Jesus doesn't make an idol of family life. He has more important things to proclaim.
This past June marked our transition back into Ordinary Time. That first Sunday in June, the 5th, was Pentecost, the end of the Easter Season. The following two Sundays were the usual two post-Pentecost special Sundays (Trinity Sunday, Body and Blood of Christ). It wasn't until June 26th that we encountered a Sunday with the "...in Ordinary Time" designation.
As Luke has structured his Gospel, the passage we heard proclaimed that day, the 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time, is a significant one. Its first verse, Lk 9:51, is
When the days for Jesus’ being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem
With these words, Jesus and his followers (including us) begin the long trek toward Jerusalem. And the journey is long: it extends, Sunday by Sunday, through most of the remainder of Ordinary Time, until October 30. After that, Jesus has reached Jerusalem, and we've reached the final few Sundays of the liturgical year, when the focus of the Sunday readings shifts to the end-times.
Along the way to Jerusalem, Jesus teaches. Not all of his teachings are intended to comfort us. His messages emphatically are not, "Whatever you've been doing - keep it up!" If our lives are well-ordered and secure here on earth, these teachings-on-the-way can be challenging, even upsetting.
Even family life, the alleged primacy of which may the one thing that all Americans are capable of agreeing upon these days, is subordinated to Jesus's urgent proclamation of God's kingdom. In that same Gospel reading from the start of our journey, back on June 26, we encounter this:
And to another he said, “Follow me.” But he replied, “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.”
But he answered him, “Let the dead bury their dead. But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
A few Sundays ago, on August 14th, Jesus returned to family relationships:
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.
From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
This coming Sunday, September 4, Jesus "goes family" again:
If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
We shouldn't conclude that Jesus was anti-family. Rather, we should see that even the social structures of immediate and extended family can't be allowed to obstruct the new way of living which characterizes God's kingdom. Just as (in Matthew's words), if our hand causes us to sin, we should cut it off; so, if our parents or children or in-laws are in the way of our entering that kingdom, we should go around them.
Of course, the Kingdom of God doesn't simply force us to reconsider our family relationships; it upends many social arrangements. The four readings from August 14 through this weekend's readings might be an example of what biblical scholars call an inclusio: a pair of matching bookends with similar themes (in this case, family themes), between which is other content which provides further insight into the meaning of the bookend passages.
Thus, on that first in-between Sunday, August 21st, the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time, Jesus spoke, not of family life, but rather national life: the relationship between God and his chosen people. Jesus told his contemporaries that, contrary to what they may expect, God's love extends beyond their nation, to encompass everyone:
And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.
And people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God.
On the second in-between Sunday, August 28th, Jesus turned to the hierarchical nature of his contemporary society, and flipped it on its head:
When you hold a lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors, in case they may invite you back and you have repayment.
Rather, when you hold a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you.
For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.
It seems God's kingdom is a place where virtually every social arrangement has been reimagined.
For a person like me, for whom the current social arrangements have worked our reasonably well so far, it's not easy to wrap my brain around these teachings as Good News. Some of this News doesn't always sound that good! We shouldn't be surprised if some people might tend to minimize or ignore or explain away these difficult teachings.
Here is where I am: Jesus is more than a collection of intellectual propositions and life instructions. He is the Living God, whom we are invited to encounter. The best advice I can give anyone is: if a teaching of Jesus seems particularly difficult, don't despair. Go ahead and try to work through it, but if it's a knot you're not able to undo at this time, don't feel bad about setting it aside until another, more spiritually propitious time. But - during those set-aside times, try to open your hearts to the presence of Jesus. Try to be open to experiencing his presence in your life. I am coming around to the view that those mystical, spiritual experiences of Jesus's loving presence in our lives are critical to sustain us on our journeys to Jerusalem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting multi-dimensional post, Jim.
ReplyDeleteLet me start with the scriptural interpretation dimension.
Our homilies are always geared to the particular passage that has been read. That is in part because that is how the Gospels were written, usually very short memorable stories. That likely comes from the oral teaching tradition where particular parables, sayings or stories about Jesus were circulated before the Gospels were written.
The Gospels are likely organizations of oral traditions that had taken various written forms. One such organization was by Mark. Matthew and Luke had their own organizations of material, and both started with Mark’s organization either in sight or in memory.
Mark is short enough to be memorized; in fact, some people have given performances of it. It may have been written for that very purpose; that teachers would not need a book but would be able to recite from memory the passages they needed in their teaching and preaching.
The best way to interpret a given Sunday passage other than looking carefully at its internal literary form, is to interpret it in light of other similar stories the Gospel writer has gathered together and especially in light of the way the writer has organized stories.
