Notes for Reflection

September 14                                    NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Genesis 50:15-21; Romans 14:1-12; Matthew 18:21-35

Theme: It really does pick itself this week, however we might want to express it.  Forgiveness  - favoured by all and practised by hardly any – is at the heart of the challenge of discipleship.  Perhaps "Unforgiving Servants" might be catchy enough, but for the really bold among us "Forgive or Be Tortured – Your Choice" might appeal.  (It might also give some indication of how forgiving your faith community really is.)  If subtlety is more your thing, what about "It's All for the Best"?

Introduction.  We start with the Shakespearean conclusion to the Joseph saga, which is a wonderful case study of forgiveness in action, complete with mixed motives, high theology, and the fundamental commitment to the importance of relationship.  At first sight St Paul's contribution this week seems at odds with the other two.  Perhaps it should be understood as providing background or context to the principal teaching on forgiveness: we should be slow to argue with our fellows who hold different views from us, particularly on issues of less than vital importance; and rather than presume to pass judgment on others we should leave that to God.  There is no doubt about the meaning of the parable in our gospel passage this week, is there? 

Background.  The edition of the NRSV that I use has Matthew 18:21 reading thus: Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive?  As many as seven times?"  It does admit by way of a footnote that the expression "another member of the church" appears in the Greek text as "if my brother"; so perhaps we have here a translator taking a bit of a liberty under the guise of a desire for gender inclusive language.  And yet, in this context isn't the translator merely making clear to us what we might otherwise easily overlook – that this teaching on forgiveness is essentially in-house?  Forgiveness is how the Body of Christ heals itself: going back a step, a willingness to forgive is part of the immune system of the Body of Christ – it is how the Body fights off what could otherwise become a serious infection if it was allowed to fester.  That, it seems to me somewhat belatedly, is the thrust of last week's passage about dealing within the fellowship with an offending member.  Keeping quiet, ignoring it, pretending all is sweetness and light is not the way to promote healing in such cases.

And that reminds me to stress again that to understand any particular passage of Scripture – and particularly any passage in the gospels – we need to be aware of its narrative context.  What precedes it and what follows it?  Chapter 18 as a whole can be seen as a teaching on forgiveness, and one that comes to an almost frightening conclusion in this week's parable.  In fact, a quick glance ahead should be sufficient to emphasise that things are not going to get any easier for the would-be disciple: chapter 19 begins with the teaching on divorce and ends with the story of the rich young man; and chapter 20 opens with the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard.  Nor should we be surprised: we are on the way to the Cross, where the toughest lesson on forgiveness will be given.

Chapter 18 opens with a short sharp lesson on humility.  If we are all-too aware of our own weakness and failings, we are much more likely to be ready to forgive others.  Then follows the need to avoid leading others into sin, and to be strict with ourselves in avoiding temptation.  There is no room here for any suggestion that it is okay to sin against my brother or sister because he or she is "obliged" to forgive me: Romans 6:1 shows that St Paul has heard that one before!

The Parable of the Lost Sheep, like all the major parables, requires constant reflection.  I learned much about this parable from a farmer in the first parish in which I served.  His first response was to suggest that it would be uneconomic to go looking for just one sheep: his second, much more troubling, was to ask what the shepherd should do if the "damn thing" went missing again – and again?  Passing quickly on, last week's passage brought the whole subject down to earth – Practical Theology 101: What to do when a member of the church offends against you.  And here we start getting into real difficulty, because whatever else that passage tells us it states that there are limits to forgiveness, but what those are may not be quite as clear as they could be.  The passage implies that, as a matter of fact, X has offended against Y; but what does it mean when it speaks of X "refusing to listen"?  It may mean X takes the line of "So what?"  "Don't be such a sensitive sausage!"  In other words, X does not deny the charge, but refuses to take it seriously.  But could it not also mean that X simply disputes the truth of the allegation?  In which case, if we follow the process through, the church has to make a judgment on the matter.  And the removal of the offender from the fellowship, rather than forgiveness, is the outcome.

Which gets us to today's passage, where further difficulties abound.  First, Peter asks the question that occurred to my farmer friend: what if the "damn thing" does it again?  The short answer is not intended to be mathematically precise: it can only mean there is no limit on the number of times we are to forgive the offending member.  Does the parable contradict that?  Well, yes and no.  It deals with a rather different situation: the fault here is that the servant, having been forgiven a huge debt – immediately refuses to forgive a fellow servant a lesser debt; whereupon his lord loses his rag and sentences him to imprisonment and torture; which, says Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, is what "my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart".

Which seems to mean that we are absolved of our own sins, but will be held to account for failing to forgive someone who offends against us.  Can forgiveness by coercion ever be said to be forgiveness from the heart?

