It's hard to believe that summer is now almost officially over and autumn is just around
the corner. The first new snows have already fallen on the mountaintops out west and frost has already nipped a
few gardens in the north, but despite all of those indications the outward appearance of life around here goes
on pretty much unchanged. If you are an early riser you may have noticed that the morning mists are getting progressively
heavier, an outward sign to mark the end of summer here, but apart from that the changes are subtle. We continue
learning about Christian discipleship and the Way, almost mindless of the fact that the geese are even now preparing
to fly in formation overhead, the fields are browning up and the delightful smells of fall are beginning to manifest
themselves throughout the land.
Our lections also deal with subtle and not so subtle signs in the complexities of personal relationships on a wide
variety of levels, portrayed in the context of intimacy, marriage, the convictions of the heart, and the very personal
practices of piety and hygiene. Ultimately they are all challenging us to look beneath the surface of our outward
understanding and display of emotions, to see what is happening in the depths of our being; and to examine more
carefully what is really at stake when we are tempted to "give ourselves away."
Let's start with what I believe is a universally held belief: Real intimacy is something that cannot be faked!
By definition it is such an inter-personal, mutual baring of the soul, which is so unlike normal day to day human
interaction, that it leaves it's memory burned into the mind. We can remember a truly intimate moment as if it
had just happened, it changes us forever! For most of us the number of people we can know real intimacy with is
very small indeed. It takes too much out of us, because in truth real intimacy requires that we give ourselves
completely. Since that is pretty much the understanding of what Christianity demands of our relationship with God,
it is difficult to fathom why most of us are so uncomfortable talking about a subject like "intimacy"
in a setting like church. Unfortunately, that's always been the case, since we tend to connect intimacy with sexuality
and have pretty much separated the body from the spirit, we have difficulty thinking of flesh and holiness in the
same breath. It was one of the reasons why the Song of Solomon was so hotly contested by many of the early church
fathers when it was up for inclusion in the Old Testament canon, and it's fair to say it continues to be an embarrassment
to many in churches even today.
Through its language and images of tender love the Song of Solomon has long inspired the tradition of allegorical
interpretation. Jewish lore saw its meaning as a depiction of the love of God for the covenant people, while Christian
re-interpretation saw the work as a depiction of the love of Christ for his church. Despite the fact that God is
never mentioned once in the book the mediaeval monk Bernard of Clairvaux, wrote eighty-six sermons on divine/human
interaction based on the first two chapters alone.
Perhaps for a Church that has historically been so uncomfortable talking about sexuality in anything but negative
terms it is good to see the Song of Solomon included as a celebration of God's gift of sensual pleasure in the
context of a Godly human relationship. The same can be said for our Psalm today which depicts a royal wedding and
the clearly sensual feelings stirred in the mind of the psalmist as an observer.
Intimacy between God and humanity can exist, but is often blocked by the same fears of rejection we learned early
on in our human experiences with attraction and love, and our preoccupation with notions of what constitutes romance.
When God helps us remove those blocks, then we can enter into that love affair which the mystics wrote about, the
celibates marry into, and many Christians find missing in their lives.
You might be surprised to learn that the letter of James was also hotly contested over for its inclusion in the
canon of the New Testament and for very similar reasons. Written just prior to the Jewish Wars with Rome that brought
down Jerusalem in the early 70's, it was originally intended to provide first-century Christians with instructions
on godly behavior. It offered encouragement to listen carefully to and act upon only that which was heard in the
heart through faith, avoiding the attitudes and ethics of their oppressors. Once again the early church fathers
found the instructions too fleshy, couched in too many concerns about the body and day to day living, relying too
heavily on a salvation based on works over faith. Those who have been schooled in that belief miss the point that
for James all of those works or "outward manifestations" were meant to be motivated by the intimate relationship
one had with the Spirit dwelling in the heart.
In a similar way Mark's gospel depicts Jesus as challenging the traditional ways through which the religious people
of his day determined what was pure or impure. For Jesus, according to Mark, the observance of religious practices
alone could never become a substitute for godly words or deeds that sprang from the faithful heart.
