Hollow trees

We went to the park where we used to play back in the day when we were small; we would run ahead of the parents and hide in the hollow trees that littered the way, brown and green side by side, growing even after they had been torn apart, their bark exposed on the insides. We would snuggle into their crevices like an embrace, an abandoned nest.
They have been stripped one by one of their lives and their family ties, they have slipped away and we stand around the outsides of the family tree without a centre, with a hollow core, never having learned to lean in.
We went back, and the trees still live against the odds, against all appearances they thrive, hollow to the core but reaching for the skies, centuries in the making and strong with age and the tempering of time, a living lesson in endurance.
Do they remember us? Do they remember those we walked with before?

20130710-234442.jpg

20130710-234548.jpg

20130710-234633.jpg

Posted in other words | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Year C Proper 9: Independence, interdependence, and discipleship

Some of you had the experience three or so years ago of hosting the Bishop’s Bike Ride as it came through town. On any given evening on the trip, thirty or so saddle sore riders roll into an Episcopal church driveway looking for a shower to wash away the dust of the road and the sweat of the ride; food, lots of food, oh so much food after spending lots of energy chasing down hills whilst wasting precious breath talking, teasing and laughing as they go; and a homely bed to land in to refresh themselves before doing it all over again tomorrow. I was riding the first couple of days of this week’s ride; we set out from Perrysburg on Tuesday morning early, and rolled into the camp ground at Wakeman for the diocesan picnic at lunchtime on Thursday; that’s when I took my leave ready to come and rehearse a wedding here Friday for yesterday’s celebration, while the others cycled on to Norwalk, Findlay, and back to Perrysburg yesterday.

Of course this gospel was in the minds of those of us who preach, when we arrived at a stranger’s front door to accept whatever hospitality they might offer us. When we read the instructions given to the disciples, we might think, ok, travel light, live off the land, hope and trust in the kindness of strangers; we read words like “sandals” and we conjure up a romantic image of the Holy Land, rural and easy to navigate, with food growing by the roadside for the eating, a pleasant climate in which to walk and sleep under the stars if need be, “summertime and the living is easy.”

But the reality for these disciples was not as rosy. They were travelling in occupied territory. Think about the checkpoints and the random acts of violence, the distrust and suspicion with which different people living uncomfortably close experience in that region today; it was not so different in the disciples’ time. It was dangerous to go to the wrong town, to the wrong house, take the wrong road, and for the traveler far from home, few guides to tell which was the path to peace and which the deadly path. If it was dangerous in the towns, it was just as difficult out in the country, where bandits waylaid the unwary, and wild animals hunted the weak, lambs were stolen by wolves.

In the verses that we missed out of our gospel reading (Luke 10:11-15), Jesus pronounced a curse on those who would fail to protect his people in their journey: “I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.” The commandment to hospitality was one of the foundations of the Jewish faith, because without it, the stranger and the traveler was toast. The sin of Sodom was exactly that failure to protect and care for the stranger in need, which is why Jesus brings it up here; it is nothing if not the epitome of bad grace and failed hospitality (Genesis 19).

So the seventy or so people that Jesus sent out on the road might have had authority over snakes and scorpions and demons and diseases; but they were also at the mercy of their neighbours, those who would receive them and offer them hospitality on the road, and Jesus bids his disciples submit to these hosts, not to pick and choose, but to receive their ministrations with good grace and humble thanks, offering them words of peace and the good news of the gospel.

Maybe Jesus thought that, in the midst of their victory over the powers of darkness, the disciples would need reminding that they, too, were ever dependent upon the Lord of Light for their life, their safety, their eternal salvation. “Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

We all from time to time worry about keeping our independence, about staying in control of our own lives, our finances, our homes, our bodies. We none of us enjoy being dependent upon others; we use phrases like “being a burden,” or “not wanting to be beholden” to anyone else. The fact is that we are beholden to one another; without one another we wouldn’t have a church. Without one another, we wouldn’t have a town, a country, any kind of community. Even though we just celebrated Independence Day, we know more than ever these days how interdependent we are on one another around the world. We cannot turn our backs on those living across the sea, because they supply many of our own needs. We need one another to live and move and have our being. None of us is as independent as she thinks, and none of us would be anything at all without God. Whatever authority we own, however powerful we think we are, we are all under the authority of the living God.

