The Covenant of Compassion

Luke 13:10-17

 

The Covenant of Compassion

 

Cruelty of any kind to animals of any kind is almost always universally condemned. The banning of greyhound racing by the NSW government in response to the reported on going mistreatment of live animals for training purposes and the mistreatment of greyhounds themselves is a case in point. In general terms human beings have little tolerance for such cruelty.

 

There is a connection between people and animals which ensure most of us will not leave an animal without water or food and will take steps out of a sense of responsibility for that animal to ensure it is properly cared for. In the same vein we will not tolerate those who perpetrate cruelty to animals in any form.

 

Yet we are often not so quick to step in when other people are suffering as victims of cruelty. Our definitions of who deserves our intervention, the types of cruelty we will or will not tolerate, and the fences we put around both our action and inaction means we often fail to act when we should. Our preferred method of action is to have another Royal Commission, internal investigation or external review, generally resulting in little or nothing changing. Practical steps to solve the problem become bound up in red tape, protocols, separation of powers, questions of who is responsible and bureaucratic buck-passing. And nothing happens.

 

For some Christians, Anglicans included, this translates into the duality of spirituality and faith versus social justice. We avoid becoming involved because we do not see it as a spiritual or religious question. It has little to do with our faith.  It is a question for those interested in social justice and activism, not Sunday worshippers.

 

For still other Christians, Anglican included, our faith is tied up with a personal friendship with Jesus and is private, personal and heaven bound. It does not involve an engagement in the messy stuff of the kingdom of God here and now. That doesn’t matter because we are not citizens of this world, but are only passing through, on our way to glory.

 

For still other Christians, Anglicans included, if it is not specifically decreed in the Word of God, the Bible, then it is not required of those for whom Jesus died. Without a proof text there is no evidence available to suggest we should become involved.

 

Jesus and Jeremiah, confront these and other views directly in today’s readings.

 

100 years after Isaiah for whom it was an article of faith that God would not abandoned the temple, Jeremiah speaks out against such faith. For Jeremiah  “neither city nor temple guaranteed safety to a city that did not act with justice and did not remain loyal to YHWH.” (Jenks)

 

At the same time ‘Jeremiah had parted company with the ….. reformers who had come to power during the reign of Josiah. He seems to have lost confidence in the capacity of a book of the law to bring about holiness.” (Jenks) For him neither the temple or a book of law would be sufficient for people to act with compassion and he set about reimagining the covenant as one that “would be inscribed on the human heart, rather than on tablets of stone. It would need no religious authorities to instruct people on how to observe its requirements.” (Jenks)

 

Jeremiah now becomes the post-modern prophet shifting responsibility for faith and action from an external source to that of an internal project. It is no longer the responsibility of the temple thought police or the literal readers of the text to set down the rules of engagement with the real world. It becomes the task of the individual faithful person to so identify the right and appropriate action in every situation.

 

Way before Augustine wrote ‘love God and do as you will’; Jeremiah had upset those in power in the temple with exactly the same direction. Love of God, the deep sense of compassion sitting at the centre of all, is to be the driver of action. Only an experience of and response to compassion and a sense of the goodness of God enkindled through faith will ensure people live out the covenant relationship with God, and not any amount of rules, regulations or books.

 

In our Gospel reading, Jesus returns to this theme through a healing miracle. Here Jesus heals a crippled woman who had been so for many years. She comes to Jesus on a Sabbath day and is healed. Jesus is rebuked for doing work on the Sabbath by representatives of the temple.

 

 Marcus Borg provides some insights into this event:

He says: “The non-Markan sabbath conflict stories follow a common pattern. Jesus, taking the initiative, healed a person in the presence of opponents and then legitimated his action with a rhetorical question that referred to common human behaviour.

 

Two are peculiar to Luke:

Luke 23:15-16: (Todays reading)

And Luke 14:5: Which of you having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well will not immediately pull him out on a sabbath day?

