The
people of Jesus' time were well aware of victims of the renowned brutality of
Roman soldiers or of sudden accidents and were tempted to make sense of the random
violence and senseless tragedies by assigning their cause to divine retribution.
Certain diseases such as leprosy were also linked to sin of the victims. We haven't
changed that much. Often in our so-called sophisticated society, the condition
of the poor, the sick, and outcasts is routinely and directly linked to a character
defect or personal misdeed, known or unknown.
Like many rabbis before him, Jesus said, “No, you
can't ascribe all suffering or sudden/random tragedy to a particular sin.”
As the disciples would discover, and I suppose the one thing that Mel Gibson's
Passion movie makes clear is that suffering and death are not only the lot of
the guilty.
Jesus gets to what is perhaps the heart of the problem,
namely the misguided belief that there is a discernable, divine plan to separate
people into them and us, or blessed and cursed. Jesus does not deny that there
is a link between irresponsible or sinful behavior and their consequences, but
the intention of God is not to separate, but to unite. I suggest that is why Jesus
doesn’t differentiate between those who are suffering and those who presently
are not, but emphasizes that we all are in need of God’s grace. All of us
tend to take paths that we need to alter; all of us are tempted to make choices
that, if we do not turn from, will have disastrous consequences. Jesus warns us
to beware of becoming overly self-confident in one's own condition and resources.
There is always a struggle with selfishness and delusion within us and when it
is not recognized and fought, it invariably leads all of us to the danger of perishing.
Paul’s
letter to the Corinthians was written to a church whose members thought themselves
pretty hot stuff. They were proud that they had been baptized by some of the major
leaders of the church and their church was a strong one. Hence they thought that
since they were saved, they could now do whatever they pleased. In many ways they
were like over-privileged, spoiled children who never pay attention to anyone
else’s sensibilities. Paul did not indulge such self-serving independence
but said that one’s baptism and membership in the church would not protect
one from false pride, overconfidence, insensitivity, and virtual lack of restraint.
A church member isn’t immune from sin or no longer accountable for one’s
actions. Paul reminded them that they were part of a much larger body and that
they had a solemn responsibility to honor that larger body, especially when they
gathered for worship, and not to split into factions, each with its own agenda.
Paul would go on to remind them in that famous passage, that love is not jealous,
boastful or conceited.
How does this relate to all the recent headlines about marriage?
Over thirty five years ago, a commission of the Episcopal Church proposed that
the legal authority of clergy to marry couples be rescinded and all couples desiring
to be married, first be married by a civil authority in a civil ceremony. Then,
if the couple wished to have a relationship with the larger community of faith,
their marriage would be blessed by the church. This would make it clearer that
marriage in our society is considered a civil act, and the sacrament of marriage
involves asking the blessing of a larger community of faith upon a relationship
and a commitment to mutual support and equal responsibility. The community of
faith has always been more concerned about the health of the long-term relationship,
not the ceremony that lasts no longer than 12 and 1/2 minutes. (Such a proposal,
if enacted, hopefully would have prevented what every priest has experienced,
a phone call late some night saying, “Reverend, I’ve just met the
girl of my dreams down here at the Chanticleer. For thirty bucks would you come
down and do the honors right now?”) Needless to say, the commission’s
proposal never got anywhere and the confusion between the secular, civil part
of marriage and the concern of the faith community for the relationship of the
marriage has grown.
I know better than to argue with editorial writers who buy their
ink in 50 gallon drums nor do I have any wise pronouncements anyway. Yet I do
believe that the Gospel intends for relationships to be mutually supportive and
caring in good times and bad; to be built on trust, truth and respect; and not
to be abusive, manipulative or exploitative. I think this applies to relationships
be they between two people of the opposite sex or the same sex, no matter what
they are legally termed. A society that understands relationships primarily in
terms of rights and privileges is a shallow and self-indulgent one that only leads
to heartbreak, abuse and tragedy.