You cited the practice of inclusion, putting three stories together in such a way that the first and third are similar but not exactly the same and relate in complex ways to a middle story or stories.
The beginning of the Gospel of Mark has three such stories: The call of two pairs of brothers, preaching in the synagogue, Jesus and the two pairs of brothers in the house of Peter.
These three stories actually tell us a lot about Jesus and families. He first calls two families out of the normal family business, that of fishing; then after the synagogue episode, we see Jesus at the center of a new extending family healing not only a member of the family but also those who come to the doorstep.
These three stories tell us a lot about the nature of early Christianity in which people were called to be brethren beyond their own families, to enter into new healing relationships with one another, and to preach and heal people who came to their doorsteps.
Early Christians like Jesus had complex relationships to the Jewish synagogue. Sometimes they were welcomed, and people were amazed but they also got a lot of challenges like Jesus did in the synagogue. Their own gatherings took place more at homes than in public spaces.
Mark had good sociological intuitions. Following Jesus meant going beyond existing social structures, forming new social relationships, and reforming old ones. It is all there in these three stories.
Preaching the meaning of the greater organization of the Gospel would take a great deal of biblical study, and a great deal of preparation, like working on all your homilies for year of Matthew while you are preaching Luke. That would enable the preacher to contrast Matthew, and Luke and relate them both to Mark.
How would people in the pews react to this? What about the practical problems? People don’t come every Sunday. Even if they do come, they don’t always have the same homilist.
Are homilists willing to become teachers? Would people appreciate them more as teachers? What about handouts and a website to facilitate this approach?
Jack - first of all, many thanks for your thoughts on inclusions, and your illustrations from Mark. It's worthy of a post in its own right (a reply to me, if you'd wish). I agree wholeheartedly with what you said - which for me is affirming; I'm always glad when I am in sync with someone I respect!
DeleteRegarding your final three paragraphs, about homilists, I'd just make a series of observations:
1. Some really fine homilists also are scholars and teachers (and, we can surmise, good teachers). Rev. Edward Foley, a Capuchin who taught for many years at Chicago Theological Union, and whose homily texts often are reprinted at Pray Tell, is one whose preaching I consider a gold standard. I've heard him present once or twice, and can aver that he is an outstanding teacher.
I have heard that Rev. J Bryan Hehir, who is on the faculty at Harvard, also is a very fine preacher, although I've never been present when he's preached.
Many of the best homilies I've heard in my lifetime were given by priests, most of them Jesuits, when I was at college at Loyola.
Of course, I tend to be a bit of a "brain-forward" person - I think most of us here are that way. So the scholar-preacher may appeal more to us than to others.
2. Are homilists willing to become teachers? Should they? I would say that teaching is one aspect of preaching - in my view, an important aspect - but the two vocations are not identical. I recall a key phrase from one of the church documents I read during my formation: the vocation of the preacher is "to proclaim the wonderful news of God's salvation" (I think that is word for word; at least, it's what is stuck in my memory.) That phrase suggests that, in its essence, preaching is an exercise in proclamation, which may encompass teaching but also extends beyond it. The primary purpose is not to impart knowledge, but to change lives. Many, many preaching authorities believe that preaching should be to the heart rather than the head.
3. Re: handouts and a website? I wouldn't want to do handouts. But - for the last year or two, our church has had big video screens, whose primary purpose is to display the people's prayers and responses, as well as the lyrics to be sung. But they can be used for other things. I could use them to show an image (I've thought about magazine covers) and then talk about it in a homily. Or I could even show a brief video. Years ago, there was a discussion on dotCommonweal about an episode of the "SpongeBob SquarePants" television show, called "The Magic Conch", which is a clever and amusing illustration of faith. If there weren't copyright issues to navigate, I might show it as part of a homily.
My former RCC parish of 30 years has 7 masses very weekend, so they have always brought in an extra priest to say a mass. Generally these were priests who teach at Georgetown, CU, or one of the local order formation houses. One of the priests from CU gave the kind of homilies that you propose here, without the handouts. He provided context - cultural, historic, biblical in interpreting the scriptures. He was great. They were the only RC homilies I could ever listen to without drifting off until I joined the EC parish. I loved them, as did many others. But some people didn’t like them - said they were too academic. The rector and the assistant rector at the EC parish also gave excellent homilies, much like those of the CU prof, usually along with a dose of literature. Also really good homilies. But we haven’t been to any church for more than three years. First because the interims at the EC after the rector and assistant left weren’t nearly as good as homilists, and then because of Covid. I sometimes watch the service at the Washington National Cathedral online. Usually they have decent homilies.