Both times, Jesus invites them to consider what they naturally do when they saw an animal in need or suffering on the sabbath.” (Jenks)

 

Jesus does not appeal to precedence from the scriptures, the prophets or the patriarchs. In fact Jesus does not dispute the letter of the law. He makes no effort to counteract the argument of law by finding an argument to makes his case.

 

He simply challenges them to think of what they would do to safeguard the wellbeing of their own personal property, in this case an animal and contrast it with the attitude they express toward this woman. Your animals are treated with more compassion than:

• A woman,
• A sick woman
• A woman who has been sick for a very long time

He continues: Where is your compassion?

 

You are more interested in obeying the temple rules than obeying the law of compassion that lives with in you. The implication is: haven’t you ever been challenged by the disconnect between what you feel for such as this person and what you enforce upon her and those without power?

 

For Jesus and Jeremiah the imperative of compassion overrules religious and legal double-talk requiring us to follow our sense of what is the right thing to do. It is not a question of social justice v’s spirituality v’s faith. It is the love for the Other and others that is to drive our engagement with the world. Compassion changes things and draws together what we have separated - justice, spirituality and faith – as one, giving birth to hope.

 

Asylum seekers, victims of violence and abuse, indigenous Australians and more require us to stand up with compassion as a church, a people of hope, standing against the lawgivers, the temple and anyone who stands in the way of God’s kingdom becoming present in this world. Trust your sense of what is right and live out your faith without fear and trepidation. Today.

 

 

 

  

Covenanted People

Jeremiah 31:27-34, 2 Timothy 3:10-45, Luke 18:1-4, Psalm 119:97-40

In the 1991 comedy “City Slickers”, weathered trail boss Curly (Jack Palance) offers 39 year old city slicker Mitch Robbins (Billy Crystal) some sage prairie advice. Holding up his index finger, Curly poses the ultimate cowboy question: “Do you know what the secret of life is? This.” Mitch quips, “Your finger?” With real cowboy authority Curly responds, “One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and the rest don’t mean anything.” The city slicker asks, “But what is the ‘one thing’ The trail boss leaves Mitch hanging with a smile: “That’s what you have to find out.”

And the truth is we spend a lifetime finding out, forgetting and rediscovering what that one thing is. When we think we have found it, it seems to disappear from sight, get lost in the stuff of life and we have to go in search of it all over again.

For the Hebrews that is the story of the Old Testament. A story of searching, discovering, losing their way and starting all over again. It is the human story we all play a part in. Man, as a species, was created in the image of God and we all have, like sheep, gone astray from that image, individually and collectively within our own story.

I was interested to hear that a family got them selves lost following their GPS when it was visibly obvious there was something wrong. How far will travelers blindly follow a GPS device? According to The Sydney Morning Herald, an Australian family of four (and their poor pup) followed directions given by their GPS onto a road closed by heavy rainfall and became stranded for three nights in a ute. The family, believe it or not, ignored posted warning signs and turned onto the Darling River Road while traveling between Brisbane and Perth in the northwest part of the continent. The truck promptly became bogged down in the thick mud, leaving the family stuck in the middle of the bush, far from civilization. They called police immediately, but since conditions were so poor, it took authorities three nights to finally reach the foolish travelers on Sunday. Ignoring a closed city street sign is one thing, but driving right past a warning sign in the middle of Australia's wilderness just because your GPS device tells you to is another thing all together.

The common theme of today’s readings is that despite our inability to stay on track, God does not go missing. He is steadfast and faithful – that is his promise, his covenant with humanity wherever they encounter him. God does not get lost even though we may feel he is sometimes missing.

This covenant was the one thing the Hebrew people clung to and is the focus of services such as the Shabbat or Sabbath service. They are constantly reminded of and constantly remind God that he has a responsibility to care for them, that is the deal and they will remind him whenever they perceive that may not be the case.

Yet this covenant is not simply a one-sided agreement. There are two sides to this agreement. God’s people have a responsibility as well. And that is to worship, praise or recognise whom God is and to bring about his kingdom in their daily lives – to hallow his name as Jesus taught his disciples.

