October 8, 2006 Did He Really Mean It

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10: 11-12) Are divorce and remarriage somehow wrong? Perhaps from the title of this sermon – “Did he really mean it”-- you can gauge my reaction to this passage. I wasn’t sure I understood it but if it meant what it literally says I didn’t agree with it. That, of course, is an uncomfortable reaction to have as a preacher – for we all strive to preach what we truly think is honestly found in the text and what we believe.

So I thought for a moment that like playing a card game, I would fold my hand and ask for a new deal – that is find a different text on which to preach. And then a persistent and vexing piece of advice came flooding back into my mind from Peter Gomes, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard and by general repute one of the best preachers in America. In a lecture on preaching, Gomes said to a group of would-be preachers, including me, when you read the lectionary texts some will be straight forward and will generate many ideas; some will be so opaque, difficult or problematic that you initially will have no idea what to do. Those latter ones are the texts on which you should preach. That advice is a little like what my parents said to me as a young man on several key occasions in which I sought advice on romantic matters -- when they said in response to my question “What should I do,” --“We know you will do the right thing.” It was no doubt the best advice, but boy I sure didn’t want to hear it. I wanted to be let off the hook. So it is with Gomes’ preaching advice; boy I wish he hadn’t said it though he is probably right. But he did say it and so I will try to make sense of this multi-layered passage.

To do that involves focusing on the gospel of Mark and this text in particular. Remember a few weeks ago when our Sunday text was the passage from Mark in which Jesus asks the disciple “who do you say I am.” In that passage Jesus for the first time tells the disciples that he is to be tried, killed and will rise and none of them believes him. At the time I noted that from that moment -- from that initial “Passion” disclosure -- the life of Jesus as described in the gospel of Mark reflects in one way or another his inexorable journey to Jerusalem and the inevitability of Jesus’ ultimate death at the hands of the civilian and religious authorities of the day.

The beginning of our passage reflects this for it is an effort by the Pharisees to set a trap for Jesus. They ask him whether divorce is lawful. They know the correct answer, for the Pharisees were the lawyers of their day. No, their point is to place Jesus in a box that will reveal him to be other than he claims or to actually put him at risk. Andrew Warner, to whom I am indebted for some of the ideas in this sermon, wrote of this trap in his article in the current issue of The Christian Century,

unprophetic or, as John Calvin says, as ‘a panderer

To say yes would be simply to endorse the religious law of the day and would be very “unprophet-like.” To say no would be to challenge not only the Jewish religious law but the Greco-Roman law that allowed both men and women to divorce upon the mere signing of a document. This position would have put Jesus at real risk. As Mark reports, not long before John the Baptist had been beheaded for challenging the propriety of Herod’s divorce and subsequent marriage to his brother’s former wife. (Mark 6: 17-18) The Pharisees, who expected Jesus to reject the law, also likely hoped Jesus would invoke his own authority in so repudiating the law – further supporting their arguments about his unfounded arrogance – for who did this carpenter’s son think he was!

Jesus, of course, does not fall into this trap. He responds with a question, “what did Moses command you” – which is, of course, the law reflected in Deuteronomy that permits men signing a simple certificate of dismissal to divorce and send away their wives. Now, Jesus knows that this is the law and knows that Moses had prescribed it because the people had not been able to live as God intended. Thus, Jesus never directly repudiates the law. He does not fall into the Pharisees’ trap. Rather, Jesus turns to that which is more fundamental for him than the law. The law here is not so much wrong but it is insufficient.

Those of you reading Shantung Compound may recall an occurrence about Red Cross packets in the internment camp that I believe illustrates the same point. For those of you unfamiliar with the story -- the American Red Cross during World War II had delivered, through intermediaries, care packages to this internment camp in China in which 1500 people from many nations were being held by the Japanese. There were enough packages delivered so that each American would have 7 and half each. But the camp held many other nationals. If shared equally among them all, each of the internees -- all terribly malnourished -- would have had at least one such package. When the Japanese proposed a distribution process that included packages for all the camp -- the response from the American internees was disheartening, to say the least. Most found a way to rationalize why the Americans should get all of the packages. The arguments were ingenious; persistent among them was one asserted by the lawyers and others that the packages were theirs – they were American property intended for Americans. They were given by Americans for Americans and it would be wrong if American property were given to others. And so they said, “It was a shame but right is right.” This is a most technical argument and one that probably had some legal basis, but which leads utterly to the wrong outcome. This story, but also our vignette about Jesus and the Pharisees, are reminders that the law often sets a floor on our conduct, not the ceiling. Aren’t their times when some hide behind a strict adherence or construction of the law rather than to do the truly right thing? Those that invoke NIMBY--not in my backyard--when they oppose a half way house or a mosque or temple are frequently examples of this hyper–legalism. It is always important to ask why the rule or law exists -- what is it truly trying to achieve? Sometimes it will be clear on second look that maybe, just maybe, to achieve that purpose or an another of fundamental importance requires more of us than simply following or invoking the letter of the law.

So what does this passage tell us was important to Jesus? Rather than focus on the law, Jesus takes the Pharisees and the crowd back to what God intends for them as he quotes our Genesis text about the creation of woman. “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” (Genesis 2: 18) You see, in Jesus’ eyes the issue is really not one of the lawfulness of divorce, but how is God’s creation, humankind, intended to live. It is a reminder that we are not created to be alone. It is an endorsement of marriage but I think even more a reminder that we are as God’s creation to be in relationship. Procreation may be served by this for it cannot occur without two sources. But I believe the desirability of living in relationship as one travels through life arises from the reality that we are more complete in such situations, not simply or primarily from our sexuality or the desirability, indeed the necessity, of procreation for our collective survival. This is something to think about as we contemplate the contours of marriage in our society.

