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.

This week’s lesson from James can be a little discomforting. James pulls no punches when he addresses his readers: “Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4). Our initial read may assume that James is directly addressing someone guilty of adultery, but closer examination reveals that he is using adultery as a metaphor here for those that have a “friendship with the world”. Now before you think I am going to go off a tirade about how evil the world is and how we as Christians must flee from any interaction with the sinful, corrupt world, I want to put your mind at ease. I don’t think James is engaging in some kind of world-denying spirituality that would see the material world as inherently evil. Such a spirituality does not fit with the general direction of the biblical tradition nor with the sacramental spirituality of the church that says creation comes from God and is a means by which God may be known. Additionally, we can’t avoid contact with the world. The gospel of John has Jesus speaking to this relationship to the “world” when he says, “I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:15-18). So, what does James mean by “friendship with the world”?

James seems more concerned here with values. James is addressing those who have allowed “bitter envy and selfish ambition” to rule. Those who pursue “friendship with the world” are more concerned with building themselves up in the eyes of others. When envy and ambition rule, all sorts of disordered behaviors spring from them: murder, disputes, and conflicts. James wants instead to encourage a “wisdom from above” in contrast to this “friendship with the world.” This wisdom has much different manifestations. Instead of disorder and wickedness, the wisdom from above produces purity, peace, gentleness, a willingness to yield, mercy, and the absence of partiality and hypocrisy.

A classic story that illustrates this difference between a “friendship with the world” and the “wisdom from above” is that of Cinderella. Many of us know the story of Cinderella both from childhood stories and the Disney production. Cinderella is a young girl whose mother has died and her father has remarried to a wicked step-mother who comes into Cinderella’s life bringing cruel step-sisters into the family. Cinderella is mistreated by her new step-family, a family which has an over-inflated sense of their importance. When the prince of the kingdom throws a ball and invites his subjects, the step-mother and step-sisters cannot imagine Cinderella being on the same level as they and manipulate the situation so that Cinderella is left at home while they proceed to their “rightful” places at the ball. They hope that the prince, upon seeing the obviously worthy step-sisters, will select one of these step-sisters as his wife and future queen, raising the family even higher in prominence to the place where they rightly belong. Cinderella is not even worthy of consideration.

To the rescue comes the fairy-godmother who pours out special favors on Cinderella to reveal her beauty and worthiness and to enable her to attend the ball. It is the humble Cinderella, now revealed in all her glory, who catches the eye of the prince. We know that the story does not end there, for Cinderella flees, leaving behind a precious slipper that the prince will now seek to use for the identification of his beloved.

When the prince comes looking for the owner of the slipper the step-sisters go to great lengths to prove their self-perceived worthiness, even to the point of engaging in self-mutilation to try to force their feet into the ill-fitting slipper. Their attempts at deception are uncovered and they are rejected by the prince. It is only when the prince discovers that it is the humble Cinderella whose foot fits the slipper perfectly that we arrive at the resolution of the story that can be labeled “happily ever after.”

The step-sisters are the antithesis of what C. S. Lewis may have meant when in Mere Christianity he defines true humility in the following way: “True humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less.” The step-sisters are models of envy and ambition, what James means by “friendship with the world”. This envy and ambitions drives the step-sisters to disputes among themselves and to their oppression of Cinderella. They have an inflated sense of their role in the world and are unable, or unwilling, to concede the value and nobility of anyone else. Cinderella’s humility, on the other hand, leaves her open to the gifts, may I dare say the graces, that prepare her for the ball and her eventual elevation as princess. It is Cinderella’s humility that is the key to her greatness. In some version of the story, Cinderella forgives her step-sisters and even arranges marriages for them to courtiers, thus revealing herself as “peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good gifts”, a model of “wisdom from above.”

A similar story of ambition leading to conflicts and disputes is found in our gospel selection today. Jesus’ apostles are debating among themselves about who was the greatest. Jesus’ response to this conflict is fairly familiar, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all” (Mark 9:35b). Selfish ambition seeks only to lift oneself above others and the ambitious person does not care who she or he must step on in order to reach the top. Christian humility seeks to build others up as the servant of all.

So during this next week let’s flee from a “friendship with the world,” not in a way that denies the goodness of creation or God’s self-revelation through the created world. Instead let us flee from the ambitious desire to be seen as great in the eyes of others. In place of earthly, unspiritual, and devilish desires let’s embrace a wisdom from above that is “pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without trace of partiality or hypocrisy.” Let’s seek out ways to build each other up through mutual servant-hood, being humble, not in some self-deprecating way, but in a way that thinks of ourselves less often so that we may think of others more. It is in this humility that we will find ourselves open to the grace that God yearns to pour out on the humble.