This particular incident took place in Galilee where Jews wrestled most with strong Roman and Hellenist cultural
influences. Not far from Nazareth in the Galilean hills, Herod Antipas had built his capital at Sepphoris, and
later at Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. Ancient trade and military routes from Damascus to the Mediterranean passed
through the heart of the area, so it was understandable that the Pharisees had reason to fear foreign threats to
Jewish religious traditions.
It's easy for us to forget that Jesus was raised in what would then have been considered a very cosmopolitan milieu,
and as such he was bound to have more open attitudes than the stricter Judaism that the Pharisees and their Judean
followers to the south represented. The Pharisees were not the bad guys as they are sometimes portrayed, but represented
a renewal movement in Judaism that would later provide an important preservation function for post-Temple days.
It was their rigidity not their rules that was the problem.
Sometimes the energy it takes to be devoted to the preservation of an ideal diminishes the focus on the meaning
behind it. It's not that is a bad thing to have one's personal beliefs about what is right or wrong, but when those
beliefs supersede what is true there is a problem. Adherence to personal convictions over truth leads to hypocrisy.
The outward issue here would seem to concern washing one's hands. Clearly it's a good practice. It is one of those
rules most parents want to instill in their children. It's something we expect from those involved in food preparation,
and we like to think that it goes without saying that the same would hold true of those in the medical profession.
There are laws designed to enforce this practice but they are hard to monitor. Good laws like good habits are primarily
meant to help keep us safe from harm, and for the sake of good order do we not believe that such laws should be
followed all the time without exception?
So what do I do then when in accordance to my understanding of the laws of good manners I reach out to shake hands
with someone who has just helped me and that person hesitates and says "I'm sorry…I've been cutting bait,"
or "I've been working in the barn," or "My hands are full of grease." "No problem,"
I say and we shake on it anyway. I ignore the expectation out of a sense of true gratitude.
Clean hands may be important for hygiene but they are not a sign of worth. Over emphasis on what can happen if
we make contact with the wrong type, especially with an emphasis on the power of their touch to defile can lead
to genocide not purity. Such deception can begin quite innocently by taking the emphasis out of the heart and placing
it in the external world of legislation where what one should do for God's sake becomes what one must do for humanity's
approval.
For example, Islamic women do not make physical contact with men outside of their own families, which includes
even a polite handshake. Under the most extreme forms of Islamic law a woman who breaks such a law could be put
to death. While we might find that silly or extreme…after all who ever died from a handshake?…ask someone who is
not happy about having their fellow worshippers break their own piece of bread off the communion loaf, let alone
drink from a common cup. Sure we are smart enough to know about germs, and perhaps foolish enough not to trust
God to handle that problem…but think about it…who ever died from taking communion? Could it be that the real issue
in this debate is that it takes more trust not to worry about outcomes?
I know of several situations where family heirlooms were passed on to the spouse of the next generation at the
time of a wedding. Supposedly the ideal behind this exchange was that it was a tradition to give these particular
items away. I'm sure I don't need to tell you what happens to the recipient who doesn't ever use such gifts or
display them prominently
in their own home. If the ritual giving of that gift loses it's meaning because the outcome is not what was anticipated
there may be more wrong with the ritual than with the recipient.
The Pharisees believed that some laws should be a part of daily living, and Jesus was born into that controversy.
It was their understanding that such outward rituals kept them distinct and set them apart for God. Was it so unreasonable
to expect him to follow simple requirements, especially when it came down to basic hygiene? "Why do your disciples
eat with defiled ( we would say "dirty") hands?"
The problem was that many more Jews did not follow these "pietistic practices." Their concern that Jesus
would was perhaps more about having this very popular rabbi who was attracting a sizable following endorse their
own party than it was about a concern for his own state of righteousness.
"Hypocrites," Jesus responds. It is not what one puts into their body that defiles (in terms of internalized
expectations) but rather it is what comes out (in terms of imposed obligations on the part of others.) Twelve "evil
intentions" then follow. You know the list: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit,
licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. "If you nurture these kinds of intentions in your heart,"
said Jesus, "don't worry about the outward appearance of your hands, or any other part of your personhood.