The point—is we are most reflective of God’s image when in relationship. For you see, God is the embodiment of a loving relationship—that is the essence of the concept of the Trinity. The Father/Creator, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in one. 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals one. They profoundly indwell each other and are one. That relationship is one of love and by being in this relationship God is fully manifested. So it is that we are fully manifested in relationship. Not only by being in right relationship with God but by being in relationship, including marriage, with others. As the famous passage in Corinthians tells us the greatest gift given humankind is love – that is the capacity to love and to be loved. But, of course, love requires a lover and a loved one – it happens only in relationship. Joseph Peiper, a German Philosopher, has observed, I think correctly, that undergirding all forms of love – from Agape to Eros – is the affirmation by the lover that it is wonderful that another, the loved one, exists, and a desire to spend eternity with him or her. So it is that it is not simply good but wonderful when we have a partner and friends.[2]

Robert Luccock, a retired Professor from BU’s School of Theology and a UCC minister, challenges us to engage in an exercise. He asks, recall three times in your life when you were at your personal best or triumphed over adversity. As you think about such times, look closely; see whether a friend or spouse made a difference in those moments. When I look at those moments I was not alone. As Luccock suggests, sometimes the friend was like a teleprompter and I was on stage; at other times what I did reflected the impact on my character – who I was – of my friend or spouse. And, of course, how often has a friend or spouse helped us, certainly me, through the valley of darkness – through the death of a loved one, for example.

The late Theodore Ferris, once rector at Trinity Church in Boston, tells a story about Abraham Lincoln that I think illustrates this point. In 1837 Lincoln arrived in Springfield, Illinois to practice law. He had virtually nothing. He walked into a store owned by Joshua Speed to buy a bed. But the beds available cost more than Lincoln had. He asked if he could buy a bed and pay after Christmas if his practice survived and if it didn’t he would return the bed. Speed instead offered to let him share his room above the store. Whereupon Lincoln tossed his saddle bag over his shoulder and walked upstairs. Returning moments later he announced that he had moved in. From this modest beginning developed a life-long friendship between the two that continued through Lincoln’s Presidency. Both men suffered from what was sometimes called melancholy, probably a form of depression. Ferris writes of this

and helping Speed through one of his bad spells, Lincoln unwittingly began to get himself out of his doldrums.

As Genesis says, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” So it was for Lincoln and Speed. Among the most profound doldrums that Lincoln suffered through was his broken engagement to one Mary Todd. For many months Lincoln suffered in a valley of darkness, sustained and ultimately recovering in part through the help of his friend’s correspondence. So it was that Lincoln ten months later married Mary – he found a marriage partner. And yet the marriage was as history reports not always sunny. It had its dark times as Mary was described as having “a towering rage, unduly concerned with little things and unable to achieve a satisfactory relationship with [her] children.”[3] And we know Lincoln often left to avoid these moments. And yet it is said that there was much good in this partnership that survived difficulties, “Lincoln learned forbearance and forgiveness, not as doctrines but in practice.”[4] And what Lincoln ended up with was a character that reflected charity for all and malice for no one.

So why is this text in Mark? Like so many scriptural passages it serves many purposes. As we have seen, it reflects the growing tension between Jesus and the authorities – he simply saw the world differently than they did and they could not understand who he was or perhaps accept who he was. So we have a story of an unsuccessful trap which reveals that Jesus, while not disdainful of the law, saw it always as a vehicle, never as an end. For example Jesus respected the Sabbath, but nonetheless healed on that day those that were sick. So too this is a reminder that the laws regarding divorce were secondary to the reality that we are most complete when we have partners in life.

But we also should recognize that this passage is there because divorce was a troublesome issue for the early church. How do we know that -- we know it because the subject in much the same context comes up in Matthew and Luke and in Paul’s early letter to the Corinthians. Divorce had become easy – merely signing a certificate of dismissal. This passage was a reminder for Mark’s church that the partnerships God ordained were important and not to be easily dismissed. “What God has joined together let no one separate.” Mark 10: 9

So what of this message for our age? I do not believe it is an indictment of divorce per se. Rather it is a reminder that marriage is a remarkable relationship which allows us to love and be loved and by so doing to be more complete as human beings. It does not, I believe, compel the maintenance of a relationship which fails in its divine purpose. When the parties to a marriage are not more complete but are in pain and suffering -- when there is abuse of any sort -- then that relationship is a perversion. But what it also reminds us is that it is worth working at. As the divorce rate rises we must not lose sight of the divine gift of partners and of the benefit of a long term relationship of love; we must therefore work at our relationships. Whatever others find in our text – I choose to see it as an endorsement of the enriching power of loving relationships and an admonition to work at them. But when a relationship is not working – when effort has been made, or it is obviously destructive or demeaning to continue it, then it should be ended without guilt. Did he really mean it? I think yes, but perhaps not as we sometimes understand it. Amen

[1] Andrew Warner, “Living by the Word”, The Christian Century October 3, 2006 p. 18

[2] Joseph Pieper , Love …

[3] William Wolf, The religion of Abraham Lincoln, quoted in Theodore Ferris, Selected Sermons (Boston: Wardens and Vestry of Trinity Church, 1976) p.32

[4] Wolf quoted in Selected Sermons, p. 32