Posts Tagged ‘poor’

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)

Blessed are the poor – so much we have to learn

January 28, 2017

Epiphany 4 – 2017

Matthew 5:1-12

Marian Free

In the name of God on whom, if we dare, we can totally rely. Amen.

Some years ago, I acquired a book titled Poor in Spirit – Modern Parables of the Reign of God. Compiled by Charles Lepetit[1], it consists of a number of stories written by people living and working alongside the poor who inhabit the slums in many parts of the world. Lepetit is a member of the Little Brothers of Jesus. He says of himself: “I have lived in slums, I have known hunger, I have been in jail (oh not for long). I am an invalid. So I am at home with my brothers and sisters the poor.” The book is a compilation of true stories – stories that have been shared with him by those who are also poor, but who in his words, “share one poverty in common: that of the heart. They do not know the treasure they bear.”

Many of the story-tellers are members of religious orders. Some tell their own stories and others stories of the people whose lives have touched their own. The authors are identified only by their Christian name and by the country from which they write. So Catherine writes from Black Africa, Martin from Northern Europe, Roger from Central America, Olive from South of the Sahara, Larry from India and Nancy from North America. I wish I could share the whole book with you, the stories are powerful and confronting and challenge Western values and our dependence on material possessions.

One of my favorite stories is written by Lisa. It concerns a man who has been cruelly affected by leprosy. Most of his feet and all ten fingers were gone. Even his face was affected, but as Lisa tells it, when he smiled his whole face was transformed. Life was so hard that he had at one time tried to drown himself, “but even the sea didn’t want me,” he says. The leper made a living selling charcoal wearing his stumps raw from filling his customers’ baskets. Somehow, despite his extreme poverty, he maintains his dignity and his home as described by Liza is an oasis in the midst of a busy and noisy city. He has friend, who also has leprosy who cuts grass for sheep and sells it at the market. The two friends share what they have earned each day. One day his friend returned home with “three beautiful coins” that he had found on the pavement – an unexpected windfall in their barren lives. What to do with them? After some thought our friend says: “It is true that you need socks. But this money, we have haven’t earned it. God has given it to us. Why don’t we go to the cinema? One needs a change of scene sometimes.” “So we went to the cinema, and we had a very nice time.”

What touches me in this story is that these two had not allowed themselves to be so overwhelmed and ground down by their poverty that they could see that God might want them to have some joy and pleasure in their lives. Given the choice between the practical (socks) and the impractical (cinema) they had chosen something that would bring some happiness into their bleak and mundane existence.

A second story and one that never fails to move me is told by Dan from North Africa. Dan is stuck in a small town that he’d never seen before. He had spent a whole day trying to get a visa and faced the prospect of doing the same the following day! He says somewhat sarcastically that a “spiritual” reaction drove him to drown his frustration in a café. He was neither an Arab nor a local so needless to say he was the focus of a certain amount of interest. Dan found a seat opposite someone who didn’t look any happier than he was. No sooner had he sat down when his anger spilled out and he shared the story of his day. Ahmed (for that was the name of his companion) returned the favour. Ahmed had no work and was delaying going to home to tell his wife. They shared a few drinks when Ahmed asked Dan where he was spending the night. “Haven’t a clue”, Dan replied. “Then come to my place!”

Ahmed took Dan to a neighbouring suburb. There on top of a pile of rubbish was a little shack. This was Ahmed’s home. Inside the rickety door was a single room – not a stick of furniture graced it. Fourteen pairs of eyes greeted Dan – Ahmed’s wife, his parents-in-law and eleven children! They sat on the floor and after a while Ahmed’s wife produced a “mountain of rice on a copper plate – almost certainly their only valuable possession”. After a quick meal, and numerous cups of tea they stretched out on the floor and slept. In the morning Dan left to try again to get a visa, promising to stop by before he left. Another day wasted! Dan decided to take the bus and take his chances on getting a visa later.

True to his promise he makes a quick visit to see the family before he goes. As he leaves, a parcel is pressed into his hands. It happens so quickly and he is in so much of a hurry that he doesn’t even think about it until he is safely on the bus and here I have to use Dan’s own words: “Ah, yes. The parcel. I opened it discreetly, as my neighbours were looking at me. Actually my mind was still mostly on my visa. Suddenly my eyes filled with tears. I was going to cry, for a good half hour, completely overwhelmed by what I found in the parcel. I didn’t care now what the other passengers might think.

There in my lap was the copper plate from which we’d eaten the rice. And a little rubber camel .. the kid’s only toy.”

Blessed are the poor – who teach us to find joy in life and who, without a thought for themselves will give everything they have.

 

[1] Lepetit, Charles. Poor in Spirit: Modern Parables of the Reign of God. Notre Dame, Indiana: Ave Maria Press, 1989.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Matthew | Comments Off on Blessed are the poor – so much we have to learn

Who is forced to suffer so that we do not have to???

November 7, 2015
A widow's mite purchased on our recent visit to Palestine.

A widow’s mite purchased on our recent visit to Palestine.