Perhaps the real lesson in all this is that forgiveness is only possible in and through love.  We forgive with our hearts not our heads.  We go on forgiving as long as, but only as long as, we go on loving.  That's surely what Jesus' answer to Peter meant.  And it is certainly the only way we can understand the lesson on forgiveness given on the cross.  When we come to the point that we can love even those who are killing us, forgiveness won't seem nearly as hard.

Genesis.  I love the stories around the Jacob-Joseph saga, and this week's one is a fitting conclusion to the whole drama!  Boy, do we get to see human nature as it really is!  One of the questions I have been asked many times in my years in ministry is this: are we supposed to forgive even when the offender has not apologised and asked for forgiveness?  Isn't forgiveness to be restricted to those who are genuinely remorseful?  Well, read this passage and decide for yourself.  Are the brothers genuinely remorseful; or are they as cunning and conniving as they always have been?  Is lying about the last words of your dead father a sign of anything other than deceit born of fear and desperation?  Shouldn't Joseph have responded with a bit more back-bone: "You lying, snivelling dogs!  How dare you use our beloved father like that!  Get out of my sight!"  But Joseph's approach was quite the opposite: at least with the benefit of hindsight, he could see that God had brought to good what the brothers had intended for evil.  Again, the key point is that this is an issue between brothers – they are in a relationship that is desperately in need of healing, and Joseph's response is the only way in which it can be healed.

 Taking It Personally.

• Recall the story of Joseph and his brothers – his somewhat arrogant attitude towards them, at least in the early days.  Is there a thought occurring to you that the little brat brought it on his own head?  Should he apologise to them for his own shortcomings?  Could this be part of the reason for his gracious response towards them now?
• As you read though this passage slowly and prayerfully, notice your own feelings.  How are you feeling towards the brothers?  How are you feeling towards Joseph?  Notice particularly if something from your own family dynamic suddenly comes to mind.  What triggered that?  Is there something you need to do about that?
• In particular, watch for any negative feelings towards Joseph.  Is he letting them off too easily?  What would you like him to do or say to the brothers?  What from your past is this stirring up?
• Focus on verse 20.  With the benefit of hindsight, can you now see the hand of God in the actions of someone who offended you in the past?

 

Romans.  A salutary lesson for all those who are gathered this weekend in Oamaru for our Diocesan Synod!  St Paul gives two examples of the sorts of issues that so often cause dissension in a community of faith – little things of no great importance.  We shouldn't attempt to persuade others to our point of view, when the likely outcome is division and upset within the community of faith.  Gluttony may be a sin, but that does not mean that my spreading midriff calls for corrective comment from my fellow disciples, however slim and self-disciplined they might be!  And this Sunday in some of our churches Holy Cross Day will be observed, but not in others.  That should not lead to critical comment one way or the other.  Those who observe that Day do so in honour of the Lord, not to appear superior to those who do not.  Which leads us to St Paul's closing exhortation: do not pass judgment on one another, for all of us will be called to account by the Lord.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• An opportunity for a personal stock-take.  How inclined are you to get het up about relatively minor things?  How inclined is your local community of faith?  What about Lenten observances and practices?  Would it trouble you to see flowers in the sanctuary during Lent, or if the Gloria was used during a service in Lent? Or the priest's stole was the "wrong" liturgical colour?
• During the last month, have you criticised any other member of your local faith community, or thought critically about another member (including the priest and the organist!)  If so, re-visit verse 4.

 

Matthew.  Yes, the "facts" in this parable are a tad ludicrous.  In what possible circumstances would a king allow a slave to run up such an enormous debt before calling him to account?  According to another helpful footnote in my NRSV a "talent" was equivalent to 15 years worth of the daily labourer's rate of pay, so in terms of denarii (the daily rate of pay was 1 denarius) this guy owed 10,000 x 15 x 365 of them (you do the numbers, I can't).  And the absurdity doesn't end there.  How could he possibly repay that amount?  By contrast he was owed by his fellow slave 100 denarii – a seemingly trifling amount until we remember that's over 3 months' wages.  How might that be repaid?  But, of course, playing these mathematical games is only for those who do not want to face up to the point of the parable:  God's forgiveness is NOT unconditional – only as we forgive others are we ourselves forgiven.  That's what we pray every week – but do we believe it?

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Okay, so what are your counter-arguments?
• Remember that one of the major issues facing the infant church concerned those who had "sold out" during a time of persecution, and then wanted back in when peace returned.  Understandably, those who had stood firm and suffered accordingly were not always in a mood to forgive.  Does this change your view of this passage?
• Of what have you been forgiven by God?  (Limit your answer to 5 foolscap pages.)