Notes for Reflection

October 4                               NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Genesis 2:18-24; Hebrews 1:1-4, & 2:5-12; Mark 10:2-16

Theme: There is no escaping the hardness of Jesus' teaching this week, so one approach may be to meet the challenge head on and go for "Jesus, the Hardliner", which may seem slightly more respectful than "Jesus, the Extremist".  If that approach is too provocative for your liking, you might prefer "A Higher Authority" (higher, that is, than the Law, so that approach may not be without its hazards).  Of course, this teaching is intended to be taken positively – based on love rather than law.  So something like "The Original Intent" may be wide enough to encompass both the Creator's will and the desire of the parties at the time of their marriage.

Introduction.  Given modern sensibilities our difficulties this week begin with our first lesson from Genesis.  Apart from affirming that God created women as well as men, everything else in this passage must give feminist theologians raised blood pressure.  Fortunately, the second lesson is without any such dangers, as the unknown author begins his task of "explaining" the Christ event in the context of Jewish faith and history up to that point.  Christ has become the new medium through which God speaks to his people, and the perfect offering for the redemption of the world.  The gospel has yet another tedious attempt by the Pharisees to catch Jesus out with a tricky question, this time on the legality or otherwise of divorce.  Jesus gives them an answer they certainly weren't expecting.  Nor were the disciples, who continued to show a complete inability to understand Jesus' radical teaching.  They even failed in their attempts at crowd control, trying to chase away those who wanted Jesus to bless their children.

Background.  American politics has a fascination all of its own for me!  Over the last few days it has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide background for this week's readings.  It began with a relatively small example of the clash between faith and law.  A court registrar responsible for issuing marriage licences refused to issue a licence to a gay couple, even though such marriages have now been declared legal by the Supreme Court.  She said she was unable to issue such a licence because of her Christian faith – she believed that such a relationship was contrary to God's Law, and therefore she could not do anything to facilitate it.  When ordered by a Judge to issue such licences in accordance with the law, she refused and was duly held in contempt of court and detained in custody. The public response was as expected.  To some she was a heroic martyr; to others she was a narrow-minded bigot seeking to impose her religious views on those who don't share them.  Within a few days, she was released from custody, on promising that she would not prevent other members of the staff from issuing marriage licences to gay couples.

For most people, perhaps, the issue was fairly straightforward.  She was a public official, and should carry out her duties in accordance with the law of the land.  If in all conscience she felt unable to do so she should resign her position: we cannot have individual public servants deciding which law they will comply with, and which they will not, in the course of their work.  Unless, of course, you are a health professional, in which case you have a statutory right to refuse on grounds of conscience to assist in the medical performance of an abortion. 

Case study number 2 concerned a retired neurosurgeon, Mr Carson, who is one of the large (though gradually declining) number of candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for the Presidency.  He suddenly emerged from the pack and came under press scrutiny.  He was asked if he could envisage the day when a Moslem was elected President of the USA.  No, he didn't think that would be right at all.  Two days later, in time honoured political fashion, he sought to clarify his position: what he meant was that a Moslem could indeed be President so long as he "subjugated his faith to the Constitution".  If that means anything, it presumably means that if a Moslem President found himself facing a conflict between the teaching of Islam and the requirements of the US Constitution, he would have to comply with the Constitution and not with his faith.

Which, perhaps, seems reasonable enough until we think about it.  Many of those seeking the nomination in the Republican Party strongly assert their Christian credentials, some going so far as to insist that they are "born-again", or "bible-believing", Christians – the real deal!  Has anyone (including Mr Carson) suggested that if such a candidate were to be elected President of the USA, he would have to "subjugate his faith to the Constitution"?  How would that play in the so-called "Bible-belt States"?

And so to case study number 3.  A picture published in the world press (well, it made it into the ODT anyway) showed Pope Francis addressing a joint session of the US Congress.  Behind him sat two very high-powered men:  Vice-President Joe Biden, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner.  One is a Democrat, and the other is a Republican: both are Catholics.  Looking at the photograph it is impossible to tell what either of them is thinking as he listens to the Pope.  True to form, the Pope pulled no punches: he preached Jesus' teaching to the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth.  Less than 24 hours later, John Boehner announced his resignation.  He had had enough of political games being played by some members of his own party.  They are once again threatening to close down the entire Government if they don't get their way over a particular policy difference between them and the President.  Ironically, their target this time is over the funding of Planned Parenthood, an organisation that is involved in providing abortion services.  On that issue, Pope Francis (and John Boehner) would probably share their objections, but not their tactics.