It won't save you!"
Are we so far removed from them on the things that we get really legalistic about? How much harm do we inflict
when our piety is designed in accordance with our determination to "have it our way"? How much energy
is devoted to having our standards upheld, our traditions honored? And by the way…"Which is the greatest commandment?"
The story is told of a young rabbi who was leading his first service as chief rabbi of a long established synagogue.
At the appropriate point in the service, the Cantor stood and began to sing the Shema, the traditional declaration
of the Jewish faith: "Sh'ma yisroel adonai eluhanu, adonai echad." (Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God;
the Lord is One.)
As the Cantor chanted, half the congregants stood up and half remained sitting. The half that was seated started
yelling at those standing to sit down, and the ones standing yelled at the ones sitting to stand up. The Rabbi
was taken aback! Educated as he was in the Law and commentaries, he didn't know what to do.
After the service, he talked with the Cantor, he talked with the President of the congregation, and he talked with
his wife. His board of trustees suggested that he consult a house bound 98-year-old man who was one of the original
founders of the temple, so the Rabbi took their suggestion, hoping the elderly man would be able to tell him what
the actual temple tradition was. He went to the nursing home with a representative of each faction of the congregation.
The one whose followers stood during Shema said to the old man, "Is it not our tradition to stand during this
prayer?" "No," answered the old man, "That is not our tradition."
The one who represented those who sat asked, "Then is it not our tradition to sit during Shema?" Again,
the old man answered, "No, that is not our tradition."
"But sir", the young Rabbi said to the old man, "the congregants fight all the time, yelling at
each other about who is right and who is wrong…."
"THAT!" interrupted the old man interrupted, "THAT is our tradition!"
Traditions are important, but we need to be clear which are God's and which belong to us. In the tradition of our
faith understanding we know that Paul struggled long and hard to convince the early followers of Jesus that non-Jews
could experience salvation apart from the Law, through faith. He trusted heavily in God's grace, knowing that the
record of scripture consistently pointed to the fact that God did not choose perfect men and women to accomplish
holy work. In the choice of patriarchs, kings, prophets and even the disciples who followed Jesus we have been
given the clear account of individuals who made bad choices, caused great harm, and failed repeatedly in their
understanding of God's will.
It would be a hopeless tale if we were not also reminded that this same God does not see as we see, but knows our
frame and remembers that we are dust. This same God looks not on our outward appearance, for even the best are
described in scripture as little more than filthy rags, but on the intentions of the heart. Washing the hands…like
baptism or marriage is simply the event not the outcome…God alone knows what will come out of it, the end result…that's
what matters. How we express our faith is essential!
Our gentleness, our faithfulness, our kindness grow not according to our attempts to keep some external law about
how we should be faithful, kind or gentle, but rather out of the word that is implanted within our hearts and minds
by God. And joy, peace and self control, things that are the marks of holiness and purity, come about not through
constant striving to follow some regulations that are meant to help us be that way, but through meditating upon
what it is that God has done for us - and is doing for us - and allowing God to direct our steps with all of this
in mind.
"Every good and perfect gift is from above," writes James, "coming down from the Creator of the
heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. God chose to give us birth through the word of truth,
that we might be a kind of first fruits of all creation."
"The one who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting
what was heard, but doing it - will be blessed in all they do."
The way of the Spirit says that, to God, people matter most. Biblical commands never take precedence over what
is compassionate and caring. We have learned this slowly - from slavery to the position of
10
women, and now we are learning it slowly in areas such as gender, sexual orientation and power. It is important
that we help people see how Jesus and Mark treated biblical authority, so that it becomes an instrument for health
and not harm in our society. That was certainly a central issue in the ministry of Jesus and of the apostles and
still is a central issue today
What "traditions" have we made sacred in this congregation? Are they part of the Word of God or self-made
constructs we have forced upon those who would seek to find God here? Implanted in the heart or merely imposed
on the personhood of God's children? May God help us to know.
|