"What big ears you have, Grandma!"

Little Red Riding Hood meets the Big Bad Wolf dressed in her grandma’s nightgown and lying in her bed. She says to Wolf-dressed-as-Grandma, “My, what big ears you have, Grandma!”

“All the better for hearing you, my dear” replies Wolf, “All the better for hearing you.”

Will big ears improve my hearing?

When I was 25 I wore a size 7 comfortably. Now at 35 I prefer a size 8. At this rate I will be resorting to stokies in my 80’s - if I last that long. From foetus to grave our extremities continue growing. This is why the older one gets, the bigger one’s feet become or the more out of proportion one’s ears and nose to the rest of one’s face. There may be some advantages for men in the continual growth of extremities, but to my knowledge this hasn’t been studied…

Long before I cuddle my tired dogs in towelling slippers, I will, in all likelihood, be felled by some age related disorder caused by my genes.

Overgrowing bits is one of those taken for granted realities that actually make a good case for evolution as opposed to creationism.

For the creationist there is cause for praising God for the apparently miraculous “fit” of species to their environmental niches. But this natural “fit” is far from perfect. What is the design point of super sized extremities? It makes no design sense to waste energy on peripherals while one’s core structure is deteriorating, not to mention the increased wastage of time pruning nose hair.

From an evolutionist perspective the superfluous growth of my big toe is an indication of the unconscious process of natural selection, which “designs” by accident. Many creaturely attributes could be improved upon by careful, conscious design, like the skew face of a sole. Just as there is no environmental or competitive pressure for the sole to “improve” the design of its face (yet), so there is no pressure for humans to evolve more efficient ear lobes.

The same clutter and inefficiency is visible in the preponderance of genetic disorders among the elderly. At first glance one may wonder why so many people are afflicted with genetic disorders if the principle of natural selection is working well: weeding out such maladaptive traits in the population.

Most disorders manifest later in life because they affect people who have passed their normal reproductive life. As far as natural selection is concerned I am insignificant when I cease to have children – I am already dead. Any disorder that crops up then has already been passed on to the next generation. As long as the disorder remains invisible while I’m “fruitful and multiplying”, no one is going to be choosy about having sex with me because I haven’t yet grown that third eye. Any disorder that does manifest while I am in my reproductive years is not going to swim long in the gene pool (in evolutionary terms that is).

Genetic disorders that manifest later in life are the detritus of evolution by natural selection - as are big ears. We regard such anomalies as normal when in fact they are litter in the otherwise pristine theological framework of creation.

It is therefore fascinating to me that the Jesus theology celebrates a “new creation” as opposed to glorifying creation as is. Jesus celebrates those who will “do even greater things than me” in the future. Much of Jesus’ ministry was about healing people and today we have within our power the ability to heal people of profound illnesses, even those of a genetic source. Medical science has the potential of cleaning up the litter of careless evolution.

With the hope of realising God’s dream of a new creation it seems blasphemous that we are more preoccupied with plastic surgery than we are with healing the world of rampant disease. Medical science has veered toward lucrative cosmetic gerontological study rather than attacking the roots of genetic disorder and endemic disease. The values of those who fund medical research, and those who benefit from it, have become superficial in the extreme. We are inventing ways to prevent wrinkles while we have the power to eradicate epidemics. We are more worried about our big hairy ears than dying from internal decay. Commercial interests mean that medical research is increasingly directed toward drugs that are lucrative rather than significant. Our society is creating an industry driven by sexual interests rather than the miracle of a “new creation”.

“Slice my shnoz, but please, no digital exam!”

Sermon - blind faith

Mark 10:46-52

This story forms the end bracket to a body of material that begins in Mark 8:28, in which Mark tells the story of Jesus’ journey from the north of Palestine to the south on his way to Jerusalem. It is the way to the cross. Three times Jesus predicts his suffering and three times the disciples don’t understand. Just as the story of Bartimaeus forms the end bracket so the story of the blind man of Bethsaida forms the beginning bracket. The journey of the suffering servant is bracketed by two stories of the healing of blindness.

