Standing Under the Scriptures
September 27, 2009

Dear Fellow Voyagers,

Our readings for this Sunday are:

Romans 15.22-33: Paul speaks of the collection he is taking from the faithful in Greece, who are materially blessed, to the faithful in Jerusalem, who are blessed spiritually but not materially.

Matthew 6.19-34: In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus urges against anxiety over material things and reliance instead on God’s bountiful provision.

In our Gospel reading for last Sunday, from Mark, Jesus predicts his passion, death, and resurrection. In part this duplicated our Gospel reading for the previous Sunday, in which also he made this prediction. But there are differences as well as similarities between the two, and we found the difference to have particular meanings. We found also that our first reading, from the Letter of James, took on a deeper meaning when related to sayings of Jesus.

We began with James’ Letter (3.16-4-6). It speaks of “jealousy and selfish ambition” as the source of dissension in the community and of dissatisfaction with what one has been given as leading even to serious crimes. But this is not God’s plan for humankind. Instead the “wisdom from on high” makes for peace. And not only does God oppose the proud, he gives grace to those of humble spirit, for whom he yearns.

The passage might seem a bit of moralistic or even platitudinous, as if written by someone intent on keeping peace in the congregation. But we saw in it connections that took it to deeper level. Although not explicit, they likely would have come to the minds of its original readers, imbued as they were with the Scriptures. Selfish ambition involves a particular mind-set, namely a focus on worldly things, which leaves no room for wider concerns. We were reminded of how in Jesus’ proclamation at the inception of his ministry---“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”---the literal meaning of the Greek word for repent is “change your way of thinking, the set of your mind.” Further along these lines, the previous Sunday we saw Jesus rebuking Peter for having a worldly mind-set rather than a heavenly one. (This was after Peter rebuked Jesus for considering that being the Messiah involved him in suffering and death, in effect telling the Messiah how to be the Messiah.) And a worldly mind-set is necessarily opposed to a heavenly one, focused on the things of God. Our passage from James itself says, “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?” This opposition reminded us of how Jesus characteristically set the world’s view of things on its head: Blessed are the poor, the hungry, those who mourn---whom the world sees as by no means blessed.

His inversion of the world’s values appears also in our Gospel passage (Mark 9.30-37) containing his second prediction of his passion, death, and resurrection. But firstly we noted that this passage, while consisting of much the same elements as his first prediction---in Mark 8.27-38 which was our Gospel the previous Sunday---differed importantly in detail. As for the commonalities, both contain Jesus’ prediction, albeit the second was simpler; both give the disciples’ reaction to the prediction; and both show the role of a disciple to be shaped by that of the Messiah. The first time it is preceded by Jesus’ question to the disciples: “Who do you [as distinct from people in general] say that I am?” And Peter confesses, “You are the Messiah.” But from the prediction itself, of suffering, death, and resurrection, Peter demurs, earning Jesus’ rebuke as noted above. The second time there is no such preamble. More to the point, the second time neither Peter nor any other disciple makes a response. Instead, “they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask him.”

We wondered why, after all the discussion to which the first prediction gave rise, the disciples should have remained mute about the second. The consensus of biblical scholars afforded an explanation. This is that Mark, written probably in Rome in the latter 60s of the first century, was not an original composition, at least not entirely. Instead it consisted of traditions that had circulated orally in the community of faith until then and which the Evangelist wrote down. The sequence of these traditions in his Gospel was not random. On the contrary, he had clear theological reasons for it. But it was not necessarily chronological. The real point, though, is that in the disciples’ silence and diffidence we were able to see ourselves. Often we come up against things that we do not understand but which give signs of being important. And rather than pushing on to an understanding, we just slide over them.

We could see ourselves also in what followed. Jesus asks the disciples, once they were in the house [not otherwise identified] what they were discussing on the way. Again they were silent, not wanting to admit that they had been discussing who was greatest. Their humanity can be seen in their choosing this topic. Not only was it an instance of the selfish ambition decried in our first reading (above), it reflected our tendency to turn away from matters too difficult or too threatening to deal with and towards those we find more congenial. The often casual nature of conversations at receptions after funerals may be an instance of this.

But Jesus did not need the disciples to tell him what they were discussing. As elsewhere in the Gospels he is represented as knowing people’s thoughts without being told. And he takes the occasion to teach an important lesson about discipleship, as well as greatness. This is that the one who would be first must be last of all and servant of all. To be sure, it is not what he said in connection with his first prediction of his passion. Then he spoke of taking up one’s cross and following him and of losing one’s life, for his sake and the gospel’s, in order to save it. But his later saying, despite its lighter tone, does not contradict his earlier one. For it also can be seen as a determination of the role of a disciple by the role of the Messiah. Jesus made himself last of all and servant of all by undergoing the humiliation and agony of death on the cross. Further, the saying is characteristic of him in that it turns the world’s view of things---namely that the greatest should be first and should be lord rather than servant---on its head.

Our reading ends with Jesus taking a child and declaring that anyone receiving such a child “in my name”---a class member pointed to this---receives not only him but his Father who sent him. In it we saw a reflection of the Christian concern for the least, children in the ancient world being regarded as of little or no account. This concern is set forth more fully in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.31-46. But we supposed that it might also set up the receptivity of a child, or a young person, as an example for us with our critical tendencies to follow. Indeed, we aim for such uncritical acceptance in our standing under the Scriptures. This does not mean the repression of our critical faculties, however. On the contrary, it is in the exploring of the significance of the Scriptures, once we have thus accepted them, that we can exercise our critical faculties to the full.

Faithfully, Fr. Ted