Naaman wanted to control his own cure. As much as he wanted healing, he wanted it on his own terms, and he hated having to submit to the instructions of Elisha. The disciples were used to having their own way – Peter, Andrew, James, John, they were all fishermen, with their own boats and nets and employees; they were used to having authority, but they were not used to submitting to the kindness of strangers, to being dependent upon others for their livelihood and their wellbeing. But in his letter to the Galatians, Paul writes, “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ. For if those who are nothing think themselves something, they deceive themselves.”

Jesus sent out the disciples to preach peace, to bring good news, to spread the word about the kingdom of God drawing near, to cure sickness and drive out demons; but he was also training them: training them in humility, in grace, in empathy, in mercy, in kindness and hospitality. He was teaching them how to love one another by receiving as well as giving that kindness. He was teaching them the authority of the cross, that power that is so gentle that it would die for us.

One of my colleagues on the bike ride likes to see how it illustrates our being the church: we feed the riders, offer hospitality; we help one another out on the road; we come together to journey forward, to pray, to share; the support drivers offer good cheer and occasional rescues; everyone is welcome to go at their own pace, and as far as they can; there is no unfriendly competition, and plenty of mutual encouragement. There is also that element of submission to one another, the stepping over the threshold of a host’s home, receiving the kindness of strangers with complete vulnerability, with nothing to offer in return but gratitude. It is, in the end, the way of the cross, a journey which demonstrates the power of life over death and disciples over demons, God’s healing over the decrepitude and decay of the world, but one which does so with humility, vulnerability, with sacrifice. We walk the way of the cross with the remembrance that none of us travels alone, each of us is dependent upon God for our authority, our power, our independence.

We, like the disciples, have the words of life to share with the world; and it is our service to the world, not our dominion over it; our sharing of our lives, ourselves, our interdependence, our faith, that brings those words to life. Amen.

 

Posted in sermon | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Year C Proper 8: Don’t look back

There are some hard words from Jesus in this passage:

“Let the dead bury their own dead.”
“No one who puts a hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”
“The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

What’s harder is that these sentences are told to people who are keen and eager and declare themselves ready to follow Jesus wherever he goes. But Jesus has set his face towards Jerusalem, and he knows, or at least suspects, what will be demanded of him, and of those around him. He needs these would-be disciples to be sure, before they leave everything behind them, that they are truly willing to endure whatever may befall along the way.

These are not words of condemnation. In fact, many will look back, even those whose hands have been at the plough since the beginning. Remember Simon Peter, who was among the first called, who has been with Jesus throughout his ministry and mission, who will deny even knowing Jesus when the time of trial comes, yet Jesus continues to love him and to greet him after his death and resurrection with a kiss of peace, with words of commissioning. These are not words that condemn our doubts or our fallings and failings, but which demand that we understand the gravity of the commitment that we are making when we say that we are followers of Jesus.

I know that I am not the only preacher this morning who looked at this admonition: No one who puts a hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God – and thought of Nelson Mandela, as the world essentially waits at his bedside and prays. He put a hand to the plough a long time ago, hoping and praying and, yes, fighting for freedom. Because he refused to accept that the kingdom of God, the rule on earth was one that could discriminate against him and his family and his friends for the colour of their skin, which could segregate and separate them from their true place in society, which could demean their dignity and undermine their humanity; because he put his hand to that plough, he endured trials and tribulations that would have broken most of us; his eyesight was permanently damaged by forced labour in the blinding sun.

He spent twenty-seven years in prison, eighteen of them on RobbenIsland in forced labour.[1] Yet when he emerged from prison, he did not look back. His hand still at the plough, he did not look back, and looking forward he helped to lead his country into a new age, not without its problems, not yet the totally new creation of the kingdom of God, but leaps and bounds along the way from where it was.

With his hand at the plough, he did not look back in anger. After twenty-seven years of imprisonment and ill-treatment, he did not look for revenge; instead his government commissioned Archbishop Desmond Tutu to chair the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a remarkable endeavour to heal the people, to salve the wounds of division and oppression, by means of honesty and understanding, confession and candour, and the opportunity for forgiveness.[2]

James and John wanted Jesus to call down fire from heaven to destroy those who had dissed them, but Jesus rebuked them. What must it have cost Mandela personally, to make those choices not to look back, neither to give up nor to go back and rewrite the fight as one that he had won by force?