Blindness for Mark is a symbol for failing to understand Jesus’ purpose. This is reinforced in the contrast between Jesus’ disciples and this blind beggar. The name that Bartimaeus uses to call Jesus is a testimony to the truth the disciples fail to see: “Son of David” which in Jesus’ day was a freedom chant like ‘Amandla’ was during our own freedom struggle. Bartimaeus is putting himself at risk of arrest by shouting this while Jesus disciples tell him to be quiet. Bartimaeus’ name is also symbolic. It means “son of worthiness”. The disciples at the centre of attention get it wrong, while the beggar at the periphery gets it right. The disciples have followed Jesus through Palestine without realising what is about to happen. They will desert him. But here, a blind man who has met Jesus this once, is prepared to follow to the impending cross.

Do we in the church, with our millennial tradition of theology perhaps pretend to know more about God than we do? The church has been through many a reformation in its history and each generation makes a hero of the reformer of the previous generation, while ignoring the radical in their midst.

Today we are at risk of clinging to our treasured history of homophobia while the secular state, which does not even know Jesus, leads the way to justice for gay and lesbian people. The disciples fail to understand, while the blind man on the street sees.

The disciples pretend to own Jesus, giving him advice on how to behave and protecting him from bothersome children or annoying commoners. But Bartimaeus has no time for scruples. He shouts the odds and makes a scene. He raises his allegiance in public defiance of oppressive authority and the witness of the secret police.

The proper place of a beggar was on the periphery of the crowd at the city gate begging. To lead the crowd in praise - especially such politically dangerous praise - was an affront to decency. I remember the debates of yesteryear when prophets of the church opposed Apartheid and were criticised for mixing politics and religion.

Today, our codes of decency threaten our discipleship as they have for every generation. Our disgust at swearwords renders us deaf to the discontent and anxiety in our young people’s music. Our opulence renders us blind to the increasing gap between shiny rich and smelly poor. Our comfortable habits render us immune to the shock of Jesus’ living presence. Our theology has become so consuming; we cannot see the people we disagree with.

Helen Keller once remarked, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

On Tuesday, I participated in a debate about the Methodist Church’s stance toward same-sex unions. I was tempted to use Keller’s phrase to label Ray and Dave as blind because of their sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin. Now I see that perhaps it equally can apply to me. Jesus calls us to love people, not theologies, positions, types, labels.

The story of Bartimaeus is the end bracket. The story that is the beginning bracket is the healing of a man at Bethsaida. It is the only story where Jesus’ healing powers seem incomplete.

Jesus rubs mud made from his spit into the man’s eyes and then asks, “Can you see anything?”

“I can see people, but they look like trees walking,” replies the man.

Like Bartimaeus let us call upon God’s mercy that we may see people as people, not as trees; that we may see people not by their labels, theologies or politics, but simply as the people God loves regardless.

Internet Sources:

William Loader
Mary W. Anderson
www.esermons.com

Certainly uncertain

This article comments on Richard Dawkin’s new book – the only book of his I am likely not to read.

http://shipoffools.com/Features/2006/dawkins.html

A recent TV docie by a prominent Jewish scientist examined the fraught relationship between science and faith. The presenter made an interesting point that science and religion when practiced appropriately are both founded on the same principle: uncertainty. Fundamentalism of both science and religion is based on false certainties.

I must say, I still find myself more accepting of scientific fundamentalism than religious fundamentalism. I wonder why?

Dassie finds hawks may be doves

Two weeks ago I mentioned briefly the ongoing saga of the church’s debate on dame-sex unions. My nervousness about hawks has been allayed.

Tuesday 24 October Alan Storey and I were invited to present papers to DEWCOM, the Doctrine Ethics and Worship Commission of the MCSA. This body is a think-tank that advises our church on matters of theology, ethics and church practice.

After the 2001 Conference of the MCSA, DEWCOM were tasked with publishing a discussion document for all churches on the matter of same-sex unions. DEWCOM presented a paper, which was accepted at the next Conference (2004?). DEWCOM was criticised by many for presenting a “one-sided” discussion paper. They had advocated an inclusive position based on a historical critical reading of scripture, a review of the latest scientific evidence as well as pastoral experience.