Even to this day my mother calls my father and me to the kitchen table for dinner with “Get your ten little people washed. Dinner’s on the table.” It would almost seem that Jesus and the pharisees are having a disagreement about hygienic hand washing before meals, something that we would tend to accept as an obvious health measure. The debate, however, is over observance of certain ritual behaviors that have their root in the interpretation of the laws of the Torah rather than in the observance of a specific law or health practice.

The Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, what we call the “Old Testament” contain a number of laws governing various aspects of human life. Tradition says there are 613 laws in the Torah, and a portion of this law found in the book of Leviticus chapter fifteen detail laws concerning ritual washing after coming into contact with certain bodily fluids. From this section of laws, the Pharisees of Jesus’ time established rules for ritual washing in other contexts, and one of these was a ritual washing of the hands before and after the of consuming bread. Pure water was to be poured over the hands three times while reciting a prayer of blessing, “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us concerning the elevation of hands.” That any clean, dry substance, such as sand, could be used for this ritual washing provides evidence that this is something other than a hygiene issue and had more to do with ritual uncleanliness.

That this is a debate about the interpretation and application of the Jewish law is further illustrated by the parallel issue that Jesus raises about the honoring of one’s father and mother. We are all familiar with the commandment, what we commonly call the Fourth Commandment, that says, “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.” The pharisees, however, allowed a person to identify a portion of his possessions as dedicated to God while still maintaining use of them, and then claiming not to have the funds to provide support for his parents when they were in need. Jesus attacks this lack of charity toward one’s parents, demonstrating how the pharisees could twist the law in order to act in uncharitable ways, a practice Jesus frequently attacks in multiple exchanges with the pharisees of his time.

When Jesus is alone with his disciples it becomes clear that they did not quite understand the controversy, just as we might miss it today if we think it is simply an argument about whether one had indeed washed his or hands before coming to the dinner table. They ask him to interpret the “parable” to them. I chuckle every time I read Mark 7:15 as I can imagine Jesus sitting there with his forehead in his hand, shaking his head at the dense minds of the disciples, saying, “It wasn’t a parable, guys. I was speaking quite plainly!” Jesus, however, appears far more patient than I would imagine, though I do detect a bit of frustration in his voice as he says, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” Jesus dismantles the ritual observance of laws that had the purpose of maintaining a ritual state of purity, but instead shifts the focus to how our actions can defile. Jesus provides a list, which is certainly not all inclusive, saying, “For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly.”

We have all probably heard the saying that “cleanliness is next to godliness,” and I believe Jesus would probably agree, despite this controversy over hand-washing. Hygiene is important, but note how the saying is worded. Cleanliness is next to godliness, but cleanliness is not godliness. If we were to value the two, I think most of us would agree that it is the godliness that is more important. It is toward godliness that Jesus wants to move the pharisees, his disciples, and us. The evil things that can come out of us, the vices, are what defile us and move us away from godliness. How we treat each other demonstrates how stained or pure our souls are. It is here that we can turn to the advice given in the letter of James. James warns us, “If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hears, their religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Just as Jesus’ list of that which defiles is not comprehensive, I would argue that James’ list of what constitutes pure and undefiled religion is not either, but that it points toward how that religion is to be lived. Care for orphans and widows in their distress is one portion of how we care for those less fortunate and for each other. Pure and undefiled religion is relational. Just as God is three person united in one nature as the Holy Trinity, we, as the church, are many people united in love for each other. When our lives are marked by godliness in the way we treat each other, then we are living out a pure and undefiled religion.

How many times at our dinner tables have we arrived with scrubbed hands but then allowed the tabletop conversation to devolve into bitterness, complaining, fighting, or even bitterly cold silence? We may keep our kitchens spotless and have little risk of salmonella or E. coli infections from our food, but what infections of bitterness and anger run through our hearts and poison the meals we share, or even refuse to share, with others? In just a short time we will leave this space and gather in the church hall for our monthly potluck. While I would definitely endorse washing our hands before eating, I would also encourage each and every one of us to examine our hearts to see if we are able to eat in godliness with each other, and if not, to work toward healing whatever it is that stands in the way of our ability to do so, for only then can what we do in this space truly be pure and undefiled before God.