John Boehner explained that, in the morning, he had said his prayers "as I always do", and it came to him: enough was enough, he would resign. Then he mentioned Pope Francis: how the Pope had blessed Mr Boehner's wee grandson, and then asked Mr Boehner to pray for him (the Pope).  At that point words failed Mr Boehner.  In the end, it seems to me,  intellectual arguments about the subjugation of our faith to the law, or vice versa, get us nowhere.  What happened in that encounter between Mr Boehner and Pope Francis was not a meeting of minds but something much deeper.  It was probably not anything Pope Francis said (in his tortured English!) but who he so clearly reminds us of, as he blesses little children in the crowds and commands the rich and powerful to use their wealth and power for the common good.

Genesis 2:18-24.  This second creation story lacks the objectivity of the first.  It is clearly a partisan account of the importance and dominance of the human species over all other creatures, even to the extent of suggesting that we came first.  This week gives us a first glimpse into gender politics, biblical-style.  It appears to suggest that God created one individual man, and then thought that man needed company.  Even then, it was only after creating every other creature, and giving naming rights over them to the man, that the idea of a suitable companion for the man led to the creation of a woman.  Whereas the man was created out of the dust of the earth (we moderns are used to the idea that we are made out of the same substance as stardust), the creation of the woman bears an uncanny resemblance to modern medical techniques of creating organs from stem-cells, etc.  The overall effect seems to reflect the social belief of those who created this story that women were the helpers and off-shoots of men.  Perhaps two positive features are, firstly, to affirm that God made women as well as men, and that on marriage the man left his parents' nest and committed himself to his wife.

Taking It Personally.

• Accepting that this creation story has even less scientific truth than the first one, what value does it have for you?  What important truths and insights does it offer in terms of the relationship of men and women to each other, to God, and to the rest of creation?
• Jesus uses this passage in his argument with the Pharisees about the legality or otherwise of divorce.  What do you think this passage has to say to us about divorce and marriage, including gay marriage?
• Focus on verse 25.  What point is being made there, do you think?

 

Hebrews 1:1-4, & 2:5-12.  Notice in the first part of this reading how "orthodox" the teaching is.  You might like to compare the language with that of St Paul, particularly in his Letter to the Colossians.  The first point the author makes is to establish the new approach God has adopted "in recent days".  Whereas in olden times God spoke to us through the prophets, now he has spoken to us through a Son.  This Son is the heir of all things (all things will be gathered up in Christ, says St Paul), and the medium through which God has created all things.  Also with St Paul, the author sees Christ as the perfect revelation of God – he shows us what the invisible God looks like.  It is also Christ who sustains all things in existence.  In verse 4 the attention shifts to the saving work of Christ, which has been completed (signified in Ascension language, sitting down on the right-hand of God).  In the second part of the reading the author sees Christ as the new Great High Priest, but also focuses on the human sacrifice Jesus offered up through his suffering and death.  That all this was proving difficult to get across is shown by verses 11 and 12.  Just as the disciples struggled to understand Jesus, so their successors are also slow on the uptake, to the evident exasperation of the author.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Read slowly through the first section of the reading, noting how the author builds up a picture of the greatness and uniqueness of Christ.  Offer your own prayers of praise and thanksgiving.

·        Read verses 4 and 5 together.  Notice the emphasis on "being called" to the priesthood, rather than seeking it.  What lessons are there in that for our present process of selection for ordination?

·        Read verse 7 in the context of the Agony in Gethsemane.  What insights do you gain from putting these two things together?

·        What does it mean in verse 8 to say that Jesus was "made perfect through suffering"?  Was there a time when he was not perfect?

·        Reflect on verses 11 and 12.  Are you still on a milk diet, or have you been weaned onto solids?

 

Mark 10:2-16.  We tend to be so focused on the argument about divorce that we fail to notice just what Jesus is doing in this argument with the Pharisees.  In effect, Jesus is telling them that there is a higher authority than the Law.  Of course, in the context it sounds as though it is the Mosaic Law he's talking about, but is that not the Torah, the Law of God?  In fact, there is surprisingly little directly on the issue of divorce in the Old Testament: most of the references are to the consequences of being a divorced person.  It seems to be taken for granted that divorce will happen, and does not seem to have been thought of as a big deal.  But the Pharisees see it as a great subject to raise with Jesus for they are now within the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, and John the Baptist has already paid the price for criticising Herod's marriage to his divorced sister-in-law.  Verses 10-12 show that once again the disciples need further explanation on this issue.  They then blot their copybooks still further by trying to push away crowds seeking a blessing from Jesus for their children.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        How can the Church continue to teach the indissolubility of marriage while at the same time offering compassion and understanding to those who are divorced?

·        Is Jesus "subjugating love to the demands of Scripture" here?

·        Reflect on verse 15.  How do you feel about it?