In his book, God Has a Dream, Desmond Tutu makes the observation that, “Our world is better because of the life and witness of a Mahatma Gandhi, of a Mother Teresa, of an Oscar Romero, of a Nelson Mandela.” He is too modest to add his own name to the list, although many of us would. He goes on,

“They are notable examples of the altruistic spirit that does things, good things, heroic things, for the sake of others, for the sake of the world, for the sake of posterity. Some may way that, by their example, they show us what the rest of us lack. But behind every Gandhi, every Mother Teresa, every Romero, every Mandela, there are millions of people who are living lives of love and heroism.”[3]

Jesus did not use hard words with his would-be followers to show them up, to tell them what they were lacking. He used them to challenge, warn, to remind them that in following him they were making a commitment, to proclaiming and promoting the kingdom of God; and that has always met with resistance. Proclaiming God’s love and forgiveness to all people has always been met with challenge.

We know for ourselves that our commitments work best when we don’t look back at what might have been, but deal with the world as it is, learning from our missteps, but not trying vainly to retrace them; taking it one day at a time; whether in our commitment to our marriages or our primary relationships; to our children; or to the spread of justice and equality, equal dignity; just treatment.. We’ve heard a lot from the courts and from the state this week about racial justice, marriage equality, equal access to education and the benefits of living in America.

Our neighbours, Dean Tracey Lind and Canon Will Mebane, released a joint statement through the Cathedral website this week, reflecting on the news out of the Supreme Court. Describing themselves as “a white lesbian from the north and a heterosexual black man from the South,” both products of the sixties, they said, in part:

We are elated by the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. We look forward to the resumption of same-sex marriage in California and are committed to working for marriage equality in Ohio. At the same time, we are disappointed with the court’s decision regarding The Voting Rights Act. The court’s ruling on affirmative action leaves us and others confused. We would have preferred a more definitive and clear determination in support of correcting decades of discrimination against minorities. These decisions remind us that it is incumbent that we remain vigilant in working to promote God’s kingdom on earth.  (http://trinitycleveland.org/blog/2013/featured-news/joint-statement-on-supreme-court-rulings/)

Remain vigilant; be steadfast; don’t look back.

When we make a commitment, personal or societal – and they are all spiritual, if we make them in the light of God, with the prompting of prayer – when we make a commitment, we know that we are called to walk forward with it, to stay with it, to steer it straight and true, not looking back, neither giving up nor looking for revenge, but moving forward from where we are, celebrating the successes, learning from the setbacks.

And there will be setbacks. Jesus knows there will be setbacks. He even told Peter exactly how many times he would deny him, and when. But Jesus has been there before us, and he will walk with us, as long as we hold the plough steady, and aim for the kingdom of God.

Jesus set his face towards Jerusalem. With no place to lay his head, no tender mercies to attend him, he put his hand to the plough and he did not turn back. Even in the garden, when he prayed with blood and tears, he did not turn back. Knowing what it would take to bring the kingdom of God, to save us from our trials, to bring us into the light, he faced the darkness and he did not look back. Even as he stepped forward into the land of the dead, he did not look back, but he kept right on going through it and into the light, into the light of eternal life, the resurrection and the glorious ascension, that we may come at last with him to that place where he has gone before, fit for the kingdom of God.


[1] Desmond Tutu, with Douglas Abrams, God Has a Dream: A Vision of Hope for Our Time (Doubleday, 2004), 72-73

[2] Ibid, 10

[3] Ibid, 115

Posted in sermon | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Year C Proper 7: Angels and demons

In some ways, the man healed of demons in the Gerasene region of Galilee is the first preacher of the Christian gospel. He gets it – he really does! Even after years of torment at the mercy of a legion of demons, he recognizes for himself right away what it took others years to find out, what some never realized.

 Jesus sent him on his way, saying, “Return to your home and declare how much God has done for you.” So he went away, proclaiming throughout the city how much Jesus had done for him.

This man recognized that in Jesus’ actions, he was seeing the work of God. He proclaimed how much God had done for him by sending him Jesus, by living through Jesus and coming to him in human form, yet such a form that had power even over his demons.

The people of the city had cast him out and tied him up and left him to the devices and dementia of his demons. They had put him out of sight, him and his demons, out of sight and out of mind. Perhaps, he was a scapegoat for them. Perhaps that it how he ended up with so many demons, a legion of them, because he was carrying the burden for the whole city, while it went on its merry way without thinking about him, except when he got free, except when they were afraid he might come back, replete with all of their own demons.

The term, “scapegoat,” referred originally to a literal goat, on whom was heaped symbolically all of the sins of the people, and which was driven out, so that the people could be rid of their guilt and cleansed of their lingering sin.

This man had become the scapegoat for the city, carrying their demons so that they did not have to confront them for themselves.

