Posts Tagged ‘counter-cultural’

Risking everything to bring Christ to birth

December 21, 2019

Advent 4 – 2019

Matthew 1:18-25

Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us out of our comfort zone and into a world as yet unknown. Amen.

Fifty years ago many people were threatened by the emergence of feminism and some still are. Its opponents have argued that women are intrinsically different from men and have different roles and should stick to the responsibilities appointed to them. Of course, that view is no longer prominent, and most would agree that the feminist movement has had a positive impact on Western society. Not only has the movement freed women to take a fuller part in the world but, at its best, it has liberated both women and men to be themselves and to achieve their full potential. It is true that there have always been men who have taken a lead in household chores, in cooking and in childcare but, as women have been freed to join the workforce and pursue their dreams, so more men have taken the opportunity to take up roles traditionally assigned to women including those of primary child-carer and chief cook.  Because some women (and a few men) challenged the existing customs of their day, what was counter-cultural and even threatening 55 years ago has become, for many, the norm.

In their different ways both Matthew and Luke make it clear that Jesus’ birth is only possible because Joseph and Mary were prepared to act in ways that were radical and counter-cultural. Responding to God’s call on their lives was both dangerous and subversive and yet they faced the challenge with grace and courage. Despite the fact that the gospel writers make the choice look easy and imply that their decision were received by their neighbours without question, it is important to remember that only Mary and Joseph were privy to the appearance of the angels. They may have been confident that it was God who was speaking to them, but their relatives and friends would only have had their word for what had taken place. We have no idea how the small, religiously conservative village of Nazareth responded to the shocking and even immoral behaviour of two of their members. Like all change-makers Joseph and Mary risked vilification, exclusion and even stoning – Mary for becoming pregnant to someone other than her betrothed and Joseph for ignoring the social and biblical norms by taking her in marriage.

Neither Joseph nor Mary would have been able to justify their choices by pointing to history or to precedent. Nor could they defend their behaviour with reference to Old Testament prophecy. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it suggest that a carpenter from Nazareth would have a role in the birth of the Christ. I can’t imagine that anything in Joseph’s religious background or education would have led him to expect that the Christ would come into the world by means of two very ordinary people in a backwater of Palestine, let alone that he would be one of those people.

Joseph did not even have the advantage of seeing the angel face-to-face, but only in a dream. Nevertheless, Joseph, unlike Mary, asked no questions. He simply woke up and did as the angel commanded without any thought for the consequences for himself.

Joseph and Mary were free to say “no” to the angel’s request. They could have argued that responding to God’s call was simply too difficult, too dangerous or too risky. They might have been concerned about what other people might think and what the impact on their lives might have been. Instead, as the gospel writers tell it, their response was immediate and wholehearted, even reckless. As a consequence of their willingness to be God’s vessels for change, the course of history was dramatically altered. Within four centuries the child to whom they gave a welcome was worshipped throughout the Roman Empire and today, the faith that bears his name is one of the world’s major religions.

In the insignificant village of Nazareth, in the Gentile region of Galilee, Joseph and Mary could not have known how far-reaching their decisions would be. They would not have foreseen that in the name of their son hospitals and schools would be built to heal and educate the poor, that slavery would eventually be brought to an end, that wars would be won and lost and that thousands would give their lives rather than renounce him.

Joseph and Mary risked everything – their respectability, their family, their friends and even their lives – to answer God’s call. Throughout history thousands of others have refused

to be bound by cultural norms and sometimes, at great risk to themselves, have challenged the status quo in response to God’s call on their lives. Many of those whom we now call “saints” were non-conformists – people whose vision and confidence in God, led them to confront injustice and oppression and to question corrupt leadership both in society and within the church. Often, they paid for their actions with their lives.

Joseph and Mary together with saints and martyrs through the centuries remind us that, as followers of Christ, we are all called to be change agents – to hear the word of God tugging on our conscience, urging us to do what is right, to challenge unjust structures and to care for the poor and the outcast – with or without the approval of the society in which we find ourselves and with no concern for our own safety or social status.

The voice of the angel may elude us, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to be those who through our words and actions bring Christ to birth in a world that as yet does not know how much it needs his presence.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Advent, Matthew, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Risking everything to bring Christ to birth

Subversive and counter-cultural (politically correct)

December 30, 2017

Christmas 1 – 2017

Luke 2:22-40

Marian Free

In the name of God who does not discriminate, but who values each one of us just as we are. Amen.