The Psalms speak to us clearly of this relationship. The general structure of the Psalms involves recognition of the circumstances people find themselves in, a recognition of and reminder to God of his past faithfulness to his people and a commitment to praise and worship God, not if he saves them, but because there is no doubt that he will.

And in essence that is the law, which is spoken of in the readings of today, the undeniable relationship between God and his people that allows a sure and confident future for all. It is interesting that the interaction between the Hebrews and God in the Psalms speaks clearly of a full and frank discussion, simply because the foundation of that relationship was unshakeable.

Yet that relationship between God and man was to change and to take on a deeper and more significant meaning. Jeremiah points clearly to a new covenant that would not rely on external practices but be written in the heart, the spirit, the soul of man. It would be indelibly apart of us.

Paul encourages remembering the acts and promises of God so that we are not lead astray by the wicked, those who desire to take us away from or to doubt the covenant God has made for us through the obedient love of Jesus. Jesus trusted implicitly in the hesed or steadfastness of God all the way to the Cross and did so that we may have the opportunity to put it to the test for ourselves.

Jesus reveals the proper understanding essential to the fulfilment of the covenant in the parable of the Pharisee and publican. Here are two people who separate themselves from those praying in the temple. One, because he saw himself as better than the others, and the other who saw himself as unworthy.

Yet the prayer of the second is significant – “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” A similar prayer to the criminal on the cross next to Jesus. A prayer that recognises who God is and who the individual is, yet reminds God clearly of his promised steadfast faithfulness or mercy – his hesed. It is not a desperate plea but a statement of faith reminding God of the covenant.

The challenge for us as we come to participate in the Eucharist where we clearly remember and remind God of the story of his mercy is to find ways to live out our covenant with him. To praise God, not curse God when we find life not to our liking; to remember God’s goodness for the holy ordinariness of life, and not to forget God’s past and ongoing faithfulness to us; to recognise the importance not only of acknowledging God, but of praising God for everything from the simple fact of life to the more obvious and dramatic intervention in our lives.

At this table we hear the story of God’s steadfast faithfulness and pledge ourselves to live our lives so that they are our perpetual praise to God, every day.

As the Buddhist would say, “Before the enlightenment, the laundry; after enlightenment, the laundry” yet we live in that covenanted place which makes all ordinary tasks and therefore this ordinary life enlightened, for God is steadfastly faithful in the midst of our lives, contrary to what our circumstances maybe.

To answer Curly’s question, ‘That is the one thing.’

Who Feeds Us?

We live in a society built on the ideology of scarcity. What, you might think, is he talking about? Never has there been so much available to us, never has there been so many choices for us to consume. According to Choices Magazine there are more than 80 different brands and types of milk, some 23+ washing powders and over 14 coffee brands on your supermarket shelf.

In terms of banks, mortgage providers and finance brokers the choice is now much more than the big 4. Buying a car is a mire of maker choice and then, if you happen to find the make you want, there are up to a dozen or more choices of model and style. And I haven’t even thought of nail polish and hair colour!

Yet we live wedded to the ideology of scarcity. Enough is never enough to satisfy us. The issue, according to theologian Walter Brueggemann, is whether there is enough to go around - enough food, water, shelter, space. An ideology of scarcity says no, there’s not enough, so hold on to what you have.

An ideology of abundance is just the opposite and is often the ideology of those deemed the poorest in our society. Appearances notwithstanding, there is enough to go around, so long as each of us only takes what we need.

It has always interested me that when I spend time with families who are indeed poor, the willingness to share what little they have, to turn what seems to be a meager supply of food into a banquet of exquisite quality and quantity is overwhelming. There is always enough.

And food and table play a great part in the abundant life. Having grown up in an extensive extended family with 21 aunts and uncles and their partners and their children meant that family get togethers were massive in terms of numbers and catering. In my childhood none of these families were wealthy but the women involved knew how to make a little go along way and how to produce monumental feasting tables. We would all grab a chair and sit around a long series of trestle tables and eat until we could eat no more.