I don’t know what you think about demons. Maybe you read them as real manifestations of evil, shadowy but personal, like the characters in C.S. Lewis’ jokey but ultimately chilling, The Screwtape Letters. Perhaps you see them as a metaphor for the temptations and mini madnesses that plague us, or maybe you consider them to be the myths and folklore of an outmoded world view; we know better now. I don’t know what you think about demons, but whatever we think that they are, Jesus knew them when he saw them. He saw the havoc they could wreak on a suffering soul, and he had such compassion for his people, his love drove out their evil.

Of course, now that the man was restored, there was work for the community to do. How would they reconcile themselves to a life in which he was no longer the dumping ground for their own demons? How would they overcome their fear of him, which had grown over the years with the stories and the children’s cautionary tales that they no doubt told; how would they sit down with him at dinner? How would they listen, how would they hear from him the good news of what God in Jesus Christ had done for him? Was it good news for them, too?

It is a shame that the people of the city didn’t see it for themselves, at least at that moment. It’s understandable, perhaps, that they were unable to look beyond the loss of income that the pigs represented, the loss of the status quo that the healing of their neighbour meant, the loss of their own security, based as it was on keeping their scapegoat beyond the walls of their own lives. But what might they have gained, if they had been able to summon up the courage to ask Jesus to stay?

We see this played out over and over in our own communities, our own families. Even when we complain constantly about someone’s behaviour, at heart we don’t want them to change, because that would mean engaging with them wholeheartedly, without the excuse to keep them at a distance. We say that we welcome back the prodigal with open arms, but really we are just waiting for them to run off again. We say things like, “Better the devil you know,” to avoid confronting the devils we know only too well and demanding hard change. We project so much of our own guilt and our own rejection and our own insecurity onto others, so that we don’t have to deal with them ourselves. We each have our own personal, family, community scapegoats.

And then Jesus comes along and turns everything upside down.

This story demands of us hard questions, honest answers. Whom do we scapegoat? Who would we rather keep at arm’s length, in case they convict us of our own guilt, in case we see our own demons reflected in their eyes? Where do we draw the line at accepting God’s transformation in our lives? When do we ask God to leave us alone, because we, the people of the city, are seized with great fear?

The man who was healed had no fear left in him, because he had already suffered a version of hell on earth, tormented and tortured by demons, driven beside himself, abandoned and despised. Yet love had driven out his fear along with the demons: the compassion of Jesus had healed him from his misery, and he knew, he knew that such power, such mercy, such love came from God. He knew it better than anyone, because anyone who has fought with demons has seen God’s angels fighting alongside them, wielding that compassion and mercy like a sword.

I still don’t know what you think about demons, but Jesus knew them, and they knew him.

And so, out of the compassionate actions of Jesus, a new Christian was born; an unlikely convert, but one who saw that in the life of Jesus, the eternal life of God was offered; that in the mercy Jesus showed, God’s steadfast faithfulness shone.

Jesus said, “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” So he went away, proclaiming throughout the city how much Jesus had done for him.

I wonder if he heard, in later years, about the trumped-up trial in Jerusalem, about the cruel crucifixion and the rumoured resurrection, that quiet revolution that overcame the power of evil and death. I wonder if that was the moment at which he turned to his neighbours, the people of the city, and said,

“That, there. That is how much God has done for us.”

Posted in sermon | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Sequinned Stole Project

This gallery contains 7 photos.

Yes, you read that right. So go ahead, roll your eyes, express your shock, outrage and liturgical disdain, and then tell me you don’t want one. Really. One of my lectionary group is getting ordained to the priesthood on Sunday. … Continue reading

More Galleries | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Year C Proper 6: the sinful woman and Mary of Magdala

The question came up during our Tuesday bible study week whether the sinner who anoints Jesus’ feet in the Gospel according to Luke is, in fact, Mary Magdalene, mentioned further down the page. There is a long tradition in the West of saying so, but I promised to explain this morning why I don’t think that this is the same woman. In fact, I think that we do these women something of an injustice when we try to mush them all together to fit one story. What’s more, it is my guess that Jesus had no difficulty telling them apart.

There is a story in each of the four gospels about a woman anointing Jesus with precious perfume. In the Gospel of Luke, which we just heard, Jesus is just getting into the swing of his Galilean ministry, travelling the country and cities around Capernaum, preaching, teaching and performing miracles. This story is about a woman who recognizes him as one who delivers those imprisoned by sin, and restores them to health and salvation, and she weeps with gratitude and wipes his feet with her hair. The response that Jesus gives is to defend her prophetic act of love, which he says is provoked by her own recognition of her sin and its forgiveness. He speaks directly to the woman in words he usually uses to the healed: your faith has saved you; your faith has made you well; and those around him are shocked.