The meeting of DEWCOM on the 24th was an attempt to hear two points of view on the matter and see if a way forward could be discerned.

Ray Alistoun and Dave Morgan presented a view in opposition to the blessing of same-sex unions. I was especially surprised by Ray’s eloquence and the logic of his argument, even though I disagree fundamentally with his approach to scripture.

Alan’s “paper” was brilliant – the more so because he spoke from sketch notes on several bits of paper! Dion’s comment afterwards was succinct: “Broer, if you’d had an altar call, I would have been on my knees!”

I spoke from experience and showed how my experience had coloured my approach to scripture. I reiterated Alan’s challenge that the outcome of this meeting needed to be a commitment to remain in fellowship with one another despite our differences of opinion.

Ray and Dave responded positively to this call and I believe the way forward, while painful, will be hopeful. There was a general acknowledgement that we need to respect that each “side” approaches the Bible with integrity and sincerity. We also agreed that our being together in the church is more important than our opinions about sexuality.

This is a massive step forward as it holds out the hope that we can as a church express a single conviction that our members may have differing opinions.

I hope that this will mean in future that the church may even accommodate a divergence in practice as well as opinion so that some of us can conduct same-sex marriages. I believe that this may in fact be what DEWCOM recommend to Conference. This would be consistent with Methodist theology and the MCSA’s current stance on homosexuality.

Methodist theology holds many different forms of Christianity under one denomination. We are often accused of being un-systematic and mixed up, but it is the beauty of this denomination that so many different Christian expressions find a home here and have to work out how to live with each other. The current MCSA stance on homosexuality is that we have none (simplification) and are engaging in a conversation to establish a way forward. My argument is that until we have an opinion as the whole church we must either place a moratorium on all marriages or allow clergy to conduct marriages for anyone they choose according to conscience.

One step closer to an inclusive church…

Sermon - the price of change

Read: Mark 10:17-31

Sarah says there is a comedian called Eddie Izard who says it’s easy to get a camel through the eye of needle – all you need is a heavy duty blender and lot of patience…

Sarah also points out the ways that preachers try to side-step this one, including the “ecclesiastical urban legend” of the “eye of the needle gate”. So I am conscious that I have a big responsibility to speak of good news as well as carry over Jesus’ hard words without compromise.

Yup – this is one of those texts that is real hard to preach… I keep hearing Jesus saying, “Sell the bike; sell the bike.” Eina. Jesus said it – deal with it…

“Who is rich?” is the first question that springs to mind. An income of just over R1000 a month puts you in the top 18% of the world population. I am in the top 9% which is embarrassing and it hurts to think I am like the young man in the passage today.

But wealth is more than income, it is access. Some people, who earn R1000 a month, must share that with a large family. Others can keep it for themselves. Some must spend almost all their income on rent and transport alone, get a second job to pay for survival. I think access is a more appropriate measure of wealth – access to health care, access to human rights, access to democracy, access to security, and especially access to leisure.

Yesterday, I spent the whole day with friends and family having fun. That is a privilege very few people have in the world. I admit it, I am rich…

Why do the disciples then say, “Then who can be saved?” They came from relatively poor families and had effectively sold themselves into poverty for Jesus’ cause. And anyway, the obvious answer is that their question is that the poor are saved. But perhaps the disciples recognize that it isn’t about money in the pocket as much as money in the head. Everyone wants to be wealthy. From the poorest of the poor to the wealthiest person, everyone wants more. A radical redistribution of the world’s wealth will not leave everyone equal; it will simply reboot the system. It will not be long before poverty sets in again. The disciples recognize that Jesus is targeting the desire for wealth.

The problem with wealth, as Sarah has so rightly put it, is that it orders our relationships in ways that are unhealthy, not to mention sinful. These unhealthy relationships connect us to a web which is part of the global system that creates poverty.

