Proper 22B.  3 October 2021. The Rev. Pamela L. Werntz

Job 1:1, 2:1-10. Do you still persist in your integrity?
Hebrews 1:1-4, 2:5-12. Someone has testified somewhere.
Mark 10:2-16.  Receive the kingdom of God as a little child.

O God of the Pharisees, grant us the strength, the wisdom and the courage to seek always and everywhere after truth, come when it may, and cost what it will.

So how about those readings? One of the things that my clergy colleagues and I often do when we see each other in the week before particularly troublesome readings is ask one another, “Are you preaching on Sunday?” And if the answer is no, the response is, “lucky!” If the answer is yes, the follow up question is, “What are you going to do with those readings?” I usually keep this to myself, but I’ll confess to you that I actually feel lucky to engage and even debate challenging scripture texts. I think of the ways that People of the Book turn to one another for perspective, guidance, sympathy, insight, and sometimes in the form of an argument. It’s not always respectful, but I think we all know that it’s supposed to be.

Regrettably, many Christians are trained to hiss when the word Pharisee appears in our Christian testament. (Episcopalians hiss silently, of course.) Pharisee, in many ears, is synonymous with hypocrite. Synonyms for hypocrisy are deceit, perfidity, sanctimoniousness, insincerity, duplicity, but not Pharisee.  What most Christians don’t understand is that Jesus’s teaching, both in content and in style was Pharisaic. In Jesus’ time, Pharisees weren’t the bad guys any more than Episcopal priests are; or maybe I should say Pharisees weren’t any worse than Episcopal priests! Some time after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus’ followers went a separate way, but they took many Pharisaic teachings with them.

In the first century of the Common Era, there were two main schools of Pharisees: the House of Rabbi Hillel and the House of Shammai. They agreed on most things, according to the Talmud, although the House of Hillel was typically looser and the House of Shammai typically stricter in interpretations of Torah. They had vigorous and spirited debates about ethics, theology, and ritual practices. American Orthodox Rabbi Harvey Falk taught that, importantly, the House of Shammai denied that Gentiles could experience right-relationship with God. [1]  The House of Hillel taught that it was possible for Gentiles to be in right-relationship with God, and that Moses commanded Jews to spread that good news. (That’s what Paul was doing.) The Houses disagreed about how to keep that commandment, much like we Christians disagree about evangelism. Here are some other examples of what they disagreed about:

• The House of Shammai taught that only worthy students could be admitted to study Torah. The House of Hillel taught that Torah may be taught to anyone, in the hope that they will repent and become worthy. (Sounds like our debates among Christians about who may receive communion.)
• The House of Shammai taught that the eight candles of Hannukah should all be lit on the first night, and reduced by one each night until only one was burning at the eighth night. The House of Hillel taught just the opposite. They taught: start with one, because the light should increase with each night.
• The House of Shammai taught that it was a lie to tell an ugly bride that she was beautiful. The House of Hillel taught that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day.
• The House of Shammai taught that a man could only divorce his wife for a serious transgression. The House of Hillel permitted divorce for something as small as burning a meal (sounds like our debates in the Church about, well, divorce).

Neither House had all the right answers. The House of Shammai had the upper hand when it came to influence and power in Jesus’ time, but that changed dramatically when Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 CE, when the House of Hillel rose, while the House of Shammai diminished. The Mishna tractate called Chapters of the Fathers, nevertheless, affirmed the value of disagreement, saying: [2]

A disagreement which is for the sake of Heaven will be preserved and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not be preserved. What is a disagreement that is for the sake of Heaven? The disagreement of Hillel and Shammai. What is not for the sake of Heaven? The disagreement of Korah and his congregation.

That should clear things right up, but what’s the story of Korah and his congregation? I haven’t figured that out yet.

I can imagine that, according to Mark, some Pharisees were saying to Jesus, “What do you tell people who want to divorce? What do you do with Moses’ teachings?” They all knew what Moses’ ancient teachings were, but debates about what was permissible in contemporary, first-century Palestine included whether women as well as men could initiate a divorce, what legitimate reasons were and were not. It wasn’t that different from debates in the last century in the United States: What do we do with Moses’ teachings? What do we do with Jesus’ teachings? Well, we mustn’t use them as blunt objects to hurt one another; that is just the opposite of how they were intended to be used. Moses’ teachings and Jesus’ teachings were intended to protect the community, particularly the most vulnerable members of the community. Biblical commentator Sharyn Dowd has written about this passage, “It is no less than blasphemous to use the Markan prohibition of divorce to encourage terrified people to remain in abusive relationships that should not even be dignified with the term marriage.”[3]

