messiah that today's action takes place.  It is also through Peter that we see the struggles of faith so well illustrated: having asserted his faith in Jesus as the Messiah, he then proceeds to argue with him – contradict him – as if he is just another wrong-headed mate!  The one through whom the Spirit has just spoken now becomes the mouthpiece of the devil.  Notice that Jesus does not explain why he must undergo great suffering, be rejected by the religious elite, and be killed, nor what he means by rising again three days later.  He simply states what is going to happen to him.  And then he spells out the consequences of all this for those who would like to become his followers.  The passage is about the way things are, not the reasons why they are that way.  It is about his acceptance of what must be; and the question for each of us is whether or not we are prepared to accept the consequences of becoming one of his followers.  It is a stark yes-or-no choice.  We are not invited to negotiate terms of enlistment.  For this reason this passage could be said to be the very heart of the gospel – the most important part of it.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        A great passage for praying with your imagination.  Put yourself in the story near Jesus.  Hear Peter assert that Jesus is the Messiah.  What tone of voice does he use?  How do you react to those words?  How do you feel about Peter at that moment?

·        Now listen to Jesus as he announces what is to happen to him.  What is your immediate reaction?  Shock? Horror?  Fear?  When Peter protests do you join in, or at least nod vigorously?

·        How do you react when Jesus rebukes Peter?

·        Now listen to Jesus as he addresses his would-be followers.  How do you feel at this point?

·        Are you one of his followers today?