Sermons from St. Thomas
Care for the Vulnerable
Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost, 4 October 2015. Job 1:1, 2:1-10; Psalm 26; Hebrews 1:1-4,
2:5-12; Mark 10:2-16.
Some Pharisees came, and to test him . . .
These seven little words tell us that this moment in history was a lot like our own. It was a
time of polarization and division. There were sharp disagreements about how to be
religious and how to deal with government. When Jesus started teaching and gathering
attention, he had a message all his own. He did not fit any existing group. So religious
leaders asked questions of him, questions designed not to learn from him as a teacher of
wisdom but to pin him down into one camp or other or catch him in controversy. You may
have heard these questions in other gospel lessons. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar? A
man dies and his widow marries his brother and it happens again six more times so in the
resurrection whose wife will she be? What is the greatest commandment? Who is my
neighbor?
Today’s question was one of those trick questions, asked this time by the Pharisees,
designed from the start to test him, not to hear what he had to say but to pin him down to
one side or the other. Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?
They knew the answer before they asked it. The law of Moses allowed divorce. It was a
mercy, actually, because women were so vulnerable in ancient times. If a man rejected his
wife she had no way to survive on her own. With a legal divorce, at least she was free from
the obligations of her first marriage and could marry again. But by the 1st Century AD,
rabbis were sharply divided about the circumstances under which divorce was allowed.
One hundred years earlier, two rabbis taught very different interpretations of the
scriptures – Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai. Followers coalesced around their teachings
and by the time of Jesus the houses of Hillel and Shammai were deeply divided. They were
like the political parties of our day. They differed on many questions, but divorce was one
of their hot button issues. Followers of Hillel said divorce was permissible in any situation,
even for something as trivial as a wife ruining a meal. Followers of Shammai said divorce
was permitted only in cases of serious immorality. Both positions gave the right of divorce
only to husbands. Women could not divorce their husbands, but men could divorce their
wives. The circumstances under which divorce was allowed immediately identified that
person as a follower of Hillel or Shammai. That was why the Pharisees asked the question.
They wanted to know where Jesus stood.
Note that Jesus took a side here. He sided with followers of Shammai. The Hillel position
left women vulnerable. A burned dinner could destroy her life. So Jesus took the Shammai
position. In Matthew’s version of this encounter Jesus said divorce was allowed only in
cases of adultery. Here in Mark’s version Jesus went a step further and said divorce under
any circumstances was the result of hardness of heart, a symptom of human failure
contrary to God’s original intention. The disciples wanted to know more, so when they
were in the house they asked him to clarify. Jesus spoke clearly. Leaving one spouse in
order to marry another did real harm to the partner left behind. To show how serious he
was, Jesus equated it with adultery. He actually equalized things between women and men
a bit in that response.
But we do great harm when we listen to what Jesus said about divorce and miss his larger
concern about protecting the vulnerable. Many years ago, one of my grandmothers chose
to get divorced. It was a courageous act for a woman in her time. When she told her pastor
the news, he quoted these verses from Mark and said that if she married again before her
former husband died she would be guilty of adultery. So she never even dated again. She
was fairly young, but she accepted that Jesus consigned her to life on her own because her
first marriage failed.
Her pastor probably had good intentions, but he misunderstood the intentions of Jesus.
Jesus was not laying eternal blame on those who try to make marriage work but cannot. He
was not consigning those who suffer the sadness of divorce to lifelong loneliness. The
larger principle for Jesus was not divorce or even who could marry who. In choosing the
Shammai position, in restricting divorce, Jesus emphasized care for the vulnerable.
Then he illustrated his point with action. He saw the disciples speaking sternly to people
bringing defenseless children to him. These were not precious preschoolers romping
around in smocked outfits. These were poor, hungry, neglected street children. Jesus took
them in his arms and blessed them. Throughout the gospels, and here in this passage, Jesus
showed concern for the vulnerable.