Take charity for instance: out of the ten people who knock on my door asking for money or food, at least one is genuine. What do I do? Normally I give something. It costs me nothing and assuages my guilt to some extent. But it changes nothing. The person is still poor, and no matter how grateful for the gift, their situation confronts my apathy. The power imbalance is still there – I have the power to give life and death. Charity is not part of God’s Kingdom.

Should I give away all that I have – sell that motorbike? Yes, but carefully. As much as giving at the door does not change the system, so will giving all my wealth to a worthy cause not change anything. It is the system that must change. Part of that is the idea that I as an individual can change the system single handedly…

Jesus and his disciples lived in community, sharing everything with each other, largely supported by wealthy, independent women.

Notice that there is a journey of faith played out subtly in the characters of today’s story.

The young man has already worked hard at being good, only to be told that even Jesus is not good. That sucks. You slave away your whole life and realize the oke you’re trying to copy has been a bad boy. And Jesus was bad – healing on the Sabbath, chasing people out of church, getting people drunk at parties, fraternizing with prostitutes…

So, the young man has a revelation – it is not about being good. That is not to say, that you should be bad – unless you are going to be Jesus-bad. But being good doesn’t cure this young man of his deep spiritual longing for … for what?

Jesus looks at him and loves him. Wow. Before the man has answered, before he jumps through any more hoops – he is loved. This is enough for some people. Be good and know that God loves you. But if you long for more, then Jesus says sell all you have and follow him.

The young man can’t do this, but Peter is worried and says, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” You can almost hear him wondering about that secret stash of cash back home in the pantry. Peter is wondering whether he has made the cut.

And Jesus’ answer to Peter begins the same – love. “Look, Peter, you have given up much and you have in turn received so much. See your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers and children gained in this community because of your sacrificial service.” Jesus loves Peter and points to the gains he has. But there is more, “You will also receive persecution because of this choice of yours. You will suffer.” It is by no means easy.

I can imagine Peter saying, “Yes I get that – I’ll see about the persecution thing – but I get the new family thing. But have I made the cut?”

And then Jesus says something strange, “The first will be last and the last shall be first.” This is something you’d think he’d say to the rich young man, not to Peter. Unless it is Jesus being Buddhist again, constantly shifting the goal posts.

At the end of the day, there is nothing one can do to gain access to the Kingdom. Access describes wealth in the world, but access to the Kingdom cannot be attained by any amount of noble intention or action. The Kingdom constantly slips through our fingers like a bar of soap. Just when we think we have it – like the young man, or like Peter – it evades our definition, our ownership.

Eventually, when we give up trying to be good people, when we give up trying to be right people, when we cease in our desperate striving, we realize the Kingdom has been hear all along. When we fail, when we give up, we arrive. We are surrounded by brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, children and lands. We belong already.

“For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible” says Jesus.

So, if you want to be good and know that you are loved then come to church, do the right thing – Jesus loves you. If that doesn’t satisfy, know that there is even more, salvation is secure. Peter, you belong. Your place is assured. God has forgiven you.

You can do all this and still not be satisfied. You can sell all your goods and realize that even that does not bring peace. None of this has anything to do with knowing Jesus. If you want to know Jesus; if you are interested in following him then take the next step. It will hurt, you will suffer, but it will never be boring. Bind yourself to Jesus’ friends, using your combined resources to change the world by living out in your relationships with each other the kind of Kingdom stuff Jesus talks about.

Start small:

Maybe I won’t sell my motorbike, or maybe I will, but I will definitely use it to help others enjoy the leisure I get from it.

And the woman who helps clean my house for a little more than a R1000 a month. Maybe I can help her get the education which could see her owning her own business one day.

And the next time someone who needs my help comes to the door, I’ll offer to go home with them and see where they live. In all likelihood the offer will be refused. But one day it will be accepted and I will need the grace to accept hospitality from someone I once saw as poor. Who knows where that will take us…

You never know, maybe we’ll change the world.