What is sometimes disparagingly called “political correctness” has the ability to put some people’s teeth on edge. Yet if read or watch historical dramas like Jane Austin or The Duchess we are be reminded of the powerlessness of women and children in past eras. Or if we watch crime shows or read detective novels we can see how vulnerable and dependent the poor, the mentally ill and the disabled are and how much they depend on the goodness (or lack thereof) of others. Such reminders help us to understand that what some people refer to disparagingly as political correctness is in fact an attempt to build a more equitable and compassionate society that values the contribution and value of all its members not simply those who meet some predetermined standard. Today most of us would recoil in horror to hear someone called a “black” or a “spastic” or a “mongoloid”. Such terms are dehumanizing and discriminatory and they deny the individuality and personality of those so labeled. A majority of people today recognise that all people deserve to be regarded with dignity and respect regardless of their level of ability, their occupation, their race or religion. Unfortunately societal norms can be so ingrained and so unconscious that they can be hard to identify let alone alter. At times societal pressure and even legislation has to be brought to bear to bring about lasting change in values and attitudes.

I mentioned last week that Matthew and Luke tell the story of Jesus’ birth in completely different ways. We can look in vain for the magi in Luke and will have no success if we search for the shepherds in Matthew. No only is the content of the story different in the two gospels, but the way in which the authors relate the story is quite different. A characteristic of Luke is his use of doublets and his juxtaposition of male and female characters. For example, the parable of the lost sheep is placed side by side with the parable of the lost coin – two stories of the lost, in the first the kingdom of God is likened to a shepherd and in the second to a woman.

Both of these techniques are evident from the very beginning of the gospel. Luke’s account of Jesus’ conception and birth is paralleled with that of John the Baptist. The announcement to Zechariah is paralleled with the announcement to Mary and Mary’s hymn matches the hymn of Zechariah. The two stories contrast in ways that make the parallels more obvious. Elizabeth is old and barren whereas Mary is young and presumably at her most fertile. Zechariah receives the news from the angel with skepticism whereas Mary accepts that God can do what God intends. Zechariah and Elizabeth are from priestly families whereas Mary (and Joseph) appear to be of more humble origins.

In today’s gospel another couple are juxtaposed – Simeon and Anna. Both are old, both have prophetic gifts and both respond to the presence of Jesus by making a public pronouncement regarding his identity and his role. From the beginning, Luke is happy to give to women the same authority and prophetic role as men. Mary, not Joseph is the significant character in Jesus’ life, Elizabeth recognises Mary as the mother of her Lord, and Anna proclaims to all who will listen that Jesus is the one who will redeem Israel.

Luke makes it clear that women, as well as men play a significant part in the Jesus’ story. Without labouring the point, Luke also makes it clear that Jesus’ family have no obvious status or wealth but exist on the economic margins of society. Zechariah is a priest; Joseph (we discover later) is a carpenter. Jesus is born in a stable and his first visitors are not exotic men from the east, but shepherds who have no position in society and little income to speak of. When Mary and Joseph present Jesus at the Temple, instead of offering a sheep as stipulated by Leviticus, they offer two turtle-doves (a concession made for those who are poor).

Through his juxtaposition of men and women, priest and layperson and through his positioning of Jesus among the poor, Luke makes it clear from the very beginning that the gospel is for everyone – Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, the pillars of society and those on the fringes. As such the third gospel is perhaps the most inclusive of all the gospels as well as the most subversive and counter-cultural.

In Luke’s gospel the poor are privileged and the rich are castigated, women play an important role and Jesus himself is situated among the poor, their story is his story. Using today’s terminology, Luke could be accused of being politically correct – of giving dignity and honour in equal measure to all members of society in defiance of the societal norms of his time.

Luke’s record of Jesus’ origins are a reminder that we are called not to fit in with the world around us, but to critique it – to stand apart from the crowd by working for justice, trying to create a society that is welcoming and inclusive of difference and by showing compassion and understanding towards the vulnerable in our midst and to those who are on the fringes of our society. The gospel challenges us to expose and not to protect the elite and the powerful, to confront exploitation and abuse, and to challenge the miss-use of power and the oppression of the weak.

In other words, in his account of Jesus’ birth and infancy, Luke challenges us to put ourselves in God’s place and to see the world from the point of view of one who came not as a powerful warrior, a harsh judge or a despotic ruler, but as a helpless, vulnerable infant who could be put to sleep in a manger and held in the arms of Simeon and who identified with the poor and the helpless, stood with women and children, welcomed the marginalised and the outcast and who brought hope to the hopeless.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Luke's gospel | Comments Off on Subversive and counter-cultural (politically correct)

Why don’t they just ask?

September 19, 2015

Pentecost 17 – 2015

Mark 9:30-37

Marian Free

 In the name of God who withholds nothing and who reveals Godself to those who seek. Amen.

