Pentecost 17B, 2003/Pentecost 18B, 2009
Mark 10:2-16
A BAN ON DIVORCE OR A BAN ON LEGALISM?
I have only ever preached on the first part of today’s story from Mark,
- the bit about divorce - once in my career as a minister.
I no longer have a copy of that sermon.
But a faded newspaper report of my sermon
indicates it was during my first placement in Ballarat, nearly 31 (now 37) years ago.
It was around that time the then Australian Federal government
was introducing significant changes to the divorce laws.
Those who were opposed to divorce, including the then
Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Ronald Knox,
were pounding the beat to every newspaper and radio station,
complaining, arguing, legaling.
So I ventured in with my two bobs worth.
And now, here I go again!
oo0oo
Today’s story has words that are likely to make us cringe.
Generally speaking it can be hard to hear them as good news!
For to talk about divorce can open for many people,
a whole range of different wounds and experiences.
Shock.
Hurt.
Confusion.
Anger.
Frustration.
And I think I know most of you well enough to be able to say that
for some of you those feelings have been yours, personally,
or the feelings of family members whom you love.
So me responding to the first part of our gospel story,
rather than skipping over it to the assumed safe, second part,
may bring back some of those feelings again.
While I would regret that, I hope what I do say will be both honest and gentle.
oo0oo
To begin with let’s look at this biblical story.
It seems to be set within a legal debate with some of the Pharisees.
That’s important to note.
And a legal debate about men’s rights, not everyone’s rights.
While it is always difficult to recover the authentic words of Jesus
it would appear that many scholars feel Mark’s comments,
along with some other biblical references as well,
makes it highly likely that Jesus did have something to say on
divorce,
marriage,
the family.
That’s the first thing.
The second thing is early Christians found those comments difficult.
Because it seems some people did leave - divorce - their families
to join the Jesus movement, with all the concequences
such an action brought with it in that society.
And, they also heard those words as Jesus establishing
a new and even more impossible law
to replace the already impossible Mosaic law.
That is, Jesus’ reply was heard as a legal reply to a legal question.
But what if the reply is not about ‘legals’?
Let’s play it back with this suggestion I have picked up along the way.
“Is it lawful... they ask.
“What did Moses’ law say?” he asks.
“Well, here's chapter and verse...” they reply.
And Jesus, as always, would say:
“Look beyond your petty nasty human laws which are about failure and exclusion
and not about joy and gladness for all.
“Look into our ‘original blessings’ before our ‘original failures’,
to the way God intended human beings
to relate to each other,
to seek their true selves, and
to find their true joys...” (Adapted/Homily Grits Web site)
That has a different ring to it!
And it can certainly put the debate into a different arena!
Beyond men’s rights.
And in Jesus’ time that was totally unheard of!
Retired Uniting Church minister Bruce Prewer in his sermon on this story, says:
“I believe that at one level, Jesus was confronting the male arrogance which had made divorce primarily a male privilege. He was angry with their treatment of women. His words about divorce and the hardness of men’s hearts are a social justice protest.
“But even more they are a protest against moral and religious legalism, which does not put you closer to God but further away. Jesus was not putting a ban on divorce. He was putting a ban on self righteousness” (Prewer Web site/2000).
Most people find the naming of separation or divorce, difficult.
Those who have gone through a divorce know it is much more than
just falling out of love beyond the point of no return.
When I asked a person who had been divorced
to read my sermon and comment on it, the response was:
“Few of us really know what goes on in each others' marriages. But people do not divorce without good reason. Divorce demands courage from all involved. It hurts. But it can also release”.
For some, divorce can be an act of destruction. For others it is a sense of release.
All certainly don’t need a legalistic church
or a bunch of literalist clergy,
to add to the hurt or difficulties.
When a marriage fails, people need help and support
to leave the relationship without rancour,
bitterness,
hostility,
fear.
Certainly with mutual dignity and respect.
But perhaps that’s already too much on this story...
oo0oo
There is the second story in our Lectionary reading.
Mothers bringing children to Jesus.
But why were they bringing children to him?
Why do they want Jesus to touch them?
Why were the disciples wanting to ‘shoo’ them away?
I am helped by two suggestions.
The first suggestion is of a mental picture of this story.
A picture not at all like so many paintings of Jesus and children,
where all the children have a squeaky-clean look.
Children full of life and smiles,
like the one I referred to a couple of weeks ago
that hung, framed, beside the framed Cradle Roll
in my childhood Sunday School.
Rather, the mental picture is more like
the emergency room at a children's hospital.
Jesus is surrounded by sick children
and all the problems and smells that come with that:
runny noses and dirty faces,
diarrhoea and smelly nappies,
crying or whimpering that just won't stop.
With this picture in mind,
it makes more sense to think that the disciples
would want to protect Jesus from these sick children.
Somebody like Jesus wouldn't want to waste time with sick children!
He'd have more important things to do!
Wouldn't he?
The second suggestion is less graphic.
The disciples shooing away the children is also a case of ‘separation’ or ‘divorce’.
Divorce between the children and Jesus.
According to Wesley White, for instance, he suggests that
this whole section in Mark’s story can be seen as a discourse
on the intention of God to bring together, not to separate.
Then White asks these challenging questions:
Where is the church still acting like the disciples in separating people from Jesus?
Is it with those oriented toward their own gender?
Is it with the poor and homeless, the lonely and lost?
Is it with immigrants or (the mentally ill)?
oo0oo
Much of Jesus’ energy in controversy with his fellow Jews (Leaders)
was spent trying to show that we must interpret scripture in a way
which sees its priority as concern for human well being.
So despite all the ink and paper and hot air given to arguments against divorce,
I reckon the simple ‘good news’ of these stories is,
any so called ban needs to be on legalism
rather than on broken relationships.