“Happy new year!”

Proper C01 Advent – 29 November 2015

Happy new year!

Before you think I have totally lost my mind, which I am sure some of you have long suspected I already have, you should know how the Episcopal Church and other churches like it observe the church year. Just as the fiscal year begins for some at a date different from the calendar year, so the church year begins at a date distinct from the calendar year. We start our church year on the First Sunday of Advent. So, today is the new church year. Happy new year!

The readings assigned in the lectionary for today may not make much sense to us as new year’s or Advent readings at first glance. We know the First Sunday of Advent begins the season leading up toward Christmas, and we would expect to hear the stories from scripture that lead up to the birth of Christ. Instead we receive a message that sounds more like the end of the world rather than that of the birth of a savior.

The close of the previous year with the celebration of Christ the King last Sunday, and the opening of a new year with the First Sunday of Advent present overlapping themes as the previous year comes to a close and the new year begins. We have often heard that every ending is the mark of a new beginning, and it is equally true that every new beginning is the mark of an ending. These are what are sometimes called “liminal moments”, moments that mark a transition from one state into another. Within liminal moments we are in a both-and, now and not yet, state. We are on the border between two points in time. Liminal moments have great power. It is in these moments that we are able to make decisions and change the direction of our lives. Standing on the threshold between two states, we can decide to step forward into something new, hesitate on the threshold, or step backward into the old, familiar and comfortable. We are reminded in this Sunday’s readings that Advent is not just a preparation for a coming of Christ that happened over 2000 years in the birth of an infant, but also a preparation for the coming of Christ some day in the future. The Gospel today calls us to examine where we are and recognize the signs of the in-breaking of something new and become prepared to move forward into a hope-filled future. We are to “stand up and raise [our] heads, because [our] redemption is drawing near.”

The community of Thessalonica knew what is was like to dwell too long in these liminal moments. Paul and the early church believed that Christ’s return was imminent.  Jesus in the gospel today says, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place”, and Paul seems to have believed strongly in this imminent return and he shared that in his preaching in Thessalonica. The community at Thessalonica believed strongly in the imminent return of Christ, but were confused when members of their community began to die before Christ’s return. Paul, who had founded the Thessalonian community, hears of their confusion and writes this letter, which most scholars believe is the oldest book in the New Testament. While today’s selection is from Paul’s praise for the Thessalonian community, later in the the letter he will work to reassure them that even those who have “gone to sleep” in Christ will rise some day. This time period in-between may be unsettling to the Thessalonians, but Paul prays that they me be “blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our lord Jesus with all his saints”, and that those saints who accompany Jesus will include those who have died before that moment.

So how do we balance this strong belief in the scriptures in an imminent return of Christ with our lived reality of 2000 years of history since his birth, death, resurrection and promise of return? How do we, like the Thessalonian community finds it must do, reconcile our lived experience with a statement from Jesus that “this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place”?

We need to recognize we are still in that liminal moment. From the moment the Virgin Mary gave her assent to the angel Gabriel’s message and the Word became flesh something new had begun. The reign of God had come near and was breaking into our world, not as a flash as the sky was split in two, but with the cry of an infant child in a humble animal shed. From that very moment God began working on something new, and he called on a young Jewish peasant girl to take part in this new adventure.

And we, like that young peasant girl, stand on a threshold between what has been and what will be. If we open our eyes and look with care we will see the signs and hear the call to step forward over this threshold and help bring about the reign of God. Will we stand up and raise our heads, stepping across that threshold, or hesitate on the threshold, taking a step back into a past that seems all to sure, safe and secure?

That is our challenge at this point in the church year. The scriptures call us to do exactly what most of us find ourselves doing at the beginning of a new calendar year. We are called to examine where we have been and where we want to be. Will we read the signs of the times, the “signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves”? Will we “faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world”? Or will we instead “raise [our] heads, because [our] redemption is drawing near”? The kingdom of God is drawing near, day by day, being constructed around us as we stand on the threshold. Will we step forward into the bright new future promised by Jeremiah when God will “fufill the promise … made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah”, the two ruling houses of the divided Kingdom of David? Will we join in the work of the “righteous branch” that “shall execute justice and righteousness in the land”? We are not to sit passively as the reign of God is being constructed around us. Instead, we are to “stand before the Son of Man”. I see this standing not just as a standing before God as we are judged for what we have done or failed to do, but also standing before and alongside the Son of Man, prepared to march into the turmoil and work on behalf of the reign of God.

Where are we here at St. John’s? We know all too well the existence on the threshold, living in the liminal moments between two states of being. Will we hesitate here on this threshold, step backward into the safety and security of a past long gone, or will we step forward into a new and beautiful future where we work alongside the Son of Man in the building up of the reign of God here? May we pray we will benefit from the same prayer that Paul offered for the Thessalonian community: “And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, just as we abound in love for you. And may he so strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.” Amen.

