Posts Tagged ‘debate’

Turning the tables

October 30, 2021

Pentecost 23 – 2021

Mark 12:28-34

Marian Free

In the name of God who alone sees the contents of our hearts. Amen.

I have mixed feelings towards journalists – when they are simply sensationalist I cringe, but when they reveal important truths I applaud. Ever since the Watergate scandal was uncovered I have had the feeling that there is some unspoken competition to uncover deep secrets or to bring down someone of status. There are times when an interviewer relentlessly pursues an apparently preset line of questioning – even when the answer to a particular question has already been given. At other times a journalist seems to keep pressing an issue in the hope that the respondent will eventually say what they want them to say. On the other hand, I value the freedom of the press and the ability of investigative journalists to reveal uncomfortable truths and to expose corruption and vice. I am in awe of those who put their own lives in danger to ensure that the rest of us are informed and made aware of injustice, cruelty and despair. We all, but especially our elected representatives, those whom we have entrusted with our finances and those whose wealth gives them power, must be held accountable and we are all responsible for knowing what is going on in the world around us.

Of course, there is a skill to interviewing or to debate. It is something like a cat and mouse game – how long can one side hold out, will a weak point be exposed or will and admission be made that will expose the real story? When both sides are equally skilled the moment when one side comes out ahead can be magic. (For example when Richard Nixon admitted to ‘doing illegal things’ in a interview with David Frost).

Debate, as I said last week, is an important part of the Jewish tradition and it was one of the ways in which difficult matters of faith were worked out and through which the Jewish leaders tried to come to grips with who Jesus was. Beginning at 11:27 of Mark’s gospel, various members of the Jewish establishment engaged Jesus in debate. The chief priests, elders and scribes asked Jesus by what authority he was doing what he was doing. When Jesus turned the question back on them they sent the Pharisees and Herodians to trap him: “is it lawful to pay taxes to the Emperor or not?” they asked. Jesus showed them the image of the Emperor on a coin and responded that: “they should give to the Emperor what is the Emperor’s. Next the Sadducees asked Jesus a question about the resurrection – a convoluted story about a woman who married seven brothers in succession as each one died. The Sadducees, who do not believe in the resurrection, were wanting to demonstrate that a belief in the resurrection was absurd.

These challenges are live issues in the first century. Jesus has no formal power – from where does he get his authority. Everyone resents paying taxes to Rome – where does Jesus stand? There are a number of parties in first century Judaism – with which one does Jesus identify? All the questions have a different purpose on the surface – to discredit, to trap or to expose Jesus as belonging to one party or another – but all play the same role of trying to work out where Jesus fit in the Judaism of his day – was he a follower of John the Baptist? Where did he stand with regard to the Roman colonists? Was he a Pharisee or Sadducee?

Finally, a scribe who has observed the debates and has seen that Jesus answered well, approached. He does not appear to have a particular agenda but his question too strikes at the heart of what it means to be Jewish: “which commandment is first of all?” Jesus response is not entirely original. Others before him had linked love of God and love of neighbour (combining the first and second tablets of the law). None-the-less the scribe approves Jesus’ answer.

However as Jesus makes clear – the scribe is in no position to approve. In the same way that Jesus has turned the tables on the first three sets of protagonists so now he does so to the scribe. Jesus has no position or place in the existing structure – his authority, his legitimacy comes from God. He is the anointed one. He is God’s representative. He is the one who really determines who does and does not belong to the kingdom, so he rejects the scribes’ approval and instead legitimizes the scribe saying: “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

“After that no one dared to ask him any question.”

Jesus make clear that he does not need to be authenticated by or approved by anyone. It is he who decides who is authentic or not, who determines what the truth is and is nothing is clear what is essential to faith and what is not.

For us – (especially those who teach and preach) -today’s gospel is a stark reminder of where true authority. No matter how well read we are or how spiritual we are, none of us are the final arbiters it comes to the truth. Ultimately only God knows the mind of God. The best that we can do is to confess that ‘God is one, and besides him there is no other’; and ‘to love God with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbour as oneself,’ Maybe then Jesus will affirm that we are not far from the kingdom of God.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Turning the tables

Arguing with God

September 4, 2021

Pentecost 15 – 2021
Mark 7:24-37
Marian Free

In the name of God, known to us in creation, through the life of Jesus, by the prompting of the Spirit and in the written word. Amen.

Last week I attended the Northern Region Clergy Conference. In our Conference bags was a copy of a recently released book written by a British priest, Miranda Threlfall-Holmes – “How to Eat Bread – 21 Nourishing Ways to Read the Bible .” In a novel and accessible way, Miranda guides the reader into a deeper understanding of the ways in which one can and should approach our scriptures. In so doing, she takes away some of the mystery that can be associated with a book that is often difficult and which contains themes and ideas that are foreign (and even distasteful) to our experience.