So let’s put the specifics of marriage and divorce aside. Let’s look closely at how Jesus
responded to a polarizing question in his time and consider the polarizing questions of our
time. We are so fractured as a society. Maybe human beings have always been like this –
today’s gospel lesson suggests that might be true. But it seems more pronounced lately.
Politicians and their followers are deeply divided. News sources are biased. We seem to
have almost no will to compromise on major issues that affect us all. If Jesus were alive
today, hard hearted people could test him with all kinds of questions. Health care, gun
control, taxes, education, the scope of government, marriage equality, abortion, religious
freedom, the death penalty. We are so divided on all of these questions and more that no
matter how Jesus responded, some would cheer and some would condemn and there
would not be much middle ground.
So note the larger principle at work when Jesus addressed a polarizing question in his time
– concern for the vulnerable. The Pharisees asked about divorce. The schools of Hillel and
Shammai wanted to know where he would land on the spectrum. He talked about
commitment and turned to welcome vulnerable children even his disciples wanted to
ignore.
When asked a polarizing question in today’s passage, Jesus sided with the Rabbi Shammai.
At other times in the gospels, however, he sounded more like Rabbi Hillel. According to an
old story, someone once asked Rabbi Shammai to recite the whole law while standing on
one foot. Rabbi Shammai sent the person away, saying that was a ridiculous question. The
person then asked Rabbi Hillel. He stood on one foot and said, “Do not do to others what
you would not have them do to you. That is all the law. The rest is commentary. Go learn it.”
Sounds a lot like the Golden Rule - “Do unto others what you would have them do unto
you.” Jesus sometimes agreed with Shammai and sometimes agreed with Hillel. He did not
tow a particular party line. Instead, he consistently preached care for the vulnerable.
So it was intriguing to hear Pope Francis speak in a similar way in his historic speech to
Congress. He did not endorse any candidates or parties. Sometimes Republicans smiled and
sometimes Democrats smiled. But overall he reminded our lawmakers You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and
demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political
society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the
growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk.
He sounded a lot like Jesus to me. Jesus was not a Republican or a Democrat. Jesus was not
a liberal or a conservative. Jesus cared about the vulnerable. In this passage, he lifted
debate about the particulars of divorce to the larger question of doing good to all people.
The main point was not who could get married or how often, but marriage as a
commitment that cared for the vulnerable. He illustrated this commitment by welcoming
the children.
Can we do the same? In the debates and divisions of our time, can we follow the example of
Jesus and lift debate to the larger good of care for the vulnerable? Can we call our leaders to
work together to care for all people, especially those in need? Can we celebrate ideas that
care for the vulnerable regardless of who proposes them? This is not a partisan idea. This is
not a liberal or conservative idea. This is a gospel idea.
But it is harder to do this when we feel vulnerable ourselves. After Thursday’s shooting in
Oregon, followers of Jesus rightly feel vulnerable. An angry, militant man killed nine people
and wounded nine more before killing himself. According to some reports he deliberately
shot those who claimed to be Christian in the head. This frightens and angers us. We can’t
begin to imagine why someone would do something like that.
In our own vulnerability let us remember the example of Jesus who taught us to love our
enemies and pray for those who persecute us. As this incident adds to debates about guns
and care for the mentally ill and respect for religious freedom the gospel question always
before us is care for the vulnerable.
A pastor at a church in Roseburg, Oregon, when asked what Christians should be doing
right now in response to the shooting, said this:
I would say what Jesus said, our job is to protect those that we love and also to love our
enemies and to pray for those who hate us and despitefully use us.
In the struggles and divisions of our time, may we love like Jesus. Amen.
+++
http://time.com/4048176/pope-francis-us-visit-congress-transcript/
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/october/targetingofchristians.html
+++
© 2015 The Rev’d Grace Burton-Edwards
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
2100 Hilton Ave.
Columbus, GA 31906
StThomasColumbus.org
706-324-4264