The meaning of life

‘…See how he loved him!’ (John 11:36)

John 11:32-44 (All Saints, Sunday 1 November 2015)

The Meaning of a Life is the name of a weekly TV show in Ireland where a well known celebrity interviews another well known celebrity on ‘the meaning of life’. In the course of the interview, some reasonably pointed questions are put to the interviewee.  No matter what peoples’ detachment from matters of doctrine and belief it is noticeable that almost everyone interviewed aspires to some set of values and goals that transcend their own individual selves It might be said that nature abhors a vacuum and this might go a long way to explain why various systems of over-arching belief have come and vanished over the last two centuries when traditional religious beliefs were in the wane at least in Europe. It is as if individuals and communities search for some meaning, some identity, some truth, some good over and beyond the immediately visible or touchable.  However, we might understand the terms ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ there is some wisdom in the following saying often quoted nowadays:

Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for those who have already been there.

That religion was ever for sensible people who are afraid of going to hell can be difficult for many young people growing up in much of Europe these days to grasp.  For them it is like watching a session of ‘Reeling in the years’ familiar to viewers of Irish TV. ‘Was it really like that back then Dad?’. ‘Well, yes, in a way it was kind of….!’.

But what is the meaning of life for you, for me, for others?  This is no idle question. With apparent rising rates of self-harm and various behavioural addictions the question needs to be asked: ‘What is the meaning of life?’ Only the person asked this question can answer it for themselves.

The story of how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead found in the gospel of John provides a rare insight into the person of Jesus. We are told that Jesus wept (verse 33), and that he was ‘greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved’ (verse 33) and that he ‘began to weep’ again (verse 35) and he was ‘again greatly disturbed (verse 38). John keeps repeating himself with the same point that Jesus was ‘deeply moved’ and ‘greatly disturbed in spirit’ and ‘wept’. Get it.

The image of Jesus weeping is rare although we are told in Mark 14:34 that Jesus was ‘deeply grieved, even to death’ as he struggled in the Garden of Gethsemane with what was ahead of him. Similarly, Jesus wept over Jerusalem in Luke 19:41. But, John gives us an important clue and insight as to why Jesus wept on this occasion in verse 36:

‘So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him!’ 

What an insight!

Jesus deeply loved a man called Lazarus so much that he displayed his emotion in a very public way – according to John. Now, I am not sure what the cultural norms and mores in 1^st century Palestine were but I believe that in the culture in which I live today such public displays of emotion by men about other men are not frequent. In fact, any public display of emotion is rare except among rugby players while their national anthem is played!

Seriously, that Jesus loved Lazarus so much is a challenge to our clinical, intellectual-based and platonic notion of love (or the complete opposite as the case may be). Earlier on in this Chapter of John we read that the sisters Martha and Mary had alerted Jesus with a message

Lord, he whom you love is ill (John 11:3)

A number of fundamental issues arise here. First, ‘love’ is translated from ephilei (or philia) in ancient Greek (the language used to write the gospels we have). The same word, ephilei, is used in John 20:2 in the context of what happened after the resurrection (‘…so she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved…’). Ephilei is not the term used in John 13:34 (which contains the commandment to ‘love one another’). Rather, agape or agapate is the term used there. Agape is thought to be highest and most universal love. We are invited to ‘agape’ our enemies. However, we are not asked to ‘ephilei’ our enemies! Ephilei or philia is about a strong brotherly love or affection involving warmth, loyalty and trust.

So what?

The key point is that love may be expressed and seen in forty different ways like the shades of green seen from an Irish mountain.  The Greeks referred to eros, agape, storge and philia.  We could speak of another 36 shades or manifestations of love. However, underlying all these shades of green there is greenness! Love no matter how dissected or manifested is about (i) intention and (ii) action. To love someone is about wanting what is genuinely good for that person and acting accordingly.  To say that we love Manchester United or beer or some political party or some church or some piece of music is one thing. To say we love someone in particular is quite another thing.  Love is about attitude and action accompanying it. It is, above all, about behaviour rather than feeling although the latter is important too. And to be concrete we mean loving somebody and not some thing or some group in general. Like God-who-is-love we too can participate in the drama of life where giving is receiving of life. But, unlike God we are limited in time and space so that we can only love, practically, one person at a time and one moment at a time. Hence, ‘love one another’ and ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’ ….  