The Bible is our story, the basis of our faith, the source of our knowledge about the one true God. Its complexity should not daunt us, but we may need some tools to help us to get the most out of our reading.

For example, when we read the Bible, it is important to bear in mind including that it was not written in one sitting, nor was it authored by just one person. It is a collection (a library even) of sixty-six books. Within the bible we find different styles of literature written during different periods of history to address particular situations. Books of the Bible cover history, law, poetry, proverbs, stories, prophetic books, gospels, letters, sermons, and apocalyptic literature. Each book has to be read according to the type of literature that it represents. If we were to read a book such as one of the wisdom books (A Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes) as if it was history, we would completely miss the point and would find ourselves taking literally something that was intended figuratively.

Because the Bible was written over a long period of time, those who wrote at a later date would have known and used pre-existing writings (explicitly and implicitly) to speak to their own time and place. Unlike modern scholars, they would not have had to use footnotes to reference where their quotes came from, nor would they have felt any obligation to be precise. (For example, the quotation attributed to John the Baptist is a combination – coming from both Isaiah and Micah for example.) Knowing that the Bible itself includes a number of different forms of interpretation, means that we do not need to feel ourselves limited to one or another way of reading/understanding it.

Very little of the Bible was written in real time. The Gospels were only committed to paper thirty to forty years after Jesus’ death. During that time the stories were told and retold which allowed variations to creep in. Genesis, the first book of the Bible consists of stories that had been told and retold for thousands of years. It reflects debates regarding the nature of God and of humanity, questions and answers as to why things are the way they are.

As Miranda points out, the various writings have been gathered over time because people who believed in the God of the Israelites felt that these books captured their experience of God and/or that they were significant in building up their spiritual life. She says: “They (the books) are not simply a list of beliefs about God” (or, I would add, a collection of rules that must be obeyed). Scripture represents: “stories, thought experiments or dreams that are meant to be troubling, unsettling, or even to make you angry .”

All this is a rather long-winded introduction to the practice of debate in scripture and, in particular the practice of arguing with God – Miranda’s first chapter. As she points out, one of the ways of coming to understand and of developing a relationship with the one true God is represented through debate. This was particularly the case when it came to trying to come to grips with the question of good and evil and how it is that a good God allows bad things to happen.

Not only did our forebears argue with one another as they tried to understand what it meant to have faith, but they had no difficulty arguing with God. Abraham had no problem challenging God’s decision to destroy Sodom, Isaac wrestled with God and Job questioned God’s treatment of him – just to mention a few examples.

That Jesus was a part of this tradition is evident from the way in which he countered the arguments of the Pharisees as they struggled together about the meaning of scriptures – what did it mean to keep the Sabbath holy, which commandments were the most important, was ritual washing essential in everyday life and so on? Arriving at a definitive answer was not as important as struggling with the question. This tells us, as Miranda suggests, that the point of engaging with scripture is: “to encounter God and to let ourselves be formed and changed by the process of argument itself .”

Today’s gospel addresses, in the form of debate, the question about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman was a vital step in the movement of the Christian faith from its Jewish origins to its place as a universal faith. In good rabbinic fashion, the woman refused to simply accept Jesus’ abrupt (rude?) refusal to help her. She held her ground and offered a different way of seeing the world and the relationship with God. If Jesus healed her daughter, she insisted, he would not be taking anything away from “the children” because there are always scraps or crumbs that fall from the table for the dogs to consume.

We neglect the Bible at our own peril. Not only does it tell our story, and the story of God’s relationship with us, it also encourages us to ask questions, to challenge the status quo, not to take anything for granted and to engage with the living God without fear.

If you haven’t already – give it a go!

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel, Syrophoenician Woman | Comments Off on Arguing with God

In God’s image

October 21, 2017

 

Pentecost 20 – 2017

Matthew 22:15-end

Marian Free

In the name of God who is and was and ever more shall be. Amen.

According to Cambridge University: “Competitive debating is a fun activity akin to a game in which we examine ideas and policies with the aim of persuading people within an organised structure. It allows us to consider the world around us by thinking about different arguments, engaging with opposing views and speaking strategically[1].” The same website states that judges measure a good debater according to three criteria:

Content: What a person says and the arguments and examples he or she uses.
Style: How the debate is presented – that is the language and voice that is used.
Strategy: How well someone engages with the topic, responds to other people’s arguments and structure what they say.