I did not write out this Sunday’s sermon. I am, however, using transcription software to convert the audio into a text file. I need only edit the text file before posting, so a text version will be coming soon.

The Infant Samuel brought by Hanna to Eli by Gerbrand van den Eeckhout

I spent a lot of time thinking about the texts for this Sunday. Had I been involved with the compilation of the Revised Common Lectionary, I would have omitted a portion of this Sunday’s gospel. Yes, I will admit it: When I first read the gospel for this Sunday I was very uncomfortable with Jesus’ words about divorce and my initial response was to look for something else as a focus. However, as I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that if I were made uncomfortable by Jesus’ words on divorce, I am sure others here would be uncomfortable, too. Ignoring or passing over Jesus’ words here would be irresponsible and cowardly on my part and could allow someone to leave this space feeling marginalized, judged, condemned, or even self-righteous in his or her own marital status.

Jesus’ words on marriage and divorce seem fairly clear: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 11b-12). There is danger in taking a text out of context, so let’s look more closely at why Jesus makes this statement. The Pharisees have approached Jesus and placed before him a question in the hopes of trapping him. Their question seems very simple, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (Mark 10:2b). However, this question takes place within a larger dialogue. Jesus asks the next important question, “What did Moses command you?” (Mark 10:3b). In a typical Jewish legal dispute, Jesus refers to the law as written in the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Here the law seems fairly clear:

Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house ² and goes off to become another man’s wife. ³ Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); ⁴ her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

The law permitted the man to issue a certificate of divorce and send a wife away. There is a context, however, for this permission that was somewhat unclear and frequently debated in Jewish legal circles. What constituted “something objectionable about her”? Two main schools of thought had arisen over the interpretations of the “something objectionable.” Two Jewish rabbis, Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai, represented these schools of thought. Rabbi Hillel was the more “progressive” of the two. He maintained that the “something objectionable” could be something as simple as ruining a meal. Rabbi Shammai, Rabbi Hillel’s contemporary, took a more “conservative” view. He maintained only something of a serious moral nature, such as adultery on the part of the woman.

The Pharisees may be attempting to trap Jesus into taking one of those two positions, thereby alienating followers who may fall into the opposite camp. However, as is frequently the case, Jesus does not fall into this trap. Jesus maintains that divorce is only allowed because of “hardness of heart.” Jesus cite the Genesis creation narrative to maintain the indissolubility of marriage with no exceptions, a position perhaps closer to that of Rabbi Shammai, but with the typical moral intensification that characterizes Jesus application of the law.

Some interpreters believe there is something more at stake here than simple obedience to an abstract law and ideals of marriage. We must remember what would happen to a woman, and potential her children from the marriage, were a woman sent away by her husband. While she could return to her family of origin, the experience would still be traumatic, as all divorces are, and she would be uprooted socially, economically and emotionally. She would have no grounds to contest the divorce, nor could she have initiated a divorce had she desired to do so. She would be completely dependent on the will of her husband.

That this power of the husband over his wife is at least part of the issue here is intimated in the version of this story found in Matthew 10:2-6. Here is attributed to Jesus’ disciples the objection, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 10:6). In other words, if a man cannot divorce his wife even with the excuse of finding something “objectionable” about her, is it worth the risk to get married? Obviously if a man does not have this power over his wife, it is not worth getting married.

There may be deeper issues here than simply whether divorce should be legal or not. What may be at stake here is the just treatment of one’s partner in a relationship. The ability to arbitrarily divorce one’s partner and leave that partner with no recourse creates an uneven relationship, and one of the characteristics of the Reign of God that we see through the ministry of Jesus is reciprocity and respect. That is the core of what we commonly call the Golden Rule, “In everything do to others what you would have them do to you; for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). When a couple decides to separate, this process should be one that leads to healing and liberation for both parties, not just for one. I am a realist and I know divorces can be filled with pain and angry words, for each partner is now extremely vulnerable to the other. Many raw emotions are flowing. In a time like this the couple most needs to be in counselling to help process these emotions so they can mutually release each other from a relationship that may not be working well for either of them. Counselling, in addition to the legal advice of lawyers, may help bring some degree of healing to people who are being torn apart. Those of us who are on the peripheries of the divorce as families, friends, co-workers, and church-family, need to be supportive and sensitive during and after this time of transition, not judgemental or distance.

Relationships can be difficult, and the ending of a relationship, particularly one as intimate as a marriage, can be extraordinarily painful. In our stages of our relationships we need to treat each other with reciprocity and respect. The Golden Rule of do to other what you would have them do to you needs to be central throughout our dealings with others, whether those relationships are just beginning, going through a plateau phase of mutual comfort, or a painful decent into separation. Imagine a world where we truly lived out the Golden Rule. Maybe in that world, a divorce might not even be necessary.