There are obvious parallels with the other gospel stories, but there are also differences. The other three anointing stories are all told as Jesus is journeying towards Jerusalem and his death. All three set the scene not in Galilee but in Bethany, just a little way outside of the holy city. While the house belongs to Simon, he is now called “the leper”. In all three, the woman is criticized by the disciples not for being a sinner, but for wasting money. Again, Jesus defends her act as a prophetic gesture, this time one which prepares him for the trials to come. In two of the other three stories, the woman anoints Jesus’ head. Only in the Gospel of John is the woman identified by name, Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and she anoints Jesus’ feet, like the sinner of Luke’s Gospel, and wipes them with her hair.

Fun fact from one of my teachers: of the sixteen women named in the New Testament, seven are called Mary(see https://rosalindhughes.com/2017/04/16/resurrection/ for a factcheck of this erroneous and deleted statement); so one Mary does not have to be the same woman as the next Mary, if you follow me.

There are very few other reasons why Mary Magdalene became associated with the sinner woman from Luke. The woman cries, and her tears fall on Jesus’ feet. Mary Magdalene is weeping when she goes to the tomb of Jesus, carrying oils and spices, and is among the first to witness the resurrection. Perfumed oils, tears, and the name Mary seem to have been sufficient to tie Mary Magdalene firmly to the notorious woman of the city unnamed by Luke.

By the sixth century, Pope Gregory, later to be known as the Great, seemed quite certain in his identification of the woman in today’s Gospel story:

“She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices? …It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner.”[1]

And so the die was cast, at least in the West, and Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons were cast out, was branded an albeit penitent prostitute.

Why does it matter? you might ask. If seven out of every 16 women one in every four or five women was called Mary anyway, why does it matter whether this one was called Mary, and whether she came from Magdala in Galilee or from Bethany in Judea, and since we are all sinners, and her sins were forgiven her, why should it matter what went before?

Well, here’s the thing. Mary of Magdala, whom we know as Mary Magdalene, is one of few women in scripture identified by her place of living rather than by her husband or father; she is a rare example of an established, independent, and apparently respected female figure. She was a constant companion, supporter, and follower of Jesus. She was, according to most accounts, the first to witness his resurrection. She was given the charge by Jesus to proclaim that holy and high event to the other apostles, including the men. She could have been used to represent the equality of women in the eyes of God, the dignity of women in the economy of the church, but instead, she was diluted and insulted by the church for centuries of its history.

Consider this: nowhere else, no one else who suffers from demons and is cured by Jesus is identified therefore as a notorious sinner. No one else’s demons are equated with their sins. But Gregory decides on a whim that the seven demons cast out of Mary are the seven vices, and suddenly she is a whore. There is no reason to accuse Luke’s sinful woman of specific crimes or lifestyle violations. Yet by mixing her up with the Magdalene, and adding in a little bit of imaginative interpretation of the demons Mary fought, we end up with a picture of Mary not as a faithful disciple and supporter of Jesus, the strong one who would carry forth his mission, but as a fallen woman, sidelined by her sin, by her sex and by her tears.

There is a problem that occurs when we conflate people, and groups of people, and we define them by the pigeonholes we can put them in, and we cease to see individuals as beloved children of God, each one uniquely made in the divine image, and we fall far short of loving them.

I am sorry to say that this has happened to women for many centuries, and the problems of inequality, not to mention of sex-trafficking, of exploitation and oppression are unfortunately real and alive in our communities. It happens also to anyone that we lump into a category instead of affording them the dignity of individuals: think about racial minorities, or those we choose to identify as such; people whose marriages or families fail to reflect our adopted ‘norms’; people with disabilities, people with criminal records, people with physical or mental illness; when we talk about the homeless guy, instead of seeing a man who doesn’t have a place to sleep tonight, or we talk about the druggie, instead of seeing someone’s child who is struggling to put the monsters back in the closet.

Any time we put a label ahead of the person wearing it, we are doing the same thing that Gregory did to Mary Magdalene and the women he made her absorb; making the oppressed responsible for their misfortune, we fail to do justice; making the victim responsible for her helplessness, we fail to administer mercy.

Rowan Williams calls it, “’Using other people to think with’; … When you get used to imposing meanings in this way, you silence the stranger’s account of who they are; and that can mean both metaphorical and literal death…living realities are turned into symbols, and the symbolic values are used to imprison the reality. At its extreme pitch, people simply relate to the symbols. It is too hard to look past them, to look into the complex humanity of a real other.”[2]

We would do so much better to listen to the stories of individuals than to lump them together as fallen, sinful or willful people. After all, one of them might just be a witness to the resurrection.