At its best good debate is like a piece of theatre – full of drama, repartee, humor and a clever turn of phrase. Good debaters know how to put their point convincingly and how to expose the weaknesses of their opponent’s arguments. If they are particularly clever and astute, they may be able to throw the other team off course and force them team to put a foot wrong and thereby lose the debate.

Jesus often engaged in debate with those who opposed him. These debates were not for fun, but were serious affairs in which one or more persons tried to bring Jesus into disrepute in order to enhance their own status and honour. In today’s gospel three groups of people try to discredit Jesus through questions about politics, faith and the Jewish law.

First the Pharisees, assisted by the Herodians, come up with a question that they think will force Jesus into a corner. If Jesus says that it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, he will alienate the majority of his audience who resent the taxes exacted by Rome. On the other hand, if he states that the taxes should not be paid his challengers will have grounds to report him for sedition. Jesus appears to be in a lose-lose situation. Not so. Jesus refuses to fall for their trap. His response not only fails to give them what they want, but it also exposes their hypocrisy and their faithlessness.

Jesus then asks for a coin and one is readily produced. In a sense, by being in possession of a coin, his adversaries have answered their own question. The coin signifies identification with the Empire. The Herodians had publicly aligned themselves with the Romans, but the Pharisees, who prided themselves on keeping the law, should have refused to carry a coin engraved with an image of “Tiberius Caesar, August, son of the divine Augustus, high priest” – a graven image forbidden by the 10 Commandments. (Even if the coin belonged to an Herodian, the Pharisees would tainted by association.)

Jesus goes further and asks them a question: “Whose image[2] is this, and whose title?” (“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”. )Too often, Jesus’ response here has been used to justify a separation of church and state which, at its extreme, allowed Christians to go along with or to ignore the policies of the Nazi state. What is at stake is more than an issue of earthly authority vs the authority of heaven[3].  The power of the Emperor is not a separate power from that of God. All heaven and earth are under God’s dominion; all powers and principalities are subordinate to the overarching authority and power that belongs to God. The image on the coin implies authority, power and divinity in this case for the Emperor. Paying taxes returns the coin to the Emperor whom it represents. If we give the coin to the Emperor, what do we give to God? What is it that bears God’s image. Humanity is made in the image of God and it is ourselves, our whole selves that we must return to God.

Jesus’ diversion with the coin was more than just a clever response to what was meant to be a difficult question. Jesus’ was confronting the Pharisees’ failure to live out their role as the image of God and to give to God what was God’s.

When the Sadducees saw that the Pharisees had failed to score a point against Jesus, they came up with a question of their own – one that related to a matter of belief. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They hoped to confuse Jesus with a complicated question about the resurrection. Jesus’ response showed that they were approaching the question from completely the wrong point of view. He reminded them that it was foolish to think of the resurrection in purely human terms.

In a final attempt to discredit Jesus, the Pharisees sent a lawyer with a question about a matter of the law. The Pharisees wanted to expose Jesus’ ignorance with regard to matters of the Jewish law. Which law was the greatest – that would be something only those who were students of the law might know. Jesus was not just some yokel from Galilee. He was politically astute; he knew the tenets of his faith and was well versed in the law. None of his opponents were able to trap or outsmart him.

Having proven himself Jesus turns the tables on his adversaries. He has a question. How can the Christ be both David’s son and David’s lord? They cannot of course and Jesus’ opponents slink away – defeated.

When we listen to accounts such as these that we allow ourselves a certain amount of smugness – the Pharisees and Sadducees were definitely in the wrong and on the wrong track, we think. We wouldn’t make that mistake. But I wonder about that: how often do we call God into question, try to pin God down or force God into a corner? How often do we pit our wills against God – seeking answers to questions that may be well beyond our ability to comprehend? How often do we enter into competition with God, trying to get God to prove Godself? In the final analysis perhaps that is the point of today’s gospel. It reminds us that contending with God is futile. The truth is that no matter how smart or how educated we are we simply cannot plumb the depths of God. There is so much that is beyond our comprehension. God is mysterious and complex and awe-inspiring. God cannot be contained or captured by slogans or simple formulas.

Jesus’ response to his challengers reveals two possible actions – we can accept and submit to God’s dominion and be a part of the kingdom or we can challenge or defy God’s sovereignty and thereby demonstrate that we want no part of the kingdom. We need to choose a side – do we stand with the Pharisees and with all who contest with God? or do we acknowledge God as our Lord and Jesus as our Saviour. There is always a choice let us be sure to make the right one.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] cus.org

[2] Note the Greek word “icon” is often translated as “head” which makes it more difficult to grasp Jesus’ meaning.