Dassie checking for hawks

Monday I put in a last minute submission to the Portfolio Committee on the Civil Union Bill. Only Die Burger was present to hear it so they ran a story on the submission. If you can read Afrikaans, you can read it here. Yesterday Raport, another Afrikaans newspaper, picked up on the story and conducted an interview. I'll post a link in due course. I'm a little nervous about this given missive from on high recently about Methodist Clergy not misrepresenting the MCSA. I have been at pains to point out to people that I speak in my personal capacity. I wonder if Tutu has this problem?

Sermon - marriage

Add in paper for motorbike:

For sale: 2006 Suzuki 1000. This bike is perfect! It has 1000 miles and has had its 500-mile dealer service. (Expensive) It's been adult ridden, all wheels have always been on the ground. I use it as a cruiser/ commuter. I'm selling it because it was purchased without proper consent of a loving wife. Apparently "Do whatever the HELL you want" Doesn't mean what I thought.

Read Mark 10:2-9
Once more the lectionary provides a fitting reflection for God’s people as we debate with each other the proposed Civil Union Bill. Tomorrow Parliamentary representatives will be visiting Woodstock Town Hall to garner community responses to the Civil Union Bill. The debate so far, both in the political and ecclesiastical spheres, has centred on the definition of “marriage” so it is fitting that we reflect on Jesus’ theology of marriage.

As always, when considering how Jesus speaks to us in the present we need to understand the original context of his teaching lest we do him the disservice of mistranslating his words into our context, so different from his own.

I found Sarah’s reflection on the background succinct. You may want to visit and see the points that she draws out from Jesus’ words.

We can see how different those times are from our own from even a cursory reading of the text. The Pharisees ask Jesus if it is permissible for a man to issue a certificate of divorce. They do not ask if a woman can do so.

There were two, not entirely mutually exclusive, theologies on marriage at the time of Jesus. The first saw marriage as a contractual arrangement between father and husband, whereby the daughter is transferred from father to husband by mutual agreement. The wife is absent from this agreement. A woman did not issue a certificate of divorce. Her father might do so, but not her, even in the case of infidelity on the husband’s part. Should a woman find herself divorced she could appeal to her father for ongoing support but she was not guaranteed this support. She forfeited her rights as a daughter once she got married. She forfeited her rights (such as they were) as a wife once she got divorced. A divorced woman without the support of her father often had to resort to prostitution as the sole means of making ends meet since the likelihood of re-marriage were poor to nil – divorced women were “used goods”. It is for this reason particularly that we see Jesus taking up the cause of prostitutes. They were above all else, the victims of a terribly brutal system.

A second view of marriage placed marriage as cornerstone of national identity. For a small nation with curious customs and beset by oppression and prejudice, the preservation of national identity was paramount. Securing and growing the next generation was considered a command of God: “go and multiply” says the Priestly story of Creation in Genesis 1, written during Israel’s exile in Babylon where they suffered a particularly harsh regime. If a marriage did not produce children, it was a worthless union – the woman carrying the blame for its infertility. Such a marriage was as good as dead by society’s standards and so the husband was obliged to seek another wife.

The Pharisees ask their question because they know that the Mosaic command was a compromise. The issuing of a divorce certificate was a practice that evolved as a result of the imperative to procreate. Everyone knew that the original design of God was something lifelong. Jesus takes to idealistic position and criticises his brother Pharisees for their compromise with expediency.

Jesus returns to the creation stories and quotes from both versions to justify a hard line on marriage. It is as important to note what Jesus leaves out as it is to see what he incorporates as his foundational texts for a theology on marriage.

He quotes Genesis 1:27 firstly. Both male and female are created in the image of God. The implications are obvious – women should enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to men in marriage. Anything less, is an affront to the image of God. Furthermore, the image of God is two unique individuals, created as equal but separate entities. It is not “marriage” that is the image of God, but the individuals who make a marriage – or who are not married for that matter. Marriage is not the cornerstone of society. A fully alive human person is – male and female. Jesus confronts his society’s obsession with marriage and calls his followers to regard all people as equally valuable whether married or single, divorced or widowed, male or female.

