Notes for Reflection

October 11                             NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Amos 5:6-7, 10-15; Hebrews 4:12-16; Mark 10:17-31

Theme: For those who still have fond memories of Saturday mornings at the local cinema, what about "Your Money or Your Life"?  No, don't just snort derisively, think about it for a moment.  Isn't that a fair summary of Jesus' teaching in this week's gospel passage?  Something a little more grown-up (and therefore a little less catchy) might be "The Perils of Materialism".  Hebrews offers a pointed alternative – "A Two-edged Sword".  And Amos offers all sorts of pithy possibilities, such as "Turning Justice to Wormwood" (v.7a), "This is an Evil Time" (v.13) or even "Warning to Central Otago" (v.11b & c).

Introduction.  Amos gets us off to a furious start this week with a stinging attack on the wealthy elite of the time in Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and indirectly on the same class in his home province of Judah, and warning them that God is about to deal with them severely.  Our second reading reminds us that God's word is a two-edged sword, able to cut through all our pretence and self-serving illusions.  And Jesus shocks his disciples and everyone else, including his present-day followers, with his extremist views on the perils of materialism.

Background.  I've been fantasising this week about the joys of having a large whiteboard, and even some reliable marker pens to go with it.  I blame the TV: a diet of "Death in Paradise", "The Brokenwood Mysteries", and other such classics have fed into my technophobia to convince me that real breakthroughs in human understanding and problem-solving do not come from ever-evolving technological wizardry, but from a large whiteboard (preferably a sturdy one that doesn't tip over if you press too hard with the pen or even lean on it), and a good supply of pens of various colours.  I have lost count of the number of very difficult murder inquiries that have been brought to a successful conclusion by the use of such whiteboards, or, as I prefer to call them, Smart Boards.

Of course, if I were fortunate enough to acquire a Smart Board for myself, it is unlikely that I would use it to solve murder cases.  But I'm sure it would be helpful in my ongoing inquiries into what Ian Rankin called "the Overworld" (mentioned in these Notes a few weeks ago).  This week there have been all sorts of examples of rich and powerful people, some clearly breaking the law, and others merely doing what Overworlders always do.  Lacking an actual Smart Board, I have had to make do with an imaginary one to stick up some likely and unlikely characters from news headlines.

To start with the more obvious examples from the world of what used to be called "sport", we have Ces Blatter and Jack Warner (football), and Lou Vincent and Chris Cairns (to name but two from the world of cricket.)  NOTE: we only use Smart Boards to keep track of SUSPECTS; once convicted their names are carefully rubbed out to protect their privacy.  A new name was added this week: a Mr John Ashe, described in a Reuters report as "a former president of the United Nations General Assembly, a billionaire Macau real estate developer" [and] "a former UN ambassador from Antigua and Barbuda".  With those credentials he certainly qualifies as an Overworlder.  Although it appears that he has been guilty of bribery and corruption on a grand scale, he has only been charged with tax offences because such offences "are not covered by any diplomatic immunity he enjoys".

No doubt we could add many more names from those whose activities have brought them into conflict with the law.  But this week has brought to light two other examples of the power and thinking of Overworlders who are certainly not in breach of the law.  The first appears in a report from Britain (published in this week's ODT World Focus, page 5) about the response of certain wealthy people in Britain to the recent election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the British Labour Party.  One such person quoted in the article is  "Multimillionaire businessman Assem Allam [who] fled Cairo for England 46 years ago after being arrested several times because he would not stop 'talking' about then president Gamal Abdel Nasser".  This man has, we are told, stopped financially contributing to the Labour Party because of the election of Mr Corbyn, whom he describes as a "shy Communist".  He is not alone. Other wealthy donors have followed suit.  The real question is, why would such Overworlders give financial backing to the Labour Party in the first place?  Their reaction to Mr Corbyn's election surely gives that game away.

I've saved the biggest shock to last.  Also on my Smart Board this week I have added the name and mugshot of Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, and widely admired as a no-nonsense national leader (and genuine supporter of her country's football team).   She added her voice this week to the growing campaign for reform of the UN Security Council, and, in particular, to a review of the five permanent seats.  She didn't recommend their abolition, nor the removal of their veto powers: what she wanted was a change of permanent membership "to reflect the realities of the present world".  Translation: Britain, France and Russia are no longer world (economic) powers and should give way to Germany, Japan and whoever.  They key assumption is that the wealthiest countries in the world should have more power ("clout" might be a better word for it) in the working of the UN.  Why?  She didn't explain, because as an Overworlder it would never occur to her that such an approach needs explaining.  The wealthiest should rule the world.

But what about a population-based approach?  Should the countries with the largest population have more power?  Or those least able to defend themselves?  Or those most at risk from Climate Change?  Or from war?  What about permanent seats for the first five countries that totally disarm?