So, Jesus lets it be known that he had a particular brotherly love for Lazarus as he had for the ‘beloved disciple’ (see John 13:23). The meaning of life for Jesus was to give his life for all humanity. But, he demonstrated this through a human life of ministry, healing and service where he spoke and touched and healed.

Many years ago during the ‘reeling in of the years’ a pop group the Bee Gees had a song the lyrics of which went as follows:

To love somebody To love somebody The way I love you

Singer Nanci Griffith tells it well in the lyrics to I Knew Love.

There are three moments in life that are precious and telling of its meaning for us:

1. The moment we are born
2. The moment we give birth
3. The moment we die

The three are closely linked to breath – when we start to breath or stop breathing. Breath is life and the Holy Breath of God hovered over the formless waste at the dawn of creation. The second of the above three – giving birth –is a privilege (or an affliction depending on how you see it) reserved for about one half of humanity only.  Whoever enfolds us at birth is someone who loves us from that moment and even before. Whoever, holds our hands as we slip away at the end is a significant other.  Assuming that our death is anticipated and not sudden, which significant others will be at our side to hold our hand when we slip away? Not a very cheerful question and thought, perhaps, but worth asking every now and again. It might tell us something about our lives and our priorities or lack of same.

And in reflecting on these matters we might begin to appreciate the significance of the choice of reading for this Sunday which happens to fall on the 1^st November – All Saint day in the calendar of the Western Christian churches. The choice of John 11:32-44 in some cycles of readings for this feast day (see for example the Revised Common Lectionary) connects the idea of holiness with humanity as shown in the special love of Jesus.  We love because we have been loved in the first place (by God) but also by other human beings.  The way to wholeness (the more complete idea of holiness) is through love – mutual love and generous love that does not stop loving when illness, death and other things stand in the way.

How do we know if we have loved or have been loved? The proof is given in verse 44 of this passage when Jesus says: ‘unbind him, and let him go.’ Relationships that unbind us and let us go to flourish where we are planted are loving. Those which bind and imprison in lifeless and destructive tombs are not founded on a lasting love. It is important to know the difference.

At the end of life what matters is that we can say in all honesty:

• I have known real love of another or others
• I have truly loved another or others
• I have loved because Another loved me.

And, there, is the Meaning of Life. :-)

Where is Bart?

‘… Take heart; get up, he is calling you.’ (Mark 10:49)

Mark 10:46-52 (Year B: Advent-5)

The current impasse

But where is Bartimaeus today? We may ask.  Is there someone who is begging for help nearby?  Next to you on the train and looking vacant but in the depths of despair?  Someone in your own family circle who does not know how to articulate what is going on inside their head?  Someone who is a work colleague but hiding deep wounds?  Someone on Grafton Street, Dublin and sleeping rough waiting to be moved on at 5.30am when the shopping street needs to be ‘cleared’ of unpleasant sights, sounds and smells before people arrive for work, commerce or pleasure? Someone fast asleep in a warm 24 hour internet café on Talbot Street, Dublin because that’s the only place to sleep and survive? A family from the Irish Traveller community seeking emergency accommodation after a recent tragedy? A young child grasping for life, warmth and nourishment as an adult carries her through muddy waters on the Czech-Slovenian frontier in October 2015?

Many stories about the blind, the lame, the leper or other outcasts of ‘respectable ‘, ‘law-abiding’ and ‘religious’ society abound in the New Testament. At a distance of 2,000 years we can cast a comfort blanket around these stories. Or, we can fill out a direct debit to some excellent charity struggling with a tide of human suffering in various parts of the globe. Or, we can wake up to the call to act today, now in my immediate circles of influence and relationships.

Stories from the past..