Then Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24. But he leaves out Genesis 1:28, which more traditionally would have been quoted in any theology of marriage. In so doing Jesus chooses to use the second creation story as the basis of his theology and specifically rejects the first.

The first story has God create the humanity as the pinnacle of creation. Humanity is created at the end but is given the same command as all the other creatures: “Be fruitful and multiply.” The first story pictures humans as special but still very much animals – multiplying like the rest of creation.

The second story focuses far more on humanity with Adam being created as God’s companion. For some reason (perhaps because God makes poor espresso) Adam wants a companion too (perhaps God is too busy making the universe). So God creates Eve as a companion for Adam.

Jesus chooses the idea of companionship as the foundational idea of marriage. He specifically rejects the idea of procreation as the basis for marriage. He also speaks against the notion that the man is the most important part of a marriage.

Then Jesus goes on to say, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Such companionship is lifelong and not to be treated lightly.

Jesus speaks against the prejudicial notions of marriage in his own time, but also against the obsession with romance that characterises our own time. Lifelong mutual companionship cannot be based on fleeting, fickle romance; otherwise the next pretty face may cause one’s commitment to waver. While the romance may help in the beginning it is no long term foundation.

I think of comments I hear from young people these days, which remind me of the problems Jesus addresses.

“My parents think John is not intellectually my equal, that he is not up to our standard.” This smacks of marriage seen as a contractual arrangement to secure the status quo – to preserve status and economic class. Not unlike the contracts of Jesus time.

“Isn’t sad that they haven’t had children yet.”
Sometimes couples choose not to have children. Sometimes they do. One wonders if greater attention needs to be paid to the issue before marriage – questions of fertility and children resolved before making a lifelong commitment.

“She would be a lot happier if she could just find a husband.”
No doubt this is true in some cases, but singleness is not a curse and some people choose it deliberately, preferring to not make lifelong commitments.

“But Mom, I love her!”
Are we teaching our children what love really is? It seems to me most young people’s (and adults for that matter) idea of love is formed by romantic comedies. A better comparison for love in marriage would be the convent or monastery – that is the commitment not the total celibacy!

And then there is the question of gender. If Jesus’ theology of marriage is based principly on the idea of lifelong companionship, why does such companionship have to be gendered? Is not possible that such a covenantal union could be exercised by same sex couples?

Jesus challenged the definition of marriage in his day, and I believe he challenges our definitions today.

Hell 4

Damnation! Scolded again… er… scalded that is. Slabbie sent me veritable proof that Hell exists…

It’s in Michigan, USA.

Hell was first settled in 1838 by George Reeves and his family. George had a wife and 7 daughters – no reason to call it Hell yet… George built a mill and a general store on the banks of a river that is now known as Hell Creek. The mill would grind the local farmers grain into flour; George also ran a whiskey still, so a lot of times the first 7-10 bushels of grain became moonshine.

In turn, horses would come home without riders, wagons without drivers….someone would say to the wife, where is your husband? She'd shrug her shoulders, throw up her arms and exclaim, 'Ahh, he's gone to Hell!'

In 1841 when the State of Michigan came by, and asked George what he wanted to name his town, he replied, 'Call it Hell for all I care, everyone else does.' So the official date of becoming Hell was October 13, 1841.

Word Cancer

Recently some of my buddies in the kerk have been playing with word verification meanings with hilarious results. I want to start a catalogue of funny spell check Freudian slips like this one:

My word: Parastatal
Spell check suggestion: prostate

A friend quipped: makes sense… when they reach a certain age, cancer is more likely.

Send your entry to gregandrews@shade.org.za

Hell 3

I have been duly chastised. Hell is a real place. Click here - if you dare - to visit.

Sermon: loskop

Read Mark 9:42-50

Whenever I read this text I imagine a congregation of torsos and heads lolling around on the pews. It is a ridiculous exaggeration - typical of Jesus style - to suggest that we lop off body parts that cause us to sin. Gives new meaning to the word "loskop" in Afrikaans.

We do well to remember that Jesus is using exaggeration, much as he does in his parables and other teachings. Obviously, sin does not reside in my hands and feet or eyes, but in my mind.