[3] Dennis Hamm and others

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on In God’s image

“Get over it” It’s not that complicated

October 18, 2014

Pentecost 19
Matthew 22:15-33
Marian Free

In the name of God, in whom and of whom are all things. Amen.

Sometime ago, I was part of a Parish that took life and faith very seriously. I could tell a number of stories, but three in particular come to mind. One concerns a woman who was a member of a group that had convinced her that the Star of David was a source of evil. The poor woman was distraught not because she had such a star in her home, but because she was afraid that she might have one of which she was unaware. Her plan – until we had spoken at some length – was to go home and turn her house upside down until she was sure that it was safe. To this day I’m not sure what sort of theology promotes the idea that inanimate objects are evil and it frightens me that there is someone out there sowing seeds of fear in the name of Jesus who casts out fear.

Another story relates to an elderly couple. One of their pleasures in life was to create beautiful teddy bears. They poured everything they had into making these bears using exquisite and expensive materials. The bears were of such a high standard that they won prizes at a number of shows and cost more than I could afford to pay. One Sunday morning this pair stopped me after church. On the previous day they had attended a seminar and had been led to believe that they should give up their hobby because it was not holy or religious enough. Needless to say they were very distressed – not only because they might have to give up something that they loved, but also at the thought that for so long they had been doing something contrary to the will of God. Again, I was surprised that anyone could imagine that making teddy bears was in some way offensive to God. After some discussion, I managed to persuade the couple that in making such beautiful toys they were sharing with God in the work of creation and in case that was not convincing enough, I added that every time they completed a teddy that they should say a prayer for the person who would one day own it.

Perhaps the most shocking story of that part of my life was the day I entered the church to see a flyer headed: “Ten reasons why Santa should be shot”. Now I realise that most of us are distressed by the commercialisation of Christmas and that we might wish that Jesus received more credit and more attention than Santa Claus, but to promote that sort of violence in Jesus’ name was to my mind an extreme and unnecessary reaction.

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” The stories I have told suggest to me that the those who see evil in inanimate objects, who believe that only some activities are worthy of being called holy, or those who encourage violence have not only misinterpreted this passage, but have seriously misunderstood the gospel and the relationship between the holy and the mundane.

In order to understand the debate in today’s gospel, we need to understand the background. As we have seen, in these chapters of Matthew various church leaders engage Jesus in debate. Their intention is to expose him to ridicule and to re-establish their authority in the eyes of the people. In this instance it is the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians who try to trip Jesus up. (The Pharisees representing the religious establishment and the Herodians representing the Romans.) “Is it lawful to pay taxes to the Emperor or not?” There were many taxes in first century Palestine, but tax in question is one that Rome imposed on its subject peoples in order to support the occupation. That is the Romans expected those whom they had subjugated to pay a tax to support their presence. Needless to say, there was a great deal of resentment in relation to this tax – not least among the crowds – the followers of Jesus. The tax was a constant reminder of their status as a conquered people.

A special coin was used to pay this tax, a denarius or the Tribute penny. Like all Roman coins it had a picture of the Emperor on one side with the inscription Son of God. For the religious leaders paying the tax implied that they acknowledged Caesar as God and this was an affront to their piety.

No wonder the questioners thought that they had Jesus backed into a corner. If he said not to pay the tax, he would have the crowds and the Pharisees on his side, but would be risking his safety by committing treason against the Romans. On the other hand, if he said that the tax should be paid, the crowds might well have turned against him. It appears to be a no win situation. However, Jesus sees through the question and sidesteps the issue. “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”

Jesus’ response suggests that paying or not paying the tax is a trivial detail in the scheme of things. Ultimately all things are God’s – that includes the Emperor and the Emperor’s coin. The distinction between worldly and other-worldly is a false distinction. What is important is our attitude to the things of the world and the value that we give them. Essentially, the question about the taxes is a distraction. The more important question is the question about being true to God in a hostile and difficult environment.

Non-Christian symbols, teddy-bears, a secularised Santa – all of these things are irrelevant diversions. Worrying about such things takes our focus off God. We become so absorbed in fretting over whether or not something is holy or not, that we lose sight of the bigger picture – our relationship with God. Essentially Jesus is saying to his sparring partners and therefore to us: “Get over it. Concentrate on the things that really matter. Real evil is much more subtle than taxes, teddy bears or Santa. Believe that everything is God’s, place yourself and your life in God’s hands and let the rest look after itself.”

It is just not that complicated. If we put God first in our lives everything else will fall into place.

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on “Get over it” It’s not that complicated