Two thousand years ago, Jesus came to give sight to the blind; to heal, to set free and to proclaim good news (Luke 4:18-19).   Today millions seek a ‘year of the Lord’s favour’ (Luke 4:19) and they don’t find it. The gospel writer, Mark, summarises the key points of Jesus’ ministry at the very beginning of his gospel and again in this short passage (10:46-52). It  concerns:

• Faith
• Repentance
• Healing
• Following
• Mission (being sent)

It seems fitting that Mark should remind his audience, again, of the foundational pillars of the Gospel as we move from a period of ministry of healing and preaching to a new phase in the final story of what was about to happen in Jerusalem.

A blind man – Bartimaeus –  was sitting by the road waiting for help. He had not given up because we are told he cried out for help to Jesus. Was he abandoned by his family? Did he have any family? Where did he come from and was he blind from birth? The fact that he was given a name by Mark might suggest that he became a disciple known among the early followers of Jesus?

We don't know for sure but we can assume that according to the cultural and religious norms of that time conditions of sickness or disability were often associated with sin. In other words, it was believed, that people who found themselves in such situations were paying the price for their own sin or that of their parents or forebears. A religion of ordinances, fines, punishments and restitutions was in full sway. This is the scene for what happened on the road from Jericho (or to Jericho if we go with the detail of Luke's gospel).

For Mark, the scene is set in Jericho as Jesus heads for Jerusalem for the end-game. A blind man is on the way. There is more than hint of the story of the Good Samaritan about this passage.  Loving the actual real person next to us in the present moment of life can be so blindingly obvious that it is the very thing we miss as we are 'busy' with our many petty goals and deadlines.  The cries of Bartimaeus and his presence might be seen as inconvenient, embarrassing and preventing our progress. But, Jesus senses someone in despair whom he can help there and then.

Bartimeus calls out in faith - 'Jesus, son of David have mercy on me'. This was a cry from the depths of his heart born of anguish, continuous affliction and, to cap it all, social stigma and the lowest of esteem. In this story the call to Bartimaeus comes through intermediaries before Jesus directly addresses Bartimaeus. Today, God uses people to extend a call to yet other people. Are we mediators of God's call to others or are we more like obstacles by the way we live and think and speak?

On being healed Bartimaeus begins to follow Jesus. And it reasonable to conclude that he was likely to have been among those sent by Jesus and that followed him 'on the road' (to Jerusalem and beyond). An interesting divergence in the same basic story is to be found in the account of Matthew (20:29-34) where it is said that two blind men were called and healed.  Matthew is concerned about the communal aspect of discipleship. Where 'two or three are gathered' there is the healing power of Jesus whether as when he walked on the waters or when he healed, here, on the road from Jericho or when on the cross surrounded by two accused thieves.

And so today..

On our journey through life we meet with people who are broken. Or, perhaps, we experience brokenness ourselves on the side of life's journey. The gospels assure us that in his risen body the Christ of God is never far from us. Indeed, through faith he lives in our hearts even when we seem to have no sense of faith or presence or reassurance of same.

And walking on the road with Jesus is the result of making our peace with the One who heals us where nobody else can.  There is a saying that 'seeing is believing'. However, in this passage of Mark we have a reversal of the normal sequence: 'believing is seeing' as Bartimaeus put his trust in God's power at work in Jesus whom he could not yet see. A light is lit in our souls when we trust in this power. The real Bartimaeus is found when we go out from our own prisons and discover the freedom of the Gospel. As St Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6:

For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Service is the point - not rank

“and whoever wishes to be first…..”  (Mark 10:44)

Mark 10:35-45 (Year B: Trinity+20)

As creatures of habit we can tend to like the limelight – titles, positions, ranks and especially all that goes with authority. Not that we do not act with good motivation and with the intention of doing good and fulfilling our commitments whether in family, the workplace or the local community.  However, what goes with this by way of position in a hierarchy of position and authority is attractive – for some more than others.

This is not altogether a bad thing. After all, God knows how to write straight on crooked lines and even if what drives people forward is a mix of things everything can be turned into good especially when there is some faith, hope and love in what we do and how we do it – albeit gifts of grace alone.