DeleteWhen the Eucharist is the climax of the liturgy, the Word always seems to get short sheeted. Istm that the Real Presence enters thru our ears as well as our mouths, but there is no sense that the Word is a sacrament. Not sure why. The Eucharist makes no sense if the Word doesn't convey who Jesus is.
DeleteSince the Divine - God - is everywhere, including in scripture, the Real Presence is also.
DeleteHi Jean, I saw late last night that you had commented, but it seemed to be fairly lengthy and I was too tired to think, so I put off reading it until this morning. I see you've removed it now - which of course is fine. I don't know what you said (beyond the first sentence or two), but I hope you'll decide to share some thoughts.
ReplyDeleteBtw, what I posted yesterday was written hastily. I cleaned it up a bit this morning, and in the process rewrote some things. FWIW.
Probably off the beam, but I saved it for personal reflection. Here ya go:
DeleteIsn't Jesus basically reinforcing the idea that God must come first, even before your most beloved people, because all true love must flow from our love of God (caritas)?
Even our love for family might not rise much above transactional obligation and opportunism without love of God. People are always talking about children as an "investment" in our future, and therefore worthy of nurturing now. Or old people (esp old soldiers) as being "owed" or "repaid" because of what they gave us.
With love of God, though, our idea of who our "family" is expands. We have obligations to all God's people.
So happy Labor Day. Maybe think about how much God loves the people who make things you take for granted--water, coffee, your bedsheets, cat food--and how much God also loves the panhandlers I saw on every street corner in Lansing when I went to the hospital for my annual tests yesterday. If I were really following Jesus, I would have made the Good News tangible to them. But it was hot, their presence irritated me, and I didn't want to roll down the window and let the a/c air out.
A pitfall of getting older and more confined is to ruminate at length over squandered opportunities. So many in 70 years. Guessing it's going to be plenty hot on my street corner in Hell.
Also, fwiw, your notion about cutting people off in order to get to God doesn't speak to my experience. My parents were very hostile to my religious views. It created family strife, but not on my end. I tried to be patient, answer questions, and not be a know it all. They never came around. But I never went around them or cut them off. I said my prayers silently while they died.
DeleteJean“Even our love for family might not rise much above transactional obligation and opportunism without love of God. People are always talking about children as an "investment" in our future, and therefore worthy of nurturing now. Or old people (esp old soldiers) as being "owed" or "repaid" because of what they gave us.”
DeleteI have noticed the same kind of transactional premise in articles lamenting low birth rates, and condemning birth control and abortion. The NFP crowd often brings up the possibility that there won’t be enough future workers to fund their social security. The anti-abortion crowd often mentions that thousands of people are waiting to adopt babies, implying that newborns are simply a commodity, and women in crisis pregnancies should be forced to reduce the shortage. That’s one reason some make comparisons between the anti-abortion extremists and The Handmaid’s Tale.
Yes, there's a whiff of commodification in the argument that women who have unwanted pregnancies should keep the adoption racket supplied with product.
DeleteBut I was thinking more about people who brag about their kids' looks, jobs, incomes, college test scores, sports abilities--all of which redounds to the parents' social status, superior genetic material, and parental skills.
Before all our parents died off, there was also some bragging going on about which nursing home you could leverage your parents into.
I think the conflict for those first Christians between faith and family could be all too real. The story of the man born blind, in which he and his parents were hauled before the religious authorities and he was expelled from the synagogue after his parents threw him under the bus, surely was based on real experiences.
DeleteI'm sure things like that happened in that very volatile theo-political period under Roman occupation.
DeleteThe Fundies interpret this passage in the context of the culture wars as a call to militancy, with secular authority as the new persecutors of Christians.
Cult leaders also like the passage, which they interpret as a call to reject your family if they try to deprogram you.
I think it's hard to know what we're supposed to make of it nowadays in a way that doesn't contradict other parts of the Gospel. I gather from your last paragraph that you wrestle with it yourself.
"I gather from your last paragraph that you wrestle with it yourself."
DeleteYes. For me, family hasn't been an obstacle to faith, but rather the pathway to faith. My own parents had me baptized and made sure I received the other sacraments of initiation, and sent me to Catholic schools. Without them, I don't think it's likely I would have found my own way to Christian belief. Today, in their 80s, they are still modeling a life of Christian discipleship.
As parents ourselves, my wife and I followed a similar approach with our own children. Hard to know whether, and how much, we've succeeded. I hope that at least we've planted some seeds. And maybe we parents take too much credit and blame.
Jim, are all of your six siblings still active Catholics?
DeleteWe can say we are trying to model XYZ for our kids. That's fine as long as we realize the kids will not always take from our examples the lessons we intend. The road to Hell, good intentions, etc.
