Notes for Reflection

September 27                                                NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Numbers 11:4-6, 10-16, 24-29; James 5:13-20; Mark 9:38-50

Theme:  Nothing obvious comes to mind this week.  Something about "Inclusion and Exclusion" might cover some aspects of the first lesson and the gospel.  Both of those readings have a rather harsh tone, which might be better reflected by "Casting Out and Cutting Off."  Somewhat unusually, James offers a more peaceful approach this week, with his emphasis on healing, forgiveness and reconciliation.  His offering might suggest as a theme "It's the Putting Right that Counts".

Introduction.  Nostalgia, the re-writing of history and sheer bunkum are mixed with ingratitude and barely disguised blasphemy as the Israelites take grumbling to a new level in our first reading.  Wearing down Moses, a first step towards shared leadership is taken, but two "spares" are anointed along with the chosen seventy.  Predictably, this causes dissension.  James ends his Letter with some teaching on the importance of faithful prayer within the community of faith.  Far from any desire to cast out anyone, he urges members to go after those who have wandered away and attempt to bring them back.  In our gospel passage there is still no sign of improvement among the disciples.  This week they add to the long and growing list of their failings an attempt to bar someone purporting to carry out exorcisms in Christ's name "because he was not following us".  In particularly harsh language Jesus tells them to take their own sin more seriously.

Background.  The words from this week's gospel passage just quoted are not happily chosen in the NRSV: I prefer the NIV phrase "because he was not one of us".  That is a much more common and even more chilling phrase that we hear, read and even think far too often.  We constantly and almost unconsciously divide people into "us" and "them", "our people" and "other people", or more simply "we" and "they".  Relatively harmless examples have already come up in the press coverage of the World Rugby Cup.  When England started their campaign with a bonus point win over Fiji our press described their performance as "scrappy and unconvincing".  When the All Blacks struggled their way past Argentina we were assured that it was only to be expected that "the boys" would be a bit rusty as they haven't played for 4 weeks.  And imagine the uproar there would have been if the English captain or the French captain had been caught deliberately tripping an All Black player.  Was Richie cheating?  Good heavens, no!  He just made a dumb mistake! (Cf. Mark 9:45!)

In a far more serious context I was caught out when listening to a recent edition of "The Panel" on National Radio.  The discussion was about the "Refugee Crisis" in Europe, and somebody had raised the issue of why everyone was poking their finger at Europe.  Why weren't the Arab nations reaching out to the refugees – after all, they were their own sort of people?  I must confess that my first reaction was to think, "That's a good point.  What's the answer to that?"  I only had to wait a nanosecond to find out.  One of the panellists, Steve McCabe, exploded; "That's outrageous racist nonsense!  What do they mean, 'Their sort of people?'  WE are their sort of people, for heaven's sake!  There is only one sort of people, and it's called 'human beings'!"  Ouch!

A somewhat shell-shocked Jim Moira, who chairs the panel, then sought the opinion of an academic lawyer with a special interest in international law.  He told us that the three countries that presently have the highest number of Syrian refugees within their borders are Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.  However helpful those facts would have been to the discussion before the "explosion", they seemed strangely irrelevant afterwards.  The argument should not be who has the greater responsibility to help the refugees – or who is and who is not doing their bit, as our Prime Minister likes to put it.  Compassion is not a competitive sport or an international contest for point-scoring.  The teaching embodied in the much-loved Parable of the Good Samaritan makes no mention of quotas.  One victim, two victims or half a million victims... the call to go and do as the Samaritan did surely remains the same.

It's probably unfair to single out Hungary for special mention in this context.  But I remember the horror and outrage many of us in Britain felt when that country was invaded by the Soviet Union in the dark days of the Cold War; and many years later, standing in a cold, wet and windy Basin Reserve in Wellington, I watched a soccer team (I'm pretty sure it was even called "Hungaria") that only existed because New Zealand (along with many other countries, of course) accepted refugees from that country following that invasion.   Moreover, the fact is that the present-day Hungarian Government has specifically made faith part of the argument.  Hungary, they say, is a Christian country, and will only accept Christian refugees, not Moslems.  Hopefully, in that self-professed Christian country someone soon will draw attention to this week's gospel passage.

This very week in New Zealand we have had other "interesting facts" thrown into the mix.  First, came news that we have had record net migration – a gain of over 60,000 people, about half of whom were Kiwis returning home, and half were new migrants.  We are assured by our leaders that this is all to the good, it is a vote of confidence in our economy, and we need to boost our population if we are going to prosper as a country.  Secondly, we heard that one man, an over-stayer from Kiribati, is to be deported to his homeland, even though he has New Zealand-born children and he is unlikely to be able to provide for them well in his homeland.  How can it be that we can comfortably accommodate an influx of 60,000 long-term migrants, but cannot allow this man and his family to remain in New Zealand?  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is not "one of us", because he is not highly skilled and educated, and therefore useful to us.  The migrants, presumably, are more likely to be "our sort of people".