The story of how James and John asked for special places in the kingdom reminds us of how just human the first disciples were. Little has changed. Yet, we should remember that of these two, James had his head cut off according to Acts 12:1-2 – a fate awaiting some Christians in the same region today. There is no evidence that John met a violent death but the other leading apostle, Peter, was by popular tradition believed to have been crucified.  And as for the Lord, his crucifixion is a key part of our understanding and faith within the story of God’s saving power. So, whatever about rank, position and title according to human arrangements, norms and traditions, the outcome for those who sense a call and are called to positions of service in the church involves some pain, difficulty and possibly even persecution.

As it was in the beginning, is now and will continue to be….

In Matthew’s account (20:20-28) of the same story there is a possibly slightly ironic and humorous note in that the mother of James and John does the pleading.   No surprises there!  Just picture the ‘sons of thunder’, James and John, standing confidently beside their mother (quite possibly a mother and woman of thunder?!) as the pleading goes on. Was there a hint of arrogance in the following request (verse 35):

“Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 

However, it should be remembered these were cousins of Jesus and, perhaps, there was a family dimension to this such as arises about seating at wedding banquets today.  Jesus knows how to handle not only James and John but the other 10 disciples who, according to Mark 10:41 became indignant. Anyone familiar with human resources management and what are referred to as ‘industrial relations’ in the workplace will spot parallels here.  But, that is to be expected and in the culture of Jesus’ time we are reminded that it was normal practice among the ‘Gentiles’ for rulers to lord it over their subjects. The point that Jesus wanted to make was that this is not how it is meant to be among his followers.

If only.

Returning to the sources of the gospel we are challenged and confronted by the harsh realities of discipleship. Choices are made, somethings are left behind and other things are taken on and the road ahead is never certain or foreseeable. Rather, we proceed one mile or kilometre at a time watching for the next turn and hill.

All service and all positions of leadership – especially Christian inspired – can draw on the prayer of St Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556):

Teach me to give, and not to count the cost
to fight, and not to heed the wounds,
to toil, and not to seek for rest,
to labour, and not to ask for any reward,
save that of knowing that we do your will

Imagining the impossible

“for God all things are possible”  (Mark 10:27)

Mark 10:17-34 (Year B: Trinity+19)

A tough discourse...

So you thought that last week’s discussion about divorce and remarriage tough. Following the gospel of Mark, it gets tougher now with a discussion about poverty, riches and wealth. The last thing we want to hear is another plea for belt-tightening after all that (most) people have been through during the recent recession.

A man approaches Jesus, in this story, and asks for guidance on what he needs to do to be saved. Living in a religious society of this time people were very concerned about being on ‘the right side of God’ and making it to the finishing line. Such a concern and anxiety was not uncommon until recent times when religious observance and faith were very much central to people especially on this island. Rich people or not so rich people went about doing certain things – attending church, participating in the sacraments, giving to charity, attending to their daily duties and family obligations and so on.  It was commonly believed that a single person or a young person might consider a ‘higher calling’ to follow a celibate religious life and ‘renounce’ some of the normal attractions of living by giving away their material possessions and following what are called the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience.

A question is asked by a man – a rich and young man at that (drawing also on the gospel of Matthew). What must I do to be saved? The response by Jesus is more radical and more subtle than we might gather on a first reading of this story. The following may be asked or noted:

• What were the reactions of those around Jesus according to Mark’s version?
• The young man who made the request of Jesus was ‘shocked’ and went away ‘sad’. Why?
• The disciples on hearing Jesus’ words were ‘perplexed’ and then ‘greatly astounded’. Why?
• What is our reaction when we listen very carefully to the Word of God in today’s troubled world?

Hearing the challenge afresh today...

Writing recently in The Furrow, Michael Paul Gallagher, SJ, had the following to say:

Our excited society keeps us busy with trivia and incapable of pausing to hear the cries of others

Are we falling into the same trap?  Those cries for help may be thousands of kilometres away on the borders of Hungary or they may be right next to us now.

