A Conflict of Perspectives - Mark 3

 

Mark 3:20-35

 

 

Growing up I was surrounded by comic books. The superheroes of Marvell and DC comics invited me into a world of intrigue, battling the evil forces and finding incredible ways to ensure that the right would win. Back then I failed to understand the underlying message about what the right was and where it came from.

 

It was essentially white, western and empire. Life, truth and heroes were white, male, western and predominantly physical. There was little room for women in these stories!  People of other nationalities and race, were the baddies or, at best, companions of the good guys.

 

The comic book genre tells stories quickly, without extraneous detail and stays true to the agenda of the writer. There is little chance of the message being lost on the reader who is scanning the fast-paced frames of dialogue and action.

 

Mark is the comic book style writer of the Gospel writers. John spells out the detail of his Gospel, referencing the Jewish mystics and developing a thesis of who Jesus is and how we encounter him. Matthew and Luke have particular audiences and needs to address. Matthew deals with why the ‘church’ slowly moved away from the synagogue, having lost the battle for the Jewish religious mind.

 

Mark focuses on telling us who Jesus is and what his relationship is with the Divine, why he fits the bill as the Messiah, God’s Anointed.  He links together specially selected stories or pericopes to make his biography of Jesus plain and understandable. His pen pictures are bare of detail. He adds little other than what is necessary. He writes in bullet points more suited for a TED talk or a short presentation, not in academic prose.

 

Todays story fits at the end of a section we could entitle -  “A Conflict of Perspective”. In this section Jesus runs into conflict with the scribes and religious leaders over his healing of the sick, casting out of demons, and food and Sabbath ethics. His views and practice places him at odds with tradition with a power and authority hitherto not seen. He is the Messiah because he is so different, authoritative and free to be human, he could not be anyone else.

 

Mark’s thesis is either not obvious or so obvious it has to be refuted because the implications mean dismantling long held traditions, ideas and ways of practicing faith. It will dismantle the economy and political power revolving around the synagogue cult and leave them marooned, without the solid tradition they relied upon. Protecting what they already have they pronounce Jesus is of the devil, “he has an unclean spirit.” Jesus punches holes in that argument with logic their rational minds cannot defend against. “If I am of the devil how come I am casting out fellow demons? That doesn’t make sense.” And it doesn’t and they know it.

 

To try and prove their point they involve Jesus’ family, who I am sure, were confused and concerned for their son and brother. The crowds, the unending workload, the incessant interruptions and the obvious antagonistic authorities were enough to make them concerned. They came to take him away and give him some space but became involved in the rhetoric of the deniers.

 

Jesus responds with another pronouncement sure to set him apart as a rabble-rouser and troublemaker. He steps all over the traditional family ethic extending family to include all who lives and does as he does. It is no longer about family, tribes and a special people. All who take up his call for freedom, love and life are included in the kingdom of God.

 

Today we are faced with an avalanche of conflict challenging tradition and ideology. Climate change, same sex relationship recognition, refugees and boat people, child abuse, reconciliation and recognition of first peoples in the constitution, aged care and more. The need to address these is being espoused by voices and people who we would not necessarily include as speaking on behalf of God. Yet the Spirit of God is at work, using those who are willing to continue Jesus’ mission of freedom, love and life.

 

The recognition of love and fidelity instead of the restrictions presently placed on untraditional relationships is one example of the Spirit at work. Recently  read of a same-sex couple who were father and son but are now husband and husband. Sounds odd, but to get recognition for their multi-decade relationship in terms of estate planning one had to adopt the other as the state didn’t recognise same sex couples. Now it’s possible. So it should be.

 

In the last week or so we had the controversy caused by former Australian of the Year Adam Goodes’ war dance celebration after scoring a goal. It was deemed too confronting and challenging to both the footy fans present and to our nation. At the same time aboriginal communities are being closed down and peoples income quarantined with little protest. The Guardian newspaper reports on 3 remote communities in WA which are close together and only the 2 aboriginal communities are being considered to be closed down[1]. On Q&A one participant said the treatment of indigenous people is no different to the teasing someone with red hair gets! Really?

 

I have a question. Why are we so ready to accept same-sex marriages, and we are unable to embrace cultures different to us in faith and skin colour? Is it because same-sex marriage is an affluent, predominately white question in sync with our consumer culture of entitlement? Wednesday’s Age has an article that suggests legalization of same sex marriage is worth $1.2billion stimulus to the economy. Should that be a consideration?