Mrs Merkel is the daughter of a Lutheran pastor.  She was brought up in the Christian faith.  What I wonder does this week's gospel passage say to her, or to any of her fellow Overworlders?  There could hardly be a more stark contrast between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God.  It's as if they have been cut asunder by a two-edged sword.

Amos 5:6-7, 10-15.  When John Boehner resigned recently as Speaker of the US House of Representatives he quoted the biblical warning about "false prophets", of whom there are quite a few apparently in his Republican Party.  Scary as they might be, they are nothing compared to the real thing, as Amos demonstrates for us this week.  I suspect that the best test of a true prophet is his reluctance to accept the calling.  Amos passes that test with flying colours.  He was a country lad, content to earn his living looking after sheep and a few fruit trees, in a little settlement called Tekoa, a few miles to the south of Bethlehem and a little over 10 miles from Jerusalem.  He was therefore a citizen of the Southern Kingdom, Judah; but in the inscrutable way of God, he was sent to the Northern Kingdom, Israel, to proclaim God's pending judgment on that nation.  According to the note in the NIV Study Bible: Israel at the time was politically secure and spiritually smug....  But prosperity increased Israel's religious and moral corruption.  Into such an environment came Amos with his most unwelcome call to repentance, made worse by his status as an outsider.  Nevertheless, as a true prophet he spoke the words of the Lord, challenging the ruling elite and their widespread corrupt practices.

Taking It Personally.

• To what extent (if any) do you see similarities between Israel of Amos' time and present-day New Zealand?  Are we "politically secure and spiritually smug"?
• Verse 10 speaks of corruption in the courts.  How confident are you that our courts are free of any such corruption?  Do they show favouritism to the rich, or discriminate against the poor?
• Verse 11 seems to be about the gap between the rich and the poor.  Does that concern you?
• Verse 13 seems to counsel maintaining a low profile in the face of injustice.  How do you feel about that?
• Are there any personal challenges for you in this passage?

 

Hebrews 4:12-16.  In some ways this lesson is even scarier than the one from Amos – or perhaps it would be better to say that this lesson explains why Amos' message was and is so scary.  For he, like all true prophets, wielded the two-edged sword every time he opened his mouth; and even in our time when that sword had been turned into written form its cutting edges are as sharp as ever.    This short passage blows away all concepts of privacy: everything we do, say, think, wish, crave, fear, despise, judge, - everything that we attempt to conceal from others – is ultimately laid bare before God.  Think about that for a moment and start to tremble.  Giving up all those careful defence mechanisms, all our pretences and illusions, may be even harder to contemplate than giving up all our material possessions.  What would be left if we let go of everything we consider our own?  Of course, the good news is that we are then able to receive the mercy, love and grace of God in abundance, as we discover if we read on in this Letter.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Can you recall an occasion when you were "cut to the quick" by a piece of Scripture or something a preacher said?  How did that feel?
• Imagine yourself "naked and laid bare to the eyes" of God.  How do you feel about that?  What would God see that you would rather it was left unseen?
• Now take time to remind yourself that God loves you as you are, and not as you would like to appear.  Give thanks.

 

Mark 10:17-31.  It's been tough going over the last two or three weeks as Jesus' teaching seems to have taken on a harder edge.  Perhaps this week we are tempted to relax a little – after all, he's not talking about us, is he?  He's talking about "the rich" and that certainly doesn't include us, does it?  We're not like John Ashe or Assem Allam who have mega-fortunes.  We're not like this guy in this passage who has – um – "many possessions", are we?  Well, how many possessions are we talking about here?  If we are beginning to go down that track we are only the latest to do so in the last two thousand years.  All sorts of "defence strategies" have been devised against the charge levelled by this passage, some by Bible scholars who should know better.  The most popular approach has been to individualise it: Jesus is not laying down a general rule, but is prescribing the remedy for this individual who has an unhealthy attachment to material wealth.  The following discussion shows how little sense that approach has to offer.  Again, we need to get past the "giving up" side of the equation and focus on the "receiving back" side.  Notice from this reading that once again it starts with the motif "journey" – Jesus was "setting out on a journey".  A man runs up to him – how keen he is to have an encounter with Jesus, and how bold he is!

(As an Overworlder it would not occur to him that he might not be welcome.)  He addresses Jesus respectfully, and asks his Overworlder's question.  His concern is wholly for himself; and he assumes that whatever he wants he came obtain by his own efforts.  He is not a bad person: he has genuinely tried to comply with the Commandments.  But he is on the wrong track.  The way to eternal life (spiritual maturity) is through receiving not earning; and to receive we must start with empty hands.  We pray, "Forgive us as we forgive others".  The same principle is in play here – "Give to us as we give to others".

Taking It Personally.

• How eagerly do you seek an encounter with Jesus?
• How often do you seek Jesus' teaching on a particular issue?
• Do you consider yourself rich?  Do you have many possessions?
• Is there any possession that you cannot imagine living your life without?
• Focus on verse 24b.  Notice there is no reference to wealth here.  What do you make of that?
• What personal challenges are there in this passage for you?