Once again, we hear of more hardship and trouble for those will follow Jesus unreservedly. Tagged on to this week’s story is the third prediction of Jesus’ death and persecution. It will entail condemnation to death, surrender to those who will mistreat us; mockery, physical attacks and ultimately death. This type of scenario may seem remote to us in the comforts of Northern Europe. But, we increasingly reminded of the fragility and persecution awaiting people on grounds of religion, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation or simply because they do not fit with the agenda of those who wield power. In the coming years millions will seek refuge in Europe as conditions deteriorate in the neighbouring continents due to war, famine, fanaticism and the slow, gradual asphyxiation of climate change. We are living on borrowed time on this sick planet as some hoard possessions and power to the detriment of others.  The message of Jesus has never been so relevant to us today.

The problem is not wealth in itself but whether we see and use wealth as ‘our’ possession or something to be used for others – for those we love most closely and to whom we are bound by commitments and those in our communities and world.

The rich man sought perfection in the doing of the Law.  Jesus’ answer, as recounted in both Mark and in Matthew, draws his attention (and of those listening on) to the horizontal or social or inter-personal aspect of the law – to respect our parents, to bear no hatred against others, to be faithful to our commitments, to be truthful and honest and so on. In other words the key to the first three commandments is through loving our neighbour – our real flesh and blood neighbour in the here and now – next to us in the present moment of life and beside us under the same roof, on the street, on a train etc. Therein lies perfection in the Law.  But, the young man wanted more than this perfection and Jesus gave him a different kind of perfection challenge – let go of everything you cling to in life meaning honour, status, perks, comforts and follow me. In other words we can follow a perfect way by obeying the ‘don’ts’ as outlined in the 10 commandments. But, we can also obey the ‘do’s’ by giving away all that we have – life, attachments and clinging to power – and follow Jesus with our whole heart.

A literal call for some..

Many have interpreted this literally and such an impulse gave rise to movements into the ‘desert’ associated with monastic life. In a way the monastic life that sprung up in the early centuries were protest movements at a time when Christianity was about to go native in Rome and attain to a position of social respectability in a coalition of influence, power and preferment. Some might suggest that Christianity is still trying to recover from this great fall!

And a calling to all of us here and now..

Many are those who felt a call to not only go into the desert but to go into the streets and byways where people live and toil among the poor, the oppressed and the marginalised. Not everyone has this call – at least not for a lifetime. But, everyone has an opportunity to grow in love where they are planted. Every deed, every commitment and every initiative has meaning from the smallest to the heroic.  Moreover, love of the poor which is so evident throughout the gospels and the Bible demands not just ‘charity’ in the sense that this term has come to be used, but a thorough analysis and effective social action to address the roots of poverty, injustice and oppression. We do well to read and hear, again, the prophet Amos (5:10-12) who speaks about inequality, oppression and neglect of fundamental human rights in his day. The worship of money and the oppression of the poor makes a mockery of worship because God is specially on the side of the poor and the oppressed. This is what Matthew was on about in chapter 25:31-46 of that gospel when he outlines what matters at the end of our lives. And the prophet Amos (8:4-6) wasn’t mincing his words in this passage:

Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land, saying, “When will the new moon be over so that we may sell grain; and the sabbath, so that we may offer wheat for sale?  We will make the ephah small and the shekel great, and practice deceit with false balances, buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, and selling the sweepings of the wheat.

Discipleship that is awake to the politics of oppression..

Do the warnings of Amos carry relevance in today’s world and in today’s churches?  Have we focussed too much on sex and not enough on social justice?  And do we console ourselves and our consciences with ‘charity’ when those who are oppressed need to be liberated and need to take ownership of the means of their economic emancipation? Is our religion in conformity with biblical values of social justice, compassion and practical assistance? Do we know what poverty is really like? Have we ever had the experience of not being able to pay rent or mortgage, skipping meals, lighting candles when the electricity has been cut off for non-payment of a bill and facing the embarrassment of not being able to send a child on school trip?

Poverty takes many forms and many were surprised to find themselves in poverty when their job was lost or their business folded up following the credit crunch and economic downturn of 2008-2010. Still others, live in a cycle of inter-generational poverty which seems extremely difficult to break out of.