 

Now, before people throw things at me, I support the move for recognition and equality, and it must occur sooner than later. But it must be driven by our desire for mission of freedom, love and life. In other words to overturn injustice not, for example, for economic benefits.

There are other issues to deal with, issues we have denied and ignored, such as indigenous reconciliation and recognition in this country for over 200 years; the treatment of refugees; the treatment of the elderly; and the abandonment of the victims of child abuse.

 

A few years ago I stood next to a young aboriginal boy in a Brisbane police station accused of a crime he did not commit. A couple of years earlier he was found filling up a tub with bleach and sitting in it. He no longer wanted to be black; he wanted to be like everyone else, white. At the same time, in Mt Isa, aboriginal young people were committing suicide by simply tying something around their necks to a fence and sitting down, waiting to die.

 

Our society’s response to quarantine income, take children from their families at a greater rate than ever[1], incarcerate Aboriginals at 11 times that of non-indigenous people[2] and close down remote communities, suggests colour and race still hinders the mission of Jesus for freedom, love and life in this country.

 

Thomas Merton suggests the way of Christ (nonviolent action which took him to the Cross) ‘is the most exacting of all forms of struggle,….because it excludes mere transient self-interest from it’s considerations….the one who practices (the way of Christ – nonviolent action) must commit themselves not to the defense of his/her own interest or even those of a particular group: he/she must commit themselves to the defence of objective truth and right and above all, of humanity’[3]

 

Mark’s comic ends this episode with Jesus widening the net on inclusion with - “Who are my mother and my brothers?” ³⁴And looking at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! ³⁵Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

Are we, and is our church, local and universal, listening to the movement of the Spirit and responding in such a way that we can claim to be walking in the way of Christ? Or do we still have some work to do?

 

John Dear, in his excellent book ‘Thomas Merton, Peacemaker’ suggests our work should look like this:

 

Shout very loud about God’s will, God’s truth, God’s justice. State facts quietly and tell the truth quietly and patiently. Don’t be discouraged. Don’t get too frustrated. …. Lay the groundwork for a deep change of heart. Give an example of sanity, independence, integrity, good sense, as well as Christian love and wisdom.

 

Amen

 

 

 

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-26/stolen-generation-with-aboriginal-children-in-care-nt/5478898 

[2] Between 2003 and 2013, the Aboriginal rate of incarceration has soared 11 times faster than the non-Aboriginal rate. Prison rates for Aboriginal women have increased by a third between 2002 and 2007, and the number of Aboriginal men by one-fifth [4], while police custodial rates remain as high as before.

Source: http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/royal-commission-into-aboriginal-deaths-in-custody#ixzz3brcHudUy

[3] Thomas Merton, Blessed are the meek’

 

---

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/11/of-three-remote-communities-here-why-are-only-the-two-aboriginal-ones-under-threat

Unity in Being, Diversity in Doing

John 3:1-17/ Romans 8:12-17

Today is indeed Trinity Sunday for us here at St Oswald’s. This Sunday we explore the liturgical festival of the trinity while reflecting on the task of reconciliation, still a work under construction for our country, and finally, we are thinking about our parish stewardship responsibilities. How do these come together or are they in fact three very different ideas we actually need more time to investigate? Are they an improbable puzzle not unlike the one Nicodemus was faced with when he came to Jesus under the cover of the darkness? I suspect so.

 

You see Nicodemus nearly got the profound insight Jesus had to offer yet he was unable to leave his rational mind out of the conversation. His rational mind, schooled in the ‘theological’ superstructure of the synagogue found no place for the mystical experience Jesus was introducing him to. Being born again, being born of the spirit and not of the flesh, the coming and goings from heaven to earth and back again, simply over-rode the rational understanding Nicodemus was equipped with. And he went away, still in the dark.

 

In Romans 8 Paul speaks eloquently about the Godhead, interspersing the three personalities without actually trying to explain how it actually goes together. In this passage he speaks of God as father, of Christ in relationship to both God and us, and the Spirit as the enlivening source of relationship which ties it all together. Yet Paul does not explain the Trinity -- how God is three-in-one and one-in-three -- and no systematic explanation is to be found in the other biblical writers, either.

 

Perhaps it can be understood as ‘unity in being, diversity in way of being’. The oneness is the Who and the diversity is the role or the what. Rublev’s famous icon shows the three personalities together at a table, in hospitable fellowship with one another surrounded by the symbols which identify, all are together but noticeably separate in their body language; a turning out here, a looking a way there and the use of space to signify that separation.

