Finding the Ideal

Gospel:  Matthew 19: 3-12

Today's Gospel portion is difficult to read if one is a woman.  The entire conversation around divorce is had entirely from the point of view of a man.  The woman is seen merely as property without any say, and the one exception allowing divorce is predicated on the lewdness of the woman, not the man.  The implied message of the teaching is that a man should keep his wife, though the motives for doing so are not stated in the ideal of love, but are left unclear.

Jesus' disciples hear this teaching and immediately say that if this is so, then it is better not to marry at all.  This response is truly horrid.  Their reason for celibacy is based not on any noble ideals or for the kingdom of God, but only on the fact that they do not have the option of divorcing their wives if they so chose.  And it overlooks the reality unmarried women faced in those days - no protection from law, vulnerability, poverty, and resorting to whatever means to survive as noncitizens unattached to a man.  

The decision to marry and remain committed to marriage is a deep and serious one, one that is borne by both men and women equally.  Marriage is not a decision of one day of proposal and another of the wedding day itself.  It is a decision of each moment of each day that both members make.  A marriage can be an inspiring thing to those who experience one longstanding and committed by each person.  This is the ideal to which married people are called to undertake in a partnership of equals in mutual love and respect.

The Great Difficulty

Gospel:  Matthew 18: 21 - 19: 1

Peter asks a disciple question: how many times do I have to forgive someone?  It is a question loaded with problems.  First, it seeks to find the minimum requirement in order to fulfill whatever standard we believe ought to exist in this category of mercy.  The second problem is even more serious: we claim to believe in a God of mercy and love who is also infinite, and yet we somehow believe that a limitless God has limits on love and mercy.  

That second problem becomes the subject of the parable that follows.  The Master forgives a debt that cannot possibly be repaid.  That mercy goes to the depth of God's mercy for each and every person.  Both the amount of times God forgives us human beings and the gravity of what God forgives each of us should give us great pause in our never ending attempts to limit and circumscribe mercy both in our own human lives and in our lame theological attempts to do so to God.  

Therein lies the point of this forgiven man who was not able to forgive a much lesser debt that another owed him.  How often do we see other people in this parable but not ourselves, even though each of us is guilty of this behavior.  We will find reasons to justify our refusal to forgive others.  We will create entire theologies and systems in order to defend our lack of mercy.  Yet, Jesus ate with sinners.  He ate with his betrayer, his denier, those who abandoned him.  He eats with us too.  We must do likewise.   

Misreading Jesus

Gospel:  Matthew 18: 15-20

Jesus gives us a set of steps to follow in dealing with people we deem are in need of correction in the church.  The first three steps are obvious enough to follow:  first, have a face to face with the person; second, bring another person along to help if the first step fails; and third, bring the person to the church community if these other steps fail.  If these fail, Jesus then says that we should treat this person as if they were a Gentile or a tax collector.  What does this mean?

In Jesus' day, the Gentile and tax collector were people utterly shunned and banished from good Jewish society.  These were the unclean with whom one could not associate.  Presumably, then, this is how we are to treat someone who will not hear correction in any of the previous three steps.  Except that Jesus did not treat Gentiles and tax collectors in this way.  He healed their sick, liberated them from the demons that afflicted them, and ate with them at table.

For those who love excommunication and shunning, we might well consider the example of Jesus in light of this passage.  Perhaps, instead of our love of shunning and expulsion, we are instead invited to encounter and deeper engagement as Jesus demonstrated in his life.  The common way of the world would make offenders pariahs and unclean.  The way of Jesus would bring us to deeper engagement and service to the offender.  Which way leads to healing, restoration, and peace?