It seems to me that the debate around ‘welfare reform’ in many European countries including the UK and Ireland has been shaped more by 19^th century notions of deserving poor and philanthropic benevolence with an increasingly mean state that works to defend the interests of corporations, bond-holders and well-to-do citizens than those who have nobody to speak for themselves and are not the subject of pre-electoral competition for votes. Witness the global trend towards ever lower taxes on the high-income and high-worth citizens, on corporations while increasing numbers live in precarious living conditions where work, income and pensions are less secure than ever. This is not to deny the huge improvements in living standards, health and education that have occurred in the last 100 years. However, there is another side to the story of global capitalism that people concerned about social justice and sustainable development need to start caring about much more.

And it is never too late to start (again)..

We might be near the end of our days bedridden and highly dependent but we can continue to follow Jesus on the road to freedom by showing interest in everyone around us and by prayer.  Who knows? Our loving, our hoping and our living in this way may be generating new love, new hope and new life in those near and far.

Some day we might wake up and see the world around us and the ‘smell the roses’. For that to happen we need to approach the throne of grace on our knees like the rich young man with one crucial difference – with God nothing is impossible.

Time and time again God works in our lives not according to our timetables or plans but in his way. The social and political become personal and the personal becomes political. We are made for communion in a broken world.  If we trust we will find surprise after surprise as God meets us in places of unbelievable tenderness and compassion. But, we must know that the way of discipleship leads through much suffering and difficulty as Jesus made clear to the disciples who still didn’t get it. Do we get it?

How do we respond to broken relationships?

“what God has joined together, let no one separate”  (Mark 10:9)

Mark 10:1-16 (Year B: Trinity+18)

Jesus doesn’t mince his words...

Every so often we run into a difficult passage in the gospel. This is one of them.

Divorce, remarriage and family fluidity is a marked feature of 21^st century post-industrial societies. I guess that few, if any, among us do not know someone who has gone through marital separation. It could be a brother, a sister, one’s own parents, a work colleague, our next door neighbour. In some cases we may  be among those who have experienced separation. Here in Ireland there has been a marked increase in the extent of marital breakdown even though it has not reached anywhere near the same proportions found in other western societies – yet at any rate.

What are we to make of this passage of Mark? Mark reports a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees who were trying to catch him out on a question of divorce. Jesus answers them in clear, uncompromising and un-nuanced words (verses 11-12):

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

No ifs, no buts, no qualifications.

Jesus was responding to a question posed by some Pharisees who came to him to question and test him.  The context was set by the ‘Hillelites’ and the ‘Shammaites’. The followers of Rabbi Hillel were 1^st century religious liberals who permitted divorce ‘for any cause’. The followers of Shammai permitted it only for adultery.  The latter were the 1^st century religious conservatives who took a narrower and possibly more literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The labels might be different but the broad nature of religious controversy has not changed in 2,000 years! 

Jesus’s response (to be found here in Mark as well as in the gospel of Matthew) comes as a surprise to his hearers. He just rules out divorce altogether and goes back to the very beginning, in Genesis, to explain that lasting union was and still remains the plan of God whereby a man and a woman become one flesh or one body – with all that it entails spiritually, psychologically and physically. While the Jews of Jesus’ time held marriage in high regard divorce was widespread and it wrecked havoc on women, in particular, given the absence of legal rights and initiative for them. This sets the social and cultural context in which Jesus takes a ‘hard line’ on divorce.

Any exceptions?...

The parallel reference in Matthew is a little more nuanced (Matthew 19:9)

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.

There are a variety of interpretations of the expression ‘except for unchastity’ in Matthew. It may be concluded that scholars differ on the exact meaning of the term. Some – especially Roman Catholic scholars - argue that it reflects a specifically Jewish context in which a man had the right to divorce a woman before a marriage is consummated if it emerges only after a marriage that the woman had not been a virgin (this might explain why Joseph the spouse of Mary had initially planned on divorcing her when he learned that she was pregnant but then changed his mind after matters were clarified in a dream). If this is the case it might explain the inclusion of ‘unchastity’ (the Greek word is ‘porneia’) in Matthew but not in Mark. According to this explanation Jesus would have used the word adultery if he meant it. Rather, he was referring, so it is claimed, to a specific exception where a marriage was not consummated and the marriage vows or contract was not, therefore, valid. Some Eastern Catholic churches (e.g. Greek) might allow divorce in cases of adultery – presumably on the grounds of the Matthean ‘unchastity’ clause to be found in Matthew 19:9 (see for example here). Among Protestant denominations, nowadays, divorce and remarriage are generally accepted (although in some cases more tolerated than accepted).