 

They are united in their divine being, but very diverse in their roles and their actions. Although all maybe present at the one time, they are busy about different things, tasks and operations. The creation, salvation and imbuing of the world are done together but separately. A wonderful image of this unity and diversity is found in the description of the baptism of Jesus in Mark 1:9-11:

“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’”

 

An interesting observation to make about Rublev’s icon is that there is no competition for space or for recognition amongst those he depicts. In fact the generosity of the Trinity is such that it always leaves room for more. If you look closely at the icon, space is made at the front of the table for another, or others. It has been suggested that we are being made room for, invited into that intimate relationship, not as observers, spectators or as lesser beings. but as co-equals.

 

Jesus says that God so loved the world that he sent the second person of the trinity so that he could save it from itself, from it’s ego violence and gratification. We are saved to share in eternal life which is a now and future realm, to be experienced in relationship with the three personalities active in the divine.

 

Paul says ‘you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” ¹⁶it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, ¹⁷and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.’ We have been adopted into that intimate relationship which is unity of being but diversity and how, the way, of being.

 

In the last few days we have witnessed the recognition of gay marriage in Ireland, an almost unthinkable outcome if the referendum had occurred a decade ago. What is primarily a Catholic country has embraced change and the church faces some interesting time redefining it’s place in what was essentially it’s country. It is a challenge for the  Church of Ireland which, within a day or so, had produced a press release saying that there would be no marriages for same sex couples carried out by it’s clergy as they are still reviewing their position through Synod. Yet over the road in Scotland, the Church of Scotland has voted to accept gay clergy in same sex civil partnerships, although note civil not church sanctioned marriage. The world is a rapidly changing place, full of diversity and, seemingly, collapsing unity. 

 

On this Trinity Sunday we are also asked to think about reconciliation between the first occupiers of this country and those of us who came later. Reconciliation as a task has had a rocky road and, I would suggest, has almost stalled. Governments, institutions and landowners have been hesitant to take the steps to apologize and set about a clear path of repentance for invasions, massacres, land grabs, stolen children, child abuse, and more. We remain silent about the 140-year civil war which took place in this country, only coming to an end, possibly, in 1928. We do not recognise the casualties of that war, on both sides, and fail to accept that the injustices committed then set the groundwork for the injustices which continue, such as the closing down of remote communities today.

 

The table of hospitality we sit around is similar but different to that of Rublev’s icon. Yes there is a space at the table but those who are different are not free to join those who maintain the social geography of our country. Not only have we not given free access to the first people, we continue to prevent those seeking a new start in life access either, even when we know the alternative option is likely death, we continue to say ‘Nope, Nope, Nope.’

 

The way forward will be chaotic and marred by many sidesteps and back-downs but we are being challenged to engage with the diversity of being from the point of view of what holds us together at the core. The trinity speaks of unity in relationship, of being essentially connected at the centre of our being although we are acting out our being, our lives, in very different and diverse ways.

 

We have a choice, to hold onto what divides us, to our diversity, not as something to be celebrated but something to be destroyed, or at best, ignored. To harken back to a day when we did not have to deal with these things because we agreed not to recognise them will consign us the way of the dodo. We no longer have that option.

 

Or we can choose to find ways to engage, dialogue and discover our place, with others, at the table of fellowship alongside the three distinct personalities of the Trinity. It asks of us deep self-reflection on why we believe as we do, why we find it difficult to even dialogue on these things, let alone find a place of unity, and why we are uncomfortable about difference and diversity?

 

On this thanksgiving or stewardship Sunday we are also being asked what can we do, what can we give, to expand God’s presence in this community? What do we bring with us and make available to this parish under God to engage, dialogue and discover ours and others place at the table with the Trinity? In the 80 or so years since St Oswald’s was founded, the world has changed in remarkable ways and this church has always been willing to engage, belong, support, guide, represent and feed this community. Why? Because there have been people willing to sit at the table with the Divine and co-create a representational Holy presence here.

 

Nicodemus was asked what did he bring and what could he give? He found that he could not give up his rational and conditioned mind. He could not step out of the darkness of difference into the glory of diversity. He was unable to remain engaged in dialogue and fellowship long enough for the truth to appear. He was lost in the darkness.

 

As we close let us reflect on the wisdom of Paul who writes:

 

^“22We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; ²³and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? ²⁵But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” Amen