Perhaps more people should listen to The Panel, at least when Steve McCabe is on.

 

Numbers 11:4-6, 10-16, 24-29.  This reading gets off to a fascinating start!  Notice the opening phrase in verse 4: "The rabble among them...!"  Here we go again!  But wait – "and the Israelites also wept again..."It's almost as if the author is tempted to blame the uproar on the non-Israelites, but is overcome by the weight of the facts of the case.  Be all that as it may, it must have been particularly galling for Moses to hear the nonsense recorded in these early verses.  He had risked his ancient neck to lead them out of slavery, only to hear what a wonderful time they had had when they feasted on a quasi-paleo diet of fruit and vegetables.  The final blasphemous straw is their criticism of the manna itself.  (The Christian equivalent would be a complaint that the Communion wafers are colourless and tasteless: why can't they be pink or peppermint-flavoured for a change!  Moses is so cheesed-off that he complains to God about the burden God has imposed upon him.  If this is what God has in mind for him he would rather lie down and die.  But God has a plan to lessen the load: he will anoint 70 elders to share in Moses' ministry – notice how God took some of the spirit he had given to Moses and shared it among the elders.  Then comes the fun bit!  Two of the elders hadn't made it to the ordination gathering – they were still lolling about in base camp.  Nevertheless, they were anointed, too.  Some bright young toady seeking to make a name for himself raced off to report these two men to Moses.  Joshua, Moses' assistant and heir-apparent, demanded that Moses close them down immediately, but Moses would not listen.  In a victory for inclusion, he expressed a wish that everyone might receive the anointing of God's spirit.

Taking It Personally.

• Are you inclined to romanticise the good old days?  Choose a decade in your life at least 20 years ago, and reflect on it.  Was life better, worse, or about the same for you then compared to the present time?  What do you most miss from that time and why?  What are you most glad to have left behind from that time, and why?
• Do you feel the weight of any particular burden at this time?  Is there someone who could share that with you to lessen your load?  Would you welcome that?
• Are you open to sharing responsibility with others, or do you like to keep things in your own hands?  Do you find delegation easy or hard?

 

James 5:13-20. This closing passage has all the tone of the "calm after the storm".  It's as if James has get a few things off his chest and is now feeling much more kindly towards those he is addressing: look back at verses 1-6 of this chapter, and then notice the change of tone through verses 7-12 and into this week's passage.  Now he urges them to pray with faith, for themselves and for one another; and to confess their sins to one another.  (Here perhaps is a link with this week's gospel passage.)  Notice how verses 15 and 16 draw very little distinction between healing and forgiveness – sin and illness.  Finally, James stresses the importance of going after those who wander from the way and attempting to bring them back.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• When you are unwell, are you willing to ask your local faith community for prayer for healing?  Can you recall receiving such prayer in the past?  Was it effective?  Have you received anointing with oil with prayer for healing?
• Are you always willing to pray for healing for others when asked?
• How do you feel about confessing your sins to others, whether privately or in the congregation?
• Has there been a time in your life when you wandered away from the Church?  Did anyone attempt to bring you back?  Would you have welcomed such an attempt?
• Have you ever attempted to bring such a wanderer back to the Church?  If not, why not?

 

Mark 9:38-50.  In preparation for reflecting on this passage, begin by reading through this chapter from verse 2 onwards.  As you do so, notice that one of the connecting themes in this chapter is the persistent failure on the part of the disciples to understand Jesus' teaching, not just in detail but also in terms of his whole vision.  That provides a good guide to what is really going on in these two episodes.  The disciples report to Jesus that they have come across someone purporting to perform exorcisms in his name and attempted to stop him because "he was not one of us".  (This just a short while after they had failed to cure the epileptic boy: verse 18).  To them this is about brand protection or patent law, not about healing the possessed!  Notice how Jesus turns the issue around in verse 41: suppose an "outsider" gives you (disciples) a drink in my name...  Ah, yes!  Then Jesus gets really tough on them with some of the toughest language to come out of his mouth.  He warns them not to do anything that might lead others into sin, and then warns them not to let themselves be led into sin by their own hand, foot or eye (symbolic, perhaps, of anything they may grasp, trample on or lust after.)

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• If you tend towards a sentimental view of Jesus ("gentle, meek and mild") hold yourself in the firing line and really listen to this tirade.  Do you take your own sin seriously enough, do you think?
• How do you feel about other churches appearing to be "more successful" than your own?
• What do you think Jesus refers to by the word "salt" or "saltiness" in verses 49-50?  Is your faith as salty as it ever was, or has it lost some of its saltiness over the years?
• Do you feel that you understand Jesus' teaching, or, like the disciples, are you still baffled by it sometimes?