DeleteI recently wrote my own obituary, and realized that was a task better left to Raber and The Boy. Pretty sure that the person I described would be unrecognizable to them. Let them have the last word.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere is also that curious incident in Mark chapter 3 (and parallels in the other synoptics) in which Jesus's mother and brothers arrive while he is teaching. In Mark's account, this happens directly after Jesus has had conflict with the scribes from Jerusalem. I have understood his family's coming to him as an attempted intervention, although the Gospel accounts don't explicitly say so. His response is to tell his followers that they are his true family.
ReplyDeleteThat story and the episode with the Good Thief are the nuggets my faith hangs on and have been since before Baptism.
DeleteI pretty much try to square everything else in the Gospels with those two stories, maybe erroneously.
I suppose we all have those stories that speak to us as individuals and our various circumstances.
Understanding the Gospels on family life is so difficult because the social structures of Jesus time were very different from modern social structures.
ReplyDeleteFamilies had a very powerful effect upon economic and political life at that time whereas today their effects are minimal. Now regional, national, and global economies have a very powerful effect upon family life as do national and international politics. Everyone today struggles to protect their personal family life from the inroads of their work life, the economy and world political events.
Not so in ancient times. The extended family and its relationship to other extended families (not economic investments or national programs) was the safety net that protected one’s personal family life from wars, famines and plagues.
The extended family was the local economy. The Greek word oikonomia means management of the household. Households large and small were where production and consumption took place. Most of that took places in villages of around 150 people. Most people were people whom you knew, and were likely close or distant family, or from families whom you knew well.
The next larger social unit was the city (polis) where the production of surrounding villages converged with production from more distant places. All politics was really local with some relationship by way of taxation to more distant kings and empires. The relationship of your extended family and other extended families to local landowners, the local village and local tax collectors were the important aspects of your contact with the larger and more distant and less important social structures of cities and regions.
These extended family relationships continue to be important in the developing world. Clans and tribes are still influential.
DeleteMost of the folks I work with in India have a sort of dual identity between the large cities where the work, and the rural villages where their families are still rooted. Some of them fled back to their villages to get away from COVID. One fellow I knew worked in his car all night (during the US daytime) because he could get an Internet signal outside his uncle's store at night.
Family relationships are still important in rural areas. In the Upper Peninsula, who "your people" are opens and closes doors. Guessing Appalachia and even southern Illinois are similarly centered on family and tribal affinity.
DeleteThe Gospels were largely written by people who lived in larger cities for people who lived in larger cities that were situated on trade routes. They described Jesus preaching in the rural towns and villages that surrounded such larger cities. This is very important because Jesus came for everyone. He is portrayed as someone who walked from village to village and spoke the gatherings (synagogues) of those villages and towns as well as gathering people in remote places.
ReplyDeleteJesus himself was not a peasant but understood that the agricultural economy that has dominated life up until recently as still does in many countries.
Jesus, a carpenter and the son of a carpenter and his apostles, fisherman and tax collectors, were part the technological sector of human life that played a larger role in cities like Capernaum. They were skilled people not just day laborers. They likely related well to the merchants that facilitated trade between villages and other cities.
The merchant people who lived and journeyed among large cities (such as the apostles) had family relationships that stretched back into the towns and villages. Jewish citizens in such cities lived in their own social structures (synagogues) within such cities; they had extensive relationships with people in Palestine through trade and pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
The Gospel attitude to families in these cities are clear from the inclusio stories of Mark. Just as two families in Capernaum had to give up their attachments to their own family and join in the larger family of Jesus so do the families in cities of the diaspora have to go beyond their own family interests and loyalties and the structure of the synagogue to become part of the new family (brethren) who would be followers (disciples) of Jesus on the Way.
The Gospel attitude toward the family members of Jesus and even to the Apostles is clear. They are revered only to the extent that they are doing the will of God, not because of their social relationship to Jesus. The Gospels point out that they (like people in general) often did not understand Jesus and the way of discipleship to which they were being called.
ReplyDeleteJack, the local Congregational minister I sometimes listen to on line talked about the reading along the socio-historical lines you offer above. He discussed the family/tribal traditions of nomadic and agricultural people coming up against the modern cosmopolitanism the Roman empire introduced. It was very interesting.
ReplyDeleteUnrelated (but it actually is sort of related), please say a prayer for friends of ours who are going through multiple health challenges. They're like a lot of us now, who don't have family close around. So their friends in the parish have to step up and be their family.
ReplyDeleteHopefully folks will fill that need. Like Bette Davis said, getting old isn't for sissies.
Delete