A homily for Proper 26 - 1st October 2006
(Pentecost 17)
The Very Rev’d Michael J. Pitts
Esther 7:1-6, 9-10, 9:20-22
James 5:13-20
Mark 9:38-50
When he killed the Mudjokivis,
of the skin he made him mittens,
Made them with the fur side inside,
Made them with the skin side outside,
He, to get the warm side inside,
Put the inside skin side outside.
He, to get the cold side outside,
Put the warm side fur side inside.
That's why he put the fur side inside,
Why he put the skin side outside
Why he turned them inside outside. [i]
This anonymous parody of part of Longfellow’s Hiawatha is much concerned with what is inside and what is outside. If anyone were to read Longfellow’s original epic today, it might ask us to ponder the rather more important question, as do our Hebrew Scripture and Gospel readings today, who is inside and who is outside.
Let us begin with the Gospel, which continues our reading of Mark. Jesus said “Whoever is not against us is for us.” [ii] Mark puts the saying in the context of a concern by the disciples that others were using Jesus’ name to perform exorcisms. Q, the name given by scholars to an otherwise unknown source of material. common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark, has a variant of the saying, in a different context:
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. [iii]
When Matthew and Luke reproduce the Marcan story of our Gospel today, they treat it differently. Luke retains Whoever is not against us is for us: Matthew omits it. [iv]
There is the greatest imaginable difference between the saying in our Gospel reading, paralleled in Luke, and the variant in Q. One is inclusive, the other exclusive. There is probably no way of knowing which saying, if either, originated from the lips of Jesus but from all that I have found in the Gospels, and explained in sermons over many months, the message of Jesus’ words, actions, parties and celebrations is one of inviting all to join him. No one is excluded from the joy of God’s reign.
The book of Esther is a novella rather than a historical story, and in the Jewish tradition, is associated with the feast of Purim. It is a totally secular work, with no mention of either God or religion. It was probably written in the 2nd century BCE at the time of the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, of which we read in the Books of Maccabees. It tells the story of a persecution long ago, and of how the Jewish people were saved by Queen Esther. It is thus a story about Jewish identity in a time of crisis. It is raises also therefore the question of who is inside and who is outside, and though its answer is very different from that of the Gospel Jesus, we must see it through the eyes of a persecuted suffering minority.
I do not see our reading from James today adding much to this discussion, but I do point out that his reference to the story of Elijah and the drought is also used by Luke, who has Jesus point out that during the drought it was a gentile widow whom Elijah enabled to stay alive. [v]
Who is inside and who is outside is a fraught question in both Church and society today. Last week Joyce spoke about the attempt by part of the Anglican Church to draw a very tight boundary around who can be considered inside, requiring the signing of a covenant which would bind the insiders to a very limited interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. It this were to happen, as it well might, then we and most of the Anglican and Episcopal church in North America would be definitely outside, for we believe that this narrow interpretation of Scripture is a very modern departure from the Christian tradition, and an even greater departure from the inclusive message of the Gospel.
Today, I want to speak a little about the other news-making story of the past couple of weeks, Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture at the University of Regensburg. Most of the lecture was, I found, an interesting and useful dissertation on the interplay of faith and reason in the Christian tradition and in the growth of European culture. But the lecture began with a reference to a statement made by a rather obscure but erudite Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, on the cusp of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries of the Common era, in which he was not very complimentary about the prophet Mohammed. You cannot have escaped knowing about the turmoil which has followed. When I read the full text of the lecture, I did not immediately see why Pope Benedict used this particular illustration to speak about faith and reason. After all, he could have drawn on one of many statements and events purely within the Christian tradition to make the same point. Nor can I believe that such an academic person would have chosen this illustration carelessly or without purpose. In charity, I will assume that it was a deliberate attempt to thrown down the gauntlet which would challenge the Muslim and Christian communities to enter into the serious dialogue which would be so much needed at the present time. But we also know that as Cardinal Ratzinger and as a conservative theologian of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope had and has a strong commitment to the absolute boundary around that church, and up to now, a somewhat cool attitude towards the Muslim world. Inclusiveness does not play a strong part in this theology.
It is certainly important that any dialogue begin with the participants stating clearly their positions, but, as I have tried to show, on the question of inclusivity and exclusivity there is divergence in the Christian tradition going right back to the Scriptures. Further while exclusivity with strong identity boundaries may be important in the case of a minority community under persecution, it is a very different matter for a majority community in a position of wealth and power.
I would hope that these questions of inside and outside might form part of the discussions of our conference Synod at the end of next month, when we shall be addressing the question of same-sex unions. The triennial conference Synod is open to all, not just to Synod delegates, and I do hope that many of you will consider coming. You will find details in the September Montreal Anglican or on the Diocesan Website.
Unfortunately the church seems to be obsessed with sex (I blame a lot of it on St Augustine!) But the question of inclusivity and exclusivity is much, much wider. It concerns living together in a multi-cultural, multi religious world. It concerns questions of nationalism and patriotism. It concerns political structures and institutions set up to maintain the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the poor, both within and between nations. More closely it touches on political questions around the relationship of Quebec and the rest of Canada which seem rarely ever to cease being news-makers.
I began in a rather tongue in cheek way with a poem which has been floating around in my head for several decades. That was just to get you attention. As I draw to a close I want more seriously to share the first stanza of another poem which I have long appreciated:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. [vi]
In our new and different situation, those last two lines seem just as true to me now as they did to Yeats eighty years ago. As the Gospel so often does, they also turn upside down our normal way of thinking about things. But is not the root cause of much of the turmoil and violence of our world today the passionate intensity of politicians, of conservative and fundamentalist exponents and practitioners of many religions, as well as of those who in fear turn from openness to humanity to rejection of all that is other? Where can we find again conviction about peace, about justice, about freedom, about love of the neighbour, about empathy and compassion, about the importance of our humanity? I believe true dialogue arises out of this kind conviction rather than exclusivist passionate intensity.
[i] I first came across this parody of the poem by Longfellow, published in the Penguin Book of Comic and Curious Verse (Penguin Books 1952) where it is cited as anonymous. But it relates to a similar parody by George A. Strong (1832 -1912) In Longfellow’s original, Mudjekeewis is a person, but in Strong’s parody it is a small furry marmot-like animal.
[ii] Mark 9:40
[iii] Matthew 19:30, Luke 11:23
[iv] Luke 9:49-50, compare Matthew 10:40-42
[v] Luke 4:25
[vi] THE SECOND COMING (1921) William Butler Yeats