It is my guess that Jesus had no problem telling Mary of Magdala apart from Mary of Bethany, the woman at the house of Simon the Pharisee from the woman at the house of Simon the Leper. He seemed to have a knack for affording each person his or her own deserved and God-given dignity. He knows each of us by name, he justifies us and defends us, and he forgives us our sins.

And as his named disciples, we would do well to follow his example.

 


1] Pope Gregory’s Homily 33, delivered c. 591, quoted by Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalene: The Essential History (Pimlico, 2005) 96

[2] Rowan Williams, Writing in the Dust, after September 11 (William B. Eerdman, 2002) 64-65

Also read:

Ann Graham Brock, Mary Magdalene, The First Apostle: The Struggle for Authority (Harvard, 2003)

Mary R. Thompson, Mary of Magdala: What The Da Vinci Code Misses (Paulist Press, 1995)

Posted in sermon | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Forgive and forget (2)

Last week, I wrote about forgiving and forgetting offences done unto us. This week is all about those who forget what they have done. Does the fact that they do not remember that they have hurt us make it easier or harder to achieve a forgiving state with regard to them?

Several years ago, a friend introduced me to an episode of Babylon 5 by way of a theological reflection. The episode is entitled, “Passing Through Gethsemane,”* and it centres around a judicial practice called “the death of personality.” The person thus sentenced undergoes a “mind wipe,” which removes all of their memories and, in the design of the writers, thus destroys the personality that did foul deeds. The person is then “reprogrammed” with a fervent desire to serve society, and sent off to a life of fulfilling community service, with no memory of their crime or punishment. Some see it as a utopian solution; others as a cop-out. At the end, as the question of direct interaction with those hurt by the crime is revisited, despite a closing handshake, the quandary remains: is this forgiveness, or does the fact that it has become impossible to relate to the person as the one who committed the crimes make it impossible to forgive? Is resignation to the inaccessibility of the past closer or further from forgiveness than repeated and frequently faltering efforts to deal with it gracefully?

This is not a hypothetical question, nor is it restricted to science fiction. Various dementias, brain traumas and diseases can lead not only to a forgetfulness of past misdeeds, but in fact the construction of a whole new set of memories that directly contradict everyone else’s. A tyrannical father remembers himself as the gentlest of men; an abusive lover remembers only acts of love; a sharp-tongued sister remembers only laughter at her cruel jokes, never the tears, and assumes that she was, in fact, sweet and funny. A confrontation with the reality that belongs to everyone else is impossible: the brain will not accommodate another set of memories alongside the new ones. The person who did the deed has undergone “the death of personality,” and is inaccessible to the one trying to forgive.

Replacing the hurt with pity for the person’s new state is not forgiveness. Neither is pretending to forget along with them. If forgiving is, as someone has described it, the gradual release of resentments, of those grains of unpleasantness wished upon another, those little atoms of hatred, letting them go one by one, or piece by piece, or drop by teardrop – that is work that can be done without the collusion of the one being forgiven, as in the case of the dead.

The presence of the person who does not remember in this case presents an obstacle, because the cause keeps being represented, without the means to address it head-on. I think that forgetfulness makes it harder work to get past the point of fist-clenching anger and pain, and ease towards the release of those grains of resentment; but it is not an insurmountable obstacle.

Jesus said, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-3)

We know very well when we have been hurt, and we know when another’s recollection of reality does not match our own. Their efforts to paint themselves with a rosier hue are frustrating and hurtful in themselves – but they may reflect a very real impulse to be a better person than past actions would suggest, to live a better life, with kinder relationships, than our memories allow; they may even represent a kind of repentance. And there is always the question of what we ourselves have forgotten.

I met a woman once on vacation who remembered me. I didn’t remember her. We ran through everywhere we had lived and gone to school, where we might have overlapped, then she had it – a youth orchestra and choir combined event at a further education college in Cardiff. We had been for a weeklong residential course together.

I didn’t remember the woman. I still don’t remember anything about the course, except that she was right, I was there. I remember that college. I have carried a snapshot memory of its entrance, being dropped off in its circular driveway, since my teen years, and I had occasionally puzzled where it came from, and why I remembered it, because I did not know why I would have been there. As soon as she told me, I knew she was right. But I still don’t know why I don’t remember that week. I don’t know whether it has merged with other memories and lost its edges, blurred and blended in, or whether I have blocked it out, because something about it hurts me or threatens me or my self-image. It does appear lost to me. What sins did I commit that week that I have no memory of doing?