What did Jesus do? Jesus did what he always did; he answered the question with a question. It was a question that shows that he thought his colleagues were asking the wrong question. In reminding them of the creation story, I think Jesus was saying, “I want everyone to remember who made you and how you were made.” You were made by God (who is Love) with Love for Love. I think Jesus was saying, “Remember to whom you belong and why you’re here.” I think Jesus was saying, “Remember God’s joy in creating you and in creating others.” He reminded them of Divine intent for the dignity of every human being. You belong to Love, and you are here for Love. You are here to companion others, to be helpmates, partners. Your hardness of heart is keeping you from remembering that. Indeed, Jesus was saying, the law permitting divorce was written because of hardness of heart ,to create order and protection for people, one from one another.

We don’t always feel God’s love so abundantly, do we? We don’t always like to give, in the give-and-take of life. We don’t always even know that we have anything to give, especially when we’re in conflict. So here we have the Pharisees testing Jesus on the lawfulness of divorce. What they’re really driving at is, how much (or how little) can I do and still be in right-relationship with God?

Jesus’ emphasis is always on the fullness of life, on the full part of lawful or faithful. Ironically, spiritual fullness is materially spare. According to some people who count such things up, in the whole Bible there are only 272 references to believing, 371 references to prayer, 714 references to love and loving, and, get this, 2,171 references to possessions and giving. [4] The Bible contains 2,171 references to possessions and giving, nearly 10 times the number of references to believing. It shows what the writers of the primary narratives of our faith thought was most important for our relationship with God, doesn’t it? And it shows how hard it must be for people of faith to get it, if the writers had to keep writing about possessions and giving.

Theologian Walter Brueggemann teaches that the Bible story is about God’s abundance as an alternative to the culturally-dominant theme of scarcity. In the face of incessant worry about scarcity the Bible story is the drama of more than enough in the face of fear that there won’t be enough. Brueggemann says that the cultural narrative of scarcity posits that life is barren of miracles, so the only way to get anywhere is to scramble for whatever you can get. He says that a past without gifts and a future without hope create an anxiety endlessly stirred by a narrative of scarcity, a narrative which says we cannot love our neighbors because they are a threat. Our calling is to help people know that the theology of abundance is ours, that the true story of our lives is an invitation to the wilderness where there is bread. [5]

We are in a wilderness of climate crisis, of white supremacy, of a pandemic. The way through this wilderness is the path of giving thanks for gifts of the past and encouraging hope for the future. The other day I was walking across the footbridge on my way to work, feeling preoccupied, when I saw a friend who I haven’t seen for a couple of years. As we passed, we both stopped and turned. Because of the angle of the rising sun behind her, her head was a starburst of light; all I could see was her smile. When I asked how she was doing, she replied, “Great!” As we went our separate ways, I realized that that could be my answer as well; I realized that it could be the answer to how Emmanuel Church is. I realized, as I walked away, that she had been an angel of the Lord for me, a messenger of grace.

Answering great doesn’t mean that we don’t have struggles or challenges, or disappointments, conflicts, or failures. It doesn’t mean we aren’t feeling vulnerable or in pain. It means that God woke us up today, and we get to experience the beauty of this day in this beautiful place with others of all sorts and conditions invited to receive the kindness and welcome of Jesus, which is carved in stone at Emmanuel Church. Whether in person or online, we are invited to receive the kindness and welcome of Jesus as a little child – with a capacity for wonder and imagination, without possessions or cynicism weighing us down, wholeheartedly, with joy! We are being invited by Jesus to sit at the kids’ table! The grace of God, the realm of Love, is always being offered to us again and again. So remember to whom you belong and why you’re here: Love. That is why the answer to the question, “How are you?” and “How is Emmanuel?” is “Great!” Practice saying it this week and report back!

[1]  http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1048374,00.html

[2] Pirkei Avot 5:17.

[3] Sharyn E. Dowd, Reading Mark: A Literary and Theological Commentary in Reading the New Testament Series (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), p. 103.

[4] According to a  report given at an Episcopal Church Stewardship Conference (1999) by John and Sylvia Ronsvalle of emptytomb, inc., authors of Behind the Stained Glass Windows: Money Dynamics in the Church (Ada MI: Baker Publishing, 1996) and At Ease: Money Values in Small Groups (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998).

[5] http://arc.episcopalchurch.org/ens/archives/99-064.html