Jesus refers to the “little ones” and Sarah reminds us that this meant more than just children. It referred to anyone vulnerable, whether because of poverty, injustice or some other circumstance.

It is interesting, though, that Jesus warns about causing the little ones to stumble in the context of feet, hands and eyes. These three words are often used in ancient Hebrew as euphemisms for sex. For instance, Ruth slept at Boaz’s feet on the threshing floor…

It may be that Jesus is dealing here with sexual abuse, exhorting in the strongest possible language that his followers deal with abuse unequivocally in their midst. Read William Loader’s comments on this.

We do well then to remember again that Jesus is exaggerating! I think of the numerous calls that have been made to have rapists and child abusers castrated. Such mutilation does not work. Rape is not about sex; it is about power and domination. Similarly, sexual abuse is not about sex; it is about inappropriate intimacy. Taking Jesus literally would be reading too much into Jesus’ hyperbole and pragmatically useless.

But there is a theological reason why Jesus words should be taken as figurative not literal. Look at who is speaking them. This is the man who at the end of the story is mutilated for the world’s sin. The man who never sinned is mutilated because of other people’s sinfulness. Jesus is doing more than exaggerating: he is being ironic.

At the moment of his crucifixion we hear Jesus grant forgiveness to those who killed him. We believe that forgiveness is available for everyone because we are all involved in Jesus’ death by virtue of belonging to a society that creates the dynamics that killed him.

Can we say that forgiveness is offered to the perpetrators of abuse? Surely we are bound to say so. How can we not? The abuser was once abused. Will God give the punishment the abuser deserves or the compassion the abused abuser needs?

My mom-in-law, Jeanne, tells of an incident that happened early in her career as a social worker. She was sitting with a child who had been abused by her father. None of Jeanne’s therapeutic skills could get this child to talk about her trauma and begin the journey to healing. They were sitting in a room - shortly after the girl had been brought in by police - with a view of the rest of the police station. Her father was brought in for questioning. One of the policemen involved who had heard the little girl’s story, saw the father being brought in and the little girl’s expression of fear. The officer got up and walked over to the father and decked him with a full blow to the face. To Jeanne’s surprise the little girl immediately responded to the policeman and began to tell him her story.

That little girl needed justice; needed an adult to stand up for her against the evil that she had suffered. I can’t say that what the cop did was right but, somehow, I can’t say it was wrong…

Children in South Africa suffer the triple abuse of the abuse itself, society’s silence about abuse and justice delayed which is justice denied. Without justice, how are children to trust society? Without talking about these things, how are children to journey to wholeness? It is no wonder that so many abused children become abusers.

I recently met a man who introduced himself as a child abuser. I had a hard time regaining the conversation after that. Where do you go from there? I wanted to excuse myself. He was abused as a child and grew into an adult who abused. He was arrested and pled guilty. He was imprisoned but this never helped. He still needs sex with children. He hates himself and has tried to commit suicide several times. Therapy has helped a little but the only thing that stops him abusing again is his introducing himself to everyone as an abuser. Some people shun him; a few accept him with caution. I was afraid of him.

This man needs compassion but who will give it?

Jesus asks us to do two contradictory things at the same time. He asks us to seek justice for those who are wronged, to confront evil wherever we encounter it. Jesus also asks us to extend compassion to those who perpetrate evil. Often the one who must suffer justice and needs compassion is one and the same person.

We cannot hope that our society will be able to offer justice to children as well as therapeutic compassion to perpetrators of abuse unless we completely revise out language. Our language does not enable us to embrace and confront at the same time. Our justice system is based on the premise that the individual bares the full responsibility for their actions, even when the roots of evil are more complicated and extend beyond the individual.

I have found Nonviolent Communication to be the best example of a language that might offer us the opportunity to do that. I recommend it to your conscience for your sake, but more importantly, for our society’s sake.

I think Jesus' last line in this reading is interesting: "Be salty people and be at peace with one another." I have always thought of salt as abrasive. I think of salt on open wounds. Jesus makes the clear link between salty people and peace. Interesting...