Of course, God knows all and forgives us everything, whether we remember or not, but I use that evidence of the fragility of my own memory as an aid to forgiving others who have forgotten, never knowing where I might need forgiveness all unknowing. “For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” It may turn out to be a good investment for me to be generous with my own efforts to forgive what I cannot forget.

 

* Babylon 5, Season 3, “Passing Through Gethsemane,” released 1995, by Babylonian Productions, Inc.

Posted in story | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Year C Proper 5: if I make my bed in the grave

The fact that the stories we hear today, which echo one another so clearly that these two women might have been related, one the great-great grandmother of the other, a sister several times removed; the fact that these stories revolve around widowed women is not coincidental. Indeed, we read the Bible and we hear so often about the plight of widows and orphans, the motherless and the fatherless and those who live alone, and we think about the situations of poverty, of precarious social standing, of vulnerability that these labels imply, but I was reminded this week in my reading that in fact, whenever we read about widows in the Bible, we should prick up our ears and pay attention, because so often, these women are indicators not of helplessness and poverty but signs that God is about to do something a little special, a little out of the ordinary.[1] God seems to have a particular relationship with these widowed women, a nudging, secret language with them that lets them know that God is with them, that they are the signs of God’s love for us all. We should be a little bit careful about writing them off as helpless and powerless, because they tend to be the vehicles for amazing grace.

Think of Judith, the widow of Manasseh, a profound prophetess who used both her feminine wiles and weapons of war to rescue God’s people from oppression. (The book of Judith is found in the Apocrypha, or the Intertestamental readings, those chapters which are sandwiched in between the Old and the New Testaments; it makes for some kind of racy reading). Think of Naomi and Ruth, widows both, who became matriarchs in the Davidic line, the royal family whose heritage Jesus shared. Jesus told the story of a dishonourable judge who had no fear of God or man, but a widow woman was the only one who could wrangle justice out of him. Or think of Anna, a bride for seven, then a widow the rest of her eighty-four years, who broke into song and prophetic speech in the Temple of Jerusalem when she first saw the infant Jesus, when she was among the first to greet him, the first to recognize him (Luke 2:36-38).

These are not weak characters. They are no shrinking violets; and while biblical widows may indeed be particularly vulnerable to the economic tides of society, and to the dangers of isolation and exclusion, they are by that very token the conscience of the people, the barometer of the fairness and faithfulness of the community – both in the Old and the New Testaments the people of God are instructed especially to care for the widowed and the orphaned, and for the alien in the land: those at risk of poverty, of loneliness, of exclusion and isolation, of poor health outcomes and lower educational opportunities. We would do well to take note, especially when we consider the impact on the economically vulnerable or the alien in this land of our own society’s policies. Such people are firmly fixed and secure in their standing within God’s loving and abundant care, and their standing in our society is a barometer of our own faithfulness.

Of course, none of that special grace and favour makes it any easier, day by day, to live with the grief and hardship that go with widowhood, either then or now. If God could save the widow from starvation, save her son from death itself, at least for the time being, because there will come a time when he will die, there will come a time when she will pass on from this life to the next – but if God could save them once, she might argue, then why is she a widow at all? What was the need to leave her lonely? Why not another miracle, and another, and one more, so that life becomes easy and a never ending joy, in this life, now?

Anger, fear, doubt and distrust: all are pretty reasonable responses to the realities of life and death.

Funnily enough, Jesus had already talked about this story of Elijah, the one in which he lived with the widow when God saved her and her son from death by drought, and brought her son back from the brink of death, or perhaps even beyond.

Jesus, when they were surprised at him in his hometown, referred to the prophets and said that of all the widows in Israel when that drought fell upon them, the only one Elijah was sent to was the widow at Zarephath, the one whose son was saved (Luke 4). It is almost as though he had her on his mind, that story haunting him, long before he saw the widow in Nain weeping for her own dear, dead son.

The widow in Zarephath, has her life restored twice, first when she is facing death from starvation, and then when she is near to being destroyed by the loss of her son. She responds first with doubt, even after days of the feeding miracle, the grain and the oil that refuse to run out, she accuses Elijah – “What have you against me, man of God, to bring my sin to remembrance and cause the death of my son?” But when God’s abundance overflows even into the breath of her son, she responds with faith, “Now I know that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.”

It made them angry, when Jesus talked about it in Nazareth. They formed a mob to throw him off the cliff, but he slipped away, lived to talk and heal another day.