(Residents of the Republic of Ireland who have lived there for the last few decades will be very familiar with the highly charged and intensely contested constitutional referenda in 1986 and again in 1995.  In the latter case the proposal to allow divorce in civil law was passed by the smallest of majorities.  The whole subject of marital separation and divorce remain particularly difficult areas in Irish culture with a strong social prohibition and norm even if considerations of pragmatism and compassion have been in the ascendancy in recent times).

The mere fact that there was some type of exception, in Matthew, suggests that the early Christian community had to deal with the matter in a compassionate and rational way given the realities facing the emerging Christian community as families were split over the new religion and as a variety of mores and practices characterised the pagan world in which Judeo-Christians lived. Matthew’s account of what Jesus said differs from Mark in two ways:

* The exception clause to be found in Matthew but not in Mark

* The reference to a woman initiating a divorce, in Mark, which was unknown among Jews at that time.

Clearly, the audiences and the context in Matthew and Mark differ somewhat. Matthew was probably writing for a Jewish community while Mark had more a gentile audience in mind familiar with Roman laws and practices.

A compassionate Jesus...

Returning to Mark, we see an uncompromising stance by Jesus on divorce.  Divorce was, and still is today, a huge trauma for many. In the hugely different culture of Jesus’ time women were very much relegated to a vulnerable and insecure rank in society. It is still that way today in many parts of the world. In opposing divorce we see a compassionate Jesus who recognised the havoc that divorce can inflict on people – not least women and children. The choice of verses 13 to 16 about the blessing of children in today’s passage to follow the teaching on divorce may be no accident.  Jesus seems to go further than many of his peers by indicating a clear equality in marriage in that he balances the role of women and men in Mark 10:11-12.  This contrasts with the one-side question posed by the Pharisees where only the man could issue a divorce summons.  Women were in an inferior position in every way according to this view. That inequality is directly challenged in the response of Jesus.

How do we align the clear gospel teaching found in Mark with our own experience of living today? A number of responses are possible:

1. Ignore the gospels along with the Christian message entirely as irrelevant and pre-modern (typically the response of many in today’s world);
2.  Locate some particular sayings of Jesus in a different cultural milieu and no longer relevant;
3. Use the tools of scholarly research and discourse to manoeuvre around ‘difficult passages’ (this might involve saying ‘this is now the evangelist reported it but Jesus didn’t quite mean it that way’ or ‘the Greek word for this or that term could mean different things’ or ‘the context is set by extraneous factors that blunt an isolate passage quotation’ and so on).
4. Take the passage pretty much at face value (notwithstanding scholarly caveats above) and say ‘that was then and now is now ….’
5. Accept the passage as is stands but place it alongside other passages emphasising a wide range of values and considerations but always returning to the central value of compassion and mercy present in Jesus.
6.  Take the passage as conforming to a literal, legalistic and absolute prohibition on divorce always, everywhere and no matter what because ‘the bible says so’ and/or ‘tradition says or and the Church has always taught so’. (This is like saying that according to section 9 subsection 4(a) of the Law divorce is never allowed – never.)

There may be other solutions to the above! In my case I tend towards 5 above.  I distrust absolutist and legalist approaches using isolated Gospel  passages as ammunition to uphold particular view points or exclusions in a modern-day context. At the same time, I do not go along with the ultra-liberal approach of making the gospel fit whatever you want it to mean. In practice we can read the scriptures with –

-          The foundation of trust and faith in God-who-is-love
-          The common sense of people living a messy world
-          The compassion of people who care deeply for others
-          The experience of living which teaches us

Add to this benefits of good scholarly research and insights down the ages from others who read, digested and lived the Word.

A need for balance...

