Sermon - Pent 18 - 10/4/09

17th Sunday after Pentecost
Mark 10:2-16

How Will you Read Your Bible?

I know how the lessons are assigned for a given Sunday. You should too. I talk about it enough. We have a lectionary – a three-year lectionary – which puts us on a regular rotation of readings. I know how the lessons are assigned for a given Sunday – I have no idea how the publishing house decides what to put on the front cover of our bulletins, that one verse and image which will no doubt set the tone as folks receive their bulletin and begin to look for the pertinent announcements.

I have no idea, but I would be willing to make a wager that whoever was sitting around the table when designs for this Sunday were being considered made a beeline for closing three verses of our Gospel reading, doing all they could to avoid the first eleven. It is certainly more pleasing to the eye and heart to have images of Jesus and little kids with some words about “letting the little children come to me,” than some depiction of husbands and wives engaged in the process of divorce. Where is the sought after good feelings when the cover story for the day is “whomever divorces…”

I have preached on this text a lot. I have back-up copies of my sermons from 1994, 1997, and 2003. On those previous Sundays, I never doubted what it was that God was calling me to say. I have to admit that I am not as sure as we make this tour through the lectionary.

I shouldn’t say that. I have a pretty good idea what it is that needs to be said. I just realize that it needs to be said while acknowledging that not everyone, maybe even not most Christians, would agree.

You see, I am among that sub-group within the Christian family who has come to believe that there is a situation and a context which surrounds every verse reprinted for us in this English translation of the ancient manuscripts held up as Holy Scripture. I am among that sub-group (maybe even a minority sub-group) who thinks that when we read a verse of scripture it is appropriate to ask what the words say and if what the words say might need to be understood in light of what we have come to understand as The Word of God. Not everyone would agree.

There are, within our Christian family, a number of folks (perhaps a majority of persons) who would read scripture differently. They would read the words, understand what the words are saying, and then wonder why others question what seems to them to be so clear.

For those folks, Jesus’ words in Mark 10 settle the issue. Jesus says (Jesus says – not Paul in Romans or Moses in Leviticus – but Jesus); Jesus says “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” It shows a tremendous amount of integrity when those who hold to a literal reading of scripture insist that the life of the congregation be governed by these unambiguous words. I know that I have spoken to you before about my female cousin whose husband started running around on her and drinking up the family income. When he finally left her, divorced her, making her a divorced woman, the congregation where she had been the Treasurer for 15 years promptly removed her from the membership role and reminded her that she would no longer be able to vote at congregational meetings.

Harsh, perhaps, but consistent. Blind to the circumstances, maybe, but fair in the implementation of the verses which guide congregational life.

Now, I am not advocating that position. And I am grateful that I serve a denomination in which there isn’t such a simplistic reading of the verses of Mark, Chapter 10. I do remember, during my seminary years, which might seem like an eon ago to the college students, but was really only 29 years back, the paper discussed at one of the faculty forums in which a professor of Christian Theology presented his conviction that divorce should be accompanied by resignation from the pastoral office. Should a pastor divorce, he argued, there should be an immediate resignation from one’s current call, followed by at least six months of discernment in which the Church would evaluate whether the recently divorced ought to be re-admitted to the roster of clergy.

It is my understanding that this particular member of the faculty had written his paper out of concern for ministry policies. He preferred the policy of some of our predecessor church bodies in which divorce did mean removal from the roster.

Not my position. But one held by some, many, maybe even a majority of the whole of Christianity. It is a position appropriate for those who read the words, understand what the words are saying, and then wonder why others question what seems to them to be so clear.

This is not the position held by the denomination with which University Lutheran is affiliated. That denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has been dominated by those who believe that there is a context and wider perspective into which each verse of scripture must be read. Taking the context and wider perspective into consideration, we have been inclined to place the encounter between Jesus and Pharisees in the category of “another sneaky trap foiled.” We have been inclined to see Jesus’ words as a critique of those who wished to silence his message of God’s graciousness and openness.

There are as many differing maps of Jesus’ journey as there are map makers. But it seems reasonable to believe that at the time of this particular encounter Jesus is in the territory ruled by Herod. Remember Herod? He is the one who had married his brother’s wife, after she divorced her previous husband. John the Baptist had condemned this, and you ought to remember that it was the grudge of that divorcee and the dancing of her graceful daughter which resulted in the removal of John the Baptist’s head from the rest of his body.

The Pharisees, who eventually will need the collaboration of the Roman authorities in order to see that Jesus is executed, put a question before Jesus which could have put him on a collision course with Herod. Jesus doesn’t answer. He gets them to reply. And then he comments on their response.

Jesus speaks to them about “hardness of heart.” We might be inclined to think he is referring to the hardening of heart which precedes thoughts of divorce. I wonder if we had been there to see the subtle nods of his head and to hear the tone in his voice if he might not have been using double speak – pointing to the hardness of heart among the Pharisees.

Jesus, rather than setting up a rule, seems to be exposing the desire on the part of the Pharisees to pick and choose which rule they are going to follow. They quote the Law of Moses to him (Deut 24:1). Jesus turns back a bit further in the scriptures and repeats for them Gen 2:24. Jesus confounds the thinking of the Pharisees by confronting them with the inadequacies of any written code. A larger rule needs to be in place here. A notion of a God whose position toward us is not captured in written decrees but in a God who welcomes the lowest of the low into our midst and makes them the example others are to follow.

This is exactly what he does in those closing 3 verses of Mark 10. Forget notions of children as innocent little beings. While we may adoringly look upon them this way, in Jesus’ day children were property, they had no rights, and they were of no consequence. When Jesus tells the disciples to let the children come to him he is saying that the kingdom of God belongs to those whom the culture might think of as being on the bottom of the ladder. His condemnation of the self-righteous, law enforcing Pharisees takes another giant leap forward.

I do not wish to misuse or abuse the pulpit. I want you to hear me say that the interpretation of scripture can go down either of two very differing paths. The one path reads each verse in the wider context of Jesus’ person and his message. Moving down this path, when there are verses which seem to be laden with all sorts of extenuating considerations, we revert to person of Jesus and the core of his teaching. That is one path.

There is the differing path. That path is one in which one reads the words, understands what the words are saying, and then wonders why others question what seems to them to be so clear.

Even when we choose one path over the other, we are seldom completely consistent. But we should strive for consistency. Being consistent makes it easier for those little children to understand what it is that we are saying and why we are saying it.

Amen.