The people who witness the miracle during the funeral procession outside the city of Nain are also gripped first by fear, but instead of becoming angry, they celebrate God’s mercy in their midst.

Anger, fear, doubt, gratitude and celebration: they are fairly basic and reasonable responses to the basic realities of life and death, scarcity and drought, relief, illness, bereavement and restoration.

Psalm 146, the one that we prayed together this morning, reminds us to praise God at all times, praise God no matter what befalls and no matter how we are feeling, because God loves us whether we are strangers or orphans or widows, because God looks for opportunities to release those who are imprisoned and oppressed, who are hungry and thirsty, who need a little extra help. When the widowed women and men who are widowers, when any of us is mourning the loss of a partner or a parent or a child, we are assured of God’s grace, of God’s compassion for us; and when we see those vulnerable to loss and hardship, we are called by God’s commandments to compassion for them.

Another psalm, Psalm 139, speaks directly to those sons of widows whose lives hung in the balance between life and death, who fell down on the side of the grave and were pulled back by the grace of God.

“Where shall I go from your Spirit?” asks the Psalm, “Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in the Underworld, you are there also.” (Ps 139:7-8)

Sometimes the stories that we hear, that we read in the name of the Word of God, leave us with more questions than answers. What really was going on with these two women, and their sons? Why does one woman have her son restored to her, when you just know that there were other funerals taking place that day, which Jesus did not encounter and derange? What tales did the two boys tell their mothers about their time apart?

At the heart of these two stories, the stories of these two women and their sons, is assurance; is the assurance that nowhere are we beyond the reach of the living and loving God made manifest in Jesus Christ; not in the land of the living nor even beyond the grave. At the heart of these stories is the assurance that no one is beyond the reach of God, no one; and there is no such time as too late in the eternity of God’s saving grace and love.

These two women had suffered more than one loss in their lives, and they were weary with grief and sorrow, but God looked upon them and had more than enough compassion for them both. Not only the grain and the oil, but God’s love and compassion never gave out, never ran dry.

God’s mercy, as yet another psalm says, God’s mercy endures forever.


[1] “It seems that Jesus has a special fondness for widows, perhaps because his mother was one for most of her life. When he does something remarkable or finds something remarkable in the community, it is often connected to a widow.” Megan McKenna, Not Counting Women and Children: Neglected Stories from the Bible (Orbis Books, 1994), 147

Posted in sermon | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Biblical widows and Granny Lyle

Granny Lyle was widowed in 1957. For as long as I knew her, she lived alone in a house not her own; she had never lived in her own home, going from her parents into service with the local doctor at the age of fourteen. After she married, she and he moved into the council house, government-owned, where she lived and died, where I knew her.
When she died, she left nothing but a few sticks of furniture, which her son and daughter burned in a bonfire in the back yard, and just enough in her savings book to cover her cremation and to give her grandchildren a parting present of fifty pounds each. Her little dog went to live at a neighbour’s house.
She didn’t have a telephone. If we needed to get hold of her in a hurry, we called her friend across the street, and she would put on her housecoat and go and fetch Granny Lyle and bring her back so that we could call again in ten minutes.
I thought of Granny Lyle this week, walking along the beach in hot sand and cold water so nice that I walked halfway back barefoot in sisterhood with her, who, much to my mother’s shame, never wore a shoe where a foot would do. We walked that way in heather on the moors, and on the pier, where she ducked in to play bingo while we ate our ice creams.
She was not what you might call a domesticated widow. She was tiny and strong as a coiled spring, and her breath came in gasps towards the end, and she drank a bottle of Guinness every day and her bird seed fell into the gaps in the window sill and grew accidental hemp.
The dishonourable judge, who feared neither God nor man but got heartily sick of the nagging widow woman, would have crossed the street and poked his head into the public bar to avoid Granny Lyle, and hidden his face in a foamy pint of northern bitter and never come back out till closing time.
I thought that she was a saint. My mother thought she was a holy terror.

Posted in lectionary reflection, sermon preparation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Raising the dead

They say that Elijah raised a fatherless child,
stretched out corpselike over his body,
breathing for him, with him, breathing
until his new life began.
His mother, from then on, developed
a habit of peering over his shoulder
into the shadows,
fearful of what might be demanded in return.

I could not breathe for you,
or lay out your barely-formed body.
You fell away from me, and no prophet,
nor medicine man could pull you back.
I could only sing bitter-sweet praises to
the God of the living and the dead,
Who raised you as Her own
and loved you where I never saw you go.

Posted in lectionary reflection, poetry, sermon preparation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment