Pentecost 19 – 2018
Mark 9:38-50
Marian Free
In the name of God who desires that we do not behave in ways that would cause others to lose or to question their faith. Amen.
When my children were small the Parish organised a trip to the musical “Godspell”. I was looking forward to sharing with them this laid-back, light-hearted look at the life of Jesus. Imagine my horror when the players began to talk about cutting off hands and feet and tearing out eyes! I hadn’t remembered that being in the movie version. Thankfully the words appear to have gone over my children’s heads, but I was deeply disturbed that they had been exposed to language that associated the Christian faith with such violence. What sort of Saviour demands behaviour such as this? My initial reaction (as someone who was at the beginning of my biblical studies degree) was to believe that these words were an invention of the writer of Luke’s gospel who, for some reason, wanted to terrify members of his community into good behaviour. This hope was quickly shattered when I discovered that the sayings were repeated in all three of the Synoptic gospels suggesting that they originated with Jesus.
Scholars vary greatly in their interpretation of this passage. Yarbo-Collins points to evidence that in the first century the language (hands/feet) was code for the penis and that Jesus was speaking specifically of sins of a sexual nature. Pilch on the other hand believes that a reading of the Bible tells us that humans were believed to consist of three interlocking zones. Hands and feet, he argues, symbolised “purposeful activity”; whereas eyes were integrally related to the heart, the source of information that the heart used to make decisions. Still others suggest that Jesus was using exaggeration to make it clear how important this theme was to him.
We are at somewhat of a disadvantage both because we are not privy to what was going on in Jesus’ head and because we cannot time travel back to the first century. We are also hampered by the way in which the lectionary divides the gospel of Mark to provide us with bite-sized Sunday readings[1].
If we consider the text in its context in Mark, we are reminded that, before John distracted Jesus with the issue of the exorcist, Jesus had placed a child in the midst of the disciples and said: “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.” In response to Jesus’ announcement that he will suffer, the disciples have begun a conversation about who is the greatest. Jesus reminds them that in the kingdom the least is the greatest and stresses the importance of a child, or child-like faith, within the community. Amazingly, the disciples do not get it. They move from arguing among themselves to being incensed that someone else is moving into their patch (exorcising a demon which, to their simple understanding, should be a task reserved for them)!
Jesus reacts with not a little exasperation – just as the disciples are not called to compete with one another in regard to their position in the community, so they are not to compete with outsiders in regard to doing things in Jesus’ name. Being a part of the community of faith is not about “big noting” oneself at the expense of others, nor is it about preventing others from doing good or about deciding through whom God can work. It is possible that their parochialism and exclusivism may actually do more damage than good.
John’s question serves to allow Jesus to amplify the point that he was making beforethe interruption – about the importance of the “little ones” in the community – those who are more vulnerable, more at risk of harm and less able to understand complex issues. Self-aggrandisement and finger-pointing both have the effect of preventing self-awareness. Worrying about greatness, or being precious about who does what, allows the disciples to ignore or over-look their own shortcomings – short-comings that have the potential to injure or to destroy the faith of members of the community.
In a very strongly-worded repetitive tirade, Jesus demands that the disciples look first to themselves and to their own behaviour. Instead of worrying about someone exorcising a demon (which has the potential for good) they should excise the arrogance and protectionism in their own lives (which has the potential for harm) and which blinds them to their own faults and to the damage they are unknowingly inflicting on others.
Whether or not we accept that Jesus is using code or exaggeration or symbolism in this passage, the sheer violence of the language forces us to accept that for Jesus this is a very serious matter. He will not, cannot, accept behaviour that leads to the loss of faith or to the harming of a member of the community.
The institutional church would do well to take these verses very seriously. In the west the very foundations of many churches have been shaken by the revelation of child sex abuse behind which lay, among other things, a desire to protect the reputation of the institution rather than a care for the ‘little ones”. In Australia, the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse has discovered that, as far as the Anglican Church is concerned, only one third of the victims are prepared to trust the church with their story. In the cases of two thirds of the victims then, the harm inflicted on them means that their faith or their potential to come to faith or to trust in the church has been utterly and permanently destroyed. Our own protectionism and sense of self-importance have led to irreparable harm.
As we seek to offer redress to those who have been harmed by our actions and by our lack of action it is vital that we examine the underlying systemic issues that allowed such violence to be perpetrated and worse that to its being covered up or ignored. Instead of believing that the Royal Commission is the beginning of the end of this story it is essential that we examine our structures and to identify what it is about the culture of our institutions that allowed such harm to not only occur, but to be perpetuated and to change our organisations such that any behaviour, any action or inaction that allows another member to be hurt by what we do is quickly and readily identified and corrected so that the ’little ones’ are not harmed by what we do and do not do, and that in the future our behaviour does not lead to another inquiry into why we behaved so badly and were blind to the damage we inflicted.
[1]The headings in our bibles are also liable to send us off in the wrong direction.
Swallowsrest 