Pentecost 24

The Book of Ruth, Mark 12:38-44

Marian Free

In the name of God whose preference is for the poor and the vulnerable. Amen.

It is no secret that I am a Jane Austen fan. This may have to do with my growing up in an era when the role of women was still considerably constricted. It was not until I reached my teens that mothers began stepping confidently into the work force and I still have vivid memories of a single female friend who, despite having a good job and regular income was obliged to ask my father to be guarantor so that she could obtain a home loan. She may not have felt this way, but even though I was relatively young I felt keenly the humiliation of her experience. The idea that because she was a woman she could not be trusted with something as weighty as a home loan seemed (indeed was) ludicrous.

That said, by the time I came into the world some things had changed for the better. By then the government was providing some sort of support for women who had been widowed and for single mothers who were strong enough to refuse to put their child up for adoption. For centuries prior to that, women without a husband or father to protect them often found themselves in very straightened circumstances[1].

Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility gives an insight into the precarious nature of a woman’s place in the world of the eighteenth century. Mrs Dashwood is the second wife of an older man whose estate is entailed on his son John. When her husband is dying he makes John promise to care for his stepmother and stepsisters. The son promises, but does not take into account his overbearing wife who cannot bear the thought of sharing the estate, or of their only son being deprived of even a modest part of what might become his inheritance. Mrs Dashwood senior and her daughter’s find themselves unwelcome visitors in what up until then had been their family home. They feel sufficiently uncomfortable that they seek to find somewhere else to live, but their allowance will not stretch very far and many suitable house have to be ruled out. Thankfully a distance cousin offers them a small cottage on his estate and so they move (with the few possessions that they can call their own) to a situation far removed from that which they were used to.

The privations do not end there. Even though their cousin is very generous and insists that they eat with his family most evenings, the yearly allowance does not stretch to beef or even sugar. Overnight what had been a privileged and comfortable lifestyle is reversed and the women find themselves utterly dependent on the generosity of others.

The Book of Ruth is set during the time of Judges – approximately 1200-1020 BCE. At this time the majority of Israelites were small landowners and could support themselves through farming. Laws were in place to ensure that the widows and orphans were able to sustain themselves. Not only was it the responsibility of everyone to provide for them, but there was a law to the effect that farmers should exercise a certain amount of carelessness when harvesting. Leviticus 19:9-10 specifically instructs the Israelites to leave the margins of their fields unharvested, to leave behind any produce that fell to the ground and to harvest only once. This ensured that the poor and the aliens could be assured of finding food to eat. They could enter a “harvested” field and glean what had been left behind. It was not an easy existence, but it did provide a way for the poor to support themselves.

Fast forward to the beginning of the first century and we discover a situation that was completely different. With the best will in the world no one could impose the Levitical law universally. At this time many Israelites had been forced off their land so that the Emperor could give gifts to soldiers who had served him well. This meant that there were fewer farms in the hands of the Israelites and therefore fewer people to observe the obligations set down in Leviticus. In the city of course the situation was even worse. It has been said that Israelite women were at this time among the poorest people in the world.

Today’s gospel has often been used to extol the widow for her utter selflessness and to encourage the rest of us to follow her example, but that interpretation misrepresents what is really happening here. When we read the passage in its entirety we see that the story of the widow is a continuation of Jesus’ attack on the scribes. This forces us to observe that Jesus is not complimenting the woman for her generosity; but instead is lamenting the political and social climate that has created a situation in which the widow thinks that she has to give anything at all. The scribes it seems have found a way to convince the poorest and the most vulnerable that God requires demonstrations of their commitment – in the form of donations to the Temple. By insisting on “sacrificial giving” they are in effect, “devouring the estates of the widows”. The poor and the widows should have received support from the Temple, not felt obliged to do the reverse.

By giving her last two coins, the widow has not achieved anything. Her small contribution will not all much to the Temple resources but will certainly deprive herself and any dependents of a future[2].

Jesus’ attack on the scribes suggests that they were more into outward show than they were into meeting their obligations to those who were entirely dependent on their goodwill and generosity. Like all people of wealth and status, the scribes were determined that they should they behave in a way that demonstrated their wealth and power and that they should receive the honour that they believed was owed to someone in their position. At the same time, they were determined to preserve their relative position at all costs – in particular at the expense of those who could least afford it.

The problem then, as it is now, is that one can only maintain one’s own position at the expense of those who have no resources and no position. The gospel challenges us to seriously consider how much we ourselves exploit and disempower the poor and the vulnerable in order to hold on to our status and relative wealth. Who is disadvantaged and oppressed because we refuse to give up our comfortable lives? Whose life is on a knife-edge because we cannot bear to give up our relative luxuries in order to liberate others to do more than eke out an existence?

Who is forced to suffer so that we do not have to?

[1] If you were poor you might, as a woman, have found work as a servant or in the mills, but the novel Tess of the d’Ubervilles demonstrates that even for the rural poor, life could be horrendous for those who had no husband or son to provide for them.

[2] The coin, a lepta, was the least value of the coins of that era and was worth about 6 minutes of an average day’s wage.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel | Comments Off on Who is forced to suffer so that we do not have to???