“Why didn’t you just ask?” These are the words that are uttered by an exasperated parent or frustrated teacher when confronted with a child or student who has misunderstood what was required, done something foolish or embarked on the wrong exercise. If only they had asked for clarity, they might not have got themselves into such a muddle or headed off in the wrong direction. There are a number of reasons why people do not ask for clarity, for direction or for permission. Some people are afraid that asking a question will expose their ignorance or foolishness. Others are ashamed to admit that they do not understand and still others assume that they have understood what is required and so there is no need to ask. The problem is that a failure to ask can have disastrous consequences. People end up going off at a tangent – either tentatively because they do not understand or confidently because they are so sure that they have got it right that they don’t need to ask. It is only when things go awry, when it clear that they are lost, doing the wrong exercise or using the wrong tools that such people wish that they had asked.

The situation can be even worse with relationships. One person in the relationship may draw the wrong conclusion or inference from what the other has said or done. As a result the relationship may be damaged or, in the worst case scenarios, the person who has misunderstood may becomes bitter or trapped into a way of thinking and behaving that prevents them from growing and maturing. Think for example of the child who perceives a parent’s reserve as a lack of affection and who carries that perception around like a stone only to discover that they were wrong all the time. “Why didn’t you ask?” Is the cry of the anguished parent or the misjudged person – I would have told you: that you were loved; that I was proud of you; that you never disappointed me. “I would have told you.” “You need not have been afraid.”

“Why didn’t you just ask?” could have been Jesus’ question to his disciples. For the second time now Jesus has told the disciples that he will be betrayed and killed and on the third day will rise again. The idea that their leader and teacher should be put to death is so foreign to the disciples that they simply cannot come to terms with it. The first time Jesus announced his death, Peter rebuked him and was in his turn roundly rebuked by Jesus. Perhaps it is no wonder that the disciples are now afraid to ask Jesus what he means. Not only do they not wish to look foolish, they might also be a little afraid of Jesus’ frustration.

So the disciples react in the way many of us do when we do not understand, they change the subject. Instead of asking Jesus what he means, instead of trying to grapple with what Jesus is saying, instead of trying to understand what sort of Christ this might be, they turn to something familiar: who among them is the greatest? Here they are on solid ground. In first century society honour and shame determined a person’s place in the world. Honour had to be won and shame avoided.

Faced with something utterly beyond their comprehension, the disciples turn to a familiar argument – who, in their little group, has the highest status? By focusing on something they do understand reveal not only their failure to grasp what Jesus had just said to them but their complete misunderstanding of what he is about.

Jesus doesn’t respond by saying: “Why didn’t you ask!” Nor does he express his exasperation by rebuking the disciples. This time he takes a different approach. If the disciples don’t understand what he says, perhaps they will comprehend an action that illustrates what he is trying to tell them. That is that honour and status have no place among those who follow a Christ such as he who is destined to suffer and to die. So he sits down and says: “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and the servant of all.” Then he places a child in the midst of them before taking it in his arms and saying: “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.”

Later Jesus will use a child to demonstrate the innocence and simplicity required of those who would enter the kingdom, but here his purpose is quite different. In the first century worlds of both Palestine and of Rome, the place of children was complex. On the one hand they had value as those on whom the future depended, on the other they presented a liability, as they had to be nurtured and protected and yet they contributed nothing to the household. An adult slave was a more productive member of the household than a child. At the same time a child had no legal status or power and therefore could not bestow honour or status on those who welcomed them. (A child was not worth the time or effort of someone’s attention, as they could give nothing in return.)

By insisting that a child be welcomed and respected, Jesus subverted the social conventions of his time and illustrated more clearly than words are able that discipleship contradicts the norms of society and that Jesus’ leadership turns on its head everything the disciples thought they knew and understood. Those who follow him will have to stand outside the culture and renounce the values honour and shame. True greatness, Jesus suggests, cannot be achieved by serving only those who can give you something in return, rather it lies in welcoming those who can give nothing – the disabled, the poor, the unclean, the widow, the child anyone who is considered an outsider, anyone who has no status at all.

What the disciples have yet to grasp is that Jesus’ leadership is completely counter-cultural, it does not and will not conform to known categories, but will continue to contradict and to subvert their expectations and their view of the world and will demand the same of them.

Jesus continues to subvert and confound our expectations. He refuses to be categorized. He will not be tied down to societal norms. He breaks the rules and relates to the wrong people. His behaviour shocks and unsettles. We like the disciples continue to be confused and disconcerted. We try to fit Jesus into known categories, to confine him to the limits of our expectations, to force him to be conventional. In our efforts to understand we may follow many false leads and wander off on our own paths.

If only we could admit our ignorance. If only we would ask. If only we would search the scriptures for answers, open our hearts to the Spirit who knows what God has yet to reveal to us?

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Why don’t they just ask?