The point is that a relationship of intimacy, commitment and openness to life is the foundation of much human well-being and happiness. It is also a foundation rock for communities and societies. It is, typically, the milieu in which children can grow, develop and experience the warmth of love so that they too can live lives of meaning and love and give in turn. Whatever, disrupts this is bad for people and societies. Lack of love, communication, trust and faithfulness wrecks havoc on people and much unhappiness exists in the world because of this.

At the same time it is a sad reality that for many reasons such relationships fail. In some cases it may involve coercion, violence and abuse. In other cases, the causes may be less dramatic but no less significant in undermining the stability of a union. When this happens it is a tragedy – above all for the couple involved. But, it may signal circumstances outside the control of the couple as well as factors relevant to each one’s history, baggage, attitude and behaviour. We must not judge. We never know the full story.

And what if, after many years of trying and recourse to help within and without a relationship remains destructive? What then? And if people find themselves in a new life-affirming committed relationship what then? And what if, as one writer put it: ‘What humans wrongly joined together, let God rightly separate?’ However, the same writer reminds: ‘Committing adultery is not an abstract, moral sin. It is a real, hurtful action against one’s God-joined partner’ (Vitalis Hoffman). So discernment is needed. People need the wisdom of the holy spirit who is never lacking to address each situation in the light of all of the gospel’s values. This requires patience, tact, insight and openness. A sensitively written reflection Mark 10 is provided by Karoline Lewis. It is worth reading. Matt Skinner seems to strike an appropriate balance in his commentary on this passage:

-          If marriage is what Jesus says it is, then we understand better why failed marriages bring such pain to couples, extended families, and communities. Jesus brings into view the hurt and brokenness that come, even when a divorce appears to be the best among all available options. Jesus' special concern for children should remind us that they are often victimized when parents divorce.

-          This passage's assumptions require us to attend to the differences between our cultural context and Jesus', if we are to understand and respect part of the rationale behind Jesus' prohibitions. As the church has painfully learned over recent generations, to impose these words uncritically as inviolable commands can result in the church denying protection and grace to those who need it.

-          Yet we dare not view Jesus' words as quaint and outdated. The passage also urges us to regard marriage in clear contrast to our culture's tendencies to treat commitment and love as conditional.

The four pillars...

The lesson of Mark 1-16 as well as Matthew 19:1-12 is that the scriptures need to be read on our knees with an open heart and a discerning and learning mind.  Scripture is ‘over all’ and yet is must be received each time in the light of tradition, reason and experience. After all, tradition (oral and written), reason and experience were the soil in which the Word was sown and continues to be sown and to grow in our fields today. In an Anglican context Brother Curtis Almquist of the Society of Saint John the Evangelist explains it this way here:

The Anglican tradition is to revere the Scriptures, but to understand that they must be both interpreted and viewed alongside the other ways of God’s revelation - to understand authority as a graceful synergy between Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

The Presbyterian scripture scholar and commentator William Barclay (1907-1978) struck a good chord as follows here:

What is wanted is that there should be prayerful care and thought before the married state is entered upon; that if a marriage is in danger of failure every possible medical, psychological and spiritual resource should be mobilized to save it; but, that if there is something beyond the mending, the situation should be dealt with not with rigid legalism, but with understanding love.

To conclude on a positive note: it would appear that most families and most lifelong commitments are happy for the most part – trials and tribulations notwithstanding along the way. This also seems to be true of those who, for one reason or another, find themselves in a second union.  After all the starting point for Jesus’ positive affirmation of marriage is found in Genesis 2:28 where we are reminded that it is not good for one to be alone (unless by choice, calling or force of circumstances).

However, the wounds of life come with blessings and the blessings of life come with wounds. The wounds of broken relationships and broken trust remain even if healed of their sharpest impact over time and as we confide in God whose mercy has no limits unlike that of others whom we have hurt or who have hurt us.

We must realise that in the majority of situations and families love prevails over all difficulties and there is a huge amount to be thankful for in the mystery of lifelong love ‘for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.’ This is what the author of Mark affirms so strongly in reporting the answer Jesus gave to the Pharisees of his time.