Conversation and laughter filled the air and where there had been conflict or difficulties they seemed to disappear in the convivial atmosphere. Family remained family despite what may have happened. The covenant was repaired and life moved on.

Isaiah 55 takes the prominent place of food and meals in the Bible as a tool for bonding and belonging, of remembering who you are and whom you belong to:
“Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you that have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 2Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen carefully to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. 3Incline your ear, and come to me; listen, so that you may live. I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David.”

The prophet invited the Israelites, living in exile in Babylon, to come to a lavish meal and receive renewal of covenantal blessings. Isaiah is warning against the very real danger that they would become obligated to or assimilated into the culture of their captors and present benefactors, and adapt to the bread of Babylon. Being assimilated into a foreign way of life and forgetting their roots. Brueggemman again, “Whoever feeds, owns.” Food, he says, comes with a price. “Eat royal bread and think royal thoughts. Eat royal bread and embrace royal thoughts.”

Isaiah reminded the Israelites that who fed them and what they ate were no small matter. Why should they continue with food that did not nourish? The Israelites were a people of different bread, another way, a bread that came as a gift.

In our modern world there are many who offer to feed us; the people we associate with, the ideologies we are exposed to, the pervading culture of consumerism, the idea that God is dead and there are now no rules, that we are special and the centre of our world and more. It is almost inevitable, say the realists, for us to abandon the Greek, Roman and Christian heritage on which western civilization was founded and simply run with the ‘I am god’ pack.

Charles Taylor suggest we have moved from a time and a society in which “belief in God is unchallenged and,…unproblematic, to one in which it is understood to be one option among others, and frequently not the easiest to embrace.”

Stanley Hauerwas agrees, ‘the situation we find ourselves in as Christians is at once a threat and an opportunity.’ He continues, and I agree, “For if you believe as I do that there is an inevitable tension between the church and world,then a world in which belief in God is unchallenged may be one in which Christians too readily assume that they can be at home in the world. So the world in which we find ourselves (today) may be one in which we recover the difference a Christian should make.”

The lack of concern for others, the lack of boundaries and moral assumptions in our children’s (and their parent) lives, the inappropriate behaviours of adults and children, the bullying which is rife across all ages and classes, and the simple mantra of ‘if I say it’s ok for me, it’s ok’, the personalism which rules thinking abroad; all challenge those who hold to the Christian ethos.

Thomas Merton, writing in the early-‘60’s, referred to that age as the post-christian age. I suspect we have moved deeper into this age for we are insatiate consumers of Babylon’s bread, even within those bodies and disciplines such as the church, education institutions, the body politic and the arts, previously critical commentators on Babylon and its ways.

In each Eucharistic service the invitation is given to come to a lavish meal, the well set table of Jesus’ body and blood where we renew the new covenant of love set in place by Jesus death and resurrection. We are reminded in this meal of our heritage, for it looks back to the Old Testament covenant God had with Israel, it takes us into the act of love which Jesus gave us in the New Testament covenant, and leads us forward into the eternal relationship we will share with all the saints who have gone before, in heaven.

At this table, just for a few moments we stand in the eternal space, touching the past present and future, and are reminded who feeds us. It is an ideology of abundance, not scarcity, there is sufficient for all our needs no matter how the circumstances and the voices of this world may suggest otherwise.

It is a theology of difference, for the body and blood of Jesus welcomes us into a new way of seeing the world and puts us firmly in the place of tension, the space-in-between this world and its appetites and the kingdom of God – there but not yet.

We are not fed by this world and we are called to remain true to the One who feeds us. That is the meaning of our dismissal from the table at the end of our service. We are reminded to ‘Go in peace to love and serve the Lord’, not Babylon.

Isaiah challenges the Israelites to return to the covenant table and be fed. We are challenged to do the same.