My First Sermon for School
As part of my clerical education all of the students help run the chapel during the week. As such we take turns performing the various roles, and it was my turn to be the Homilist in January, which is fancy church talk for the person who gives the sermon.
It's usual in the Anglican tradition to give some kind of meditation or exhortation based on the readings for that day. The sermon occurs in the liturgy service right after the third reading. Here's the text from that sermon:
Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable before You, O God, my Rock and Redeemer.
At the heart the Gospel today, of Christ's debate with the Pharisees, is the ancient concept of Hebrew divorce and its counterpart ancient Hebrew marriage. Marriage for the Hebrews, in fact most ancient peoples, is not comparable to our modern understanding of the institution. It is in fact quite a foreign and repugnant idea to most of us living in Western society.
Hebrew marriage was reflected in the law, a law created for the nomadic people of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses. A law that supported the Israelite Kingdoms of David and Solomon. A law that was administered by regents like King Herod. A law that served the power structure of the tribal patriarch. A law that favoured men.
We see in the scriptures, and through archeological and historical accounts, that men were in charge of ancient Hebrew society. They were the rulers. They made decisions of when to go to war and when to surrender. The role of women was confined to the home and the family. A woman was completely dependant on her husband economically.
Hebrew women also had no rights to own land. They were not much more than legally the property of their husbands. There are ample examples of men choosing their wives because of their beauty in scripture, but the few stories of women choosing a specific man to be their husband. Any man would do, even father-in-laws. All marriages had to be approved by the patriarch of the family. A woman's wishes did not factor highly, if at all, in her choice for husband.
Marriage was also a political tool. It was used to form alliances and consolidate power. It was necessary to produce an heir, the first-born male. The societal role marriage played for the ancient Hebrews is quite different than what it plays for us today.
To see the injustices created by this concept of marriage we need look no further than the genealogy that begins Matthew's gospel. Besides Mary, there are four women mentioned: Ruth, Tamar, Rahab and Bathsheba. Each of these women suffered under the law of ancient marriage.
In the story of Ruth we see the desperate condition that ancient Hebrew women found themselves. Without a husband, Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi, are forced to scavenge from the small patches of grain that Hebrew farmers made available to the destitute, sort of an early version of welfare. Only when Ruth marries Boaz do her fortunes change and she no longer has to beg for food. Indeed, she gives birth to Obed, the father of Jesse and the grandfather of David. Certainly married women are rewarded for following the law.
Tamar has nothing but trouble when it comes to men. First she is married and secure, but then her husband dies. (He's wicked so God puts him to death, if only God took such an active role with wicked husbands in these times!) Following the law Tamar goes to her brother-in-law Onan, but he only has sex with her, and practices coitus interuptus in order to avoid the financial obligation Tamar would create as his wife. The patriarch Judah neglects his obligation to find Tamar a husband, and so Tamar becomes a prostitute in order to force her father-in-law, into marriage, finally securing her economic well-being.
Rahab, the unspoken hero of the battle of Jericho, was a prostitute, the other choice for an unmarried woman in those times. In this role she is able to serve her family by keeping them safe from the slaughter of Jericho by the army of Joshua.
The story of Bathsheba illustrates the woman as the property of her husband. David chose her, she had no say. Bathsheba did not even meet him in person for him to want her. The brutality of ancient marriage is revealed in David's arranging the death of Bathsheba's husband, the soldier Uriah, so he can have her as his own property and wife.
Women as property, with no say as to their husband, the threat of a life of begging or prostitution as the alternative to marriage. As my daughter would say, Not very cool.
There is no mention in the scriptures of how a woman could divorce her husband, because quite simply, she couldn't. In the Gospel toady Christ gives only one reason for a man to seek divorce, if his wife has been unfaithful. No exception if your husband beats you or your children. No exception if your husband gambles or drinks the family's money away. Why? Because women couldn't ask for a divorce. Hebrew women had no power in ancient marriage and even less in ancient divorce.
There were other casualties in ancient divorce. Any children of the marriage would go with the woman. Is it by chance that the next passage in Matthew is Christ's blessing of the little children? After divorce these children were also subjected to life of poverty. Ancient divorce not only victimized women, but children as well.
Jesus is quite clear about his feelings towards ancient divorce. He's against it. This same exhortation is given in the other synoptic Gospels of Mark and Luke. But the divorce that Christ is speaking about here is ancient Hebrew divorce, not our modern understanding of the word. With ancient divorce the wife as property is rejected and left destitute, her only options to be begging or prostitution unless she can secure another husband. With ancient marriage and divorce supporting such an imbalance of power between the sexes, it is understandable that Christ, at the end of today's Gospel, asks that those who can avoid marriage altogether to do so.
Christ is speaking out against a religious and governing body that allows hard-hearted men to use the law to abandon their property and their obligations to it. We have only to look at an earlier Gospel to find another example of Christ speaking out against the use of the law in order to avoid responsibilities and indulge in selfishness.
In Mark Jesus speaks against another abuse of the law, the practice of Corban. This abuse was the use of the law to order to avoid honouring one's mother and father in their old age. Money that should go towards the care of a man's parents would be set aside as an offering to God and be exempt for use as parental support. This practice was abused in Christ's time as a way for a man to keep the money for himself. So too was the practice of divorce abused by the men in the days of Our Saviour.
Thankfully, today women are not property. Today women can choose their own spouses, if they desire marriage. Today women can work, vote, and own property. And ask for a divorce themselves. In current society divorce laws exist to facilitate the equal distribution of the property if a marriage is dissolved. So what can we see in this debate about an abusive social institution that no longer exists?
In this confrontation Jesus speaks against a religious and political system that exploits people through narrow interpretations of the law. The use of loopholes sanctioned by the ruling body allows for the victimization of people, people who have little power to begin with. Jesus defends those victims.
As Christians He calls us to stand witness to institutions and power structures that permit, and even sanction, the victimization of the powerless. As Christians we are called to challenge this kind of evil.
Let us, together, hold those who run the governing bodies of our time to a mandate of serving people, and not the powerful few that can manipulate the system. Let us support change, reform and renewal in the institutions that administer our lives, and the lives of those less fortunate. Let us continue to seek the guidance of Christ in our service of others.
posted by humble servant @ 9:49 PM
1 comments
