This summer we are preaching a series of
sermons on the first half of Mark’s Gospel, and this is the 5th in
the series. It features a clash between Jesus and a sinister combination of
religious and political leaders, which ends with them making the first moves in
a plot to kill him which will eventually culminate in the crucifixion. Word has reached the religious
establishment in Jerusalem that, up in Galilee, there is a totally unauthorised
teacher and healer, in the style of the prophets of old, who is behaving as if
he has been specially anointed by God to bring in God’s sovereign rule on earth,
and is attracting to himself vast crowds and enormous popularity. This is
deeply offensive to the established religious leaders from whom he has no
mandate, and politically dangerous as it could threaten the delicate balance
that preserves a finely drawn line of semi-independence from Rome.
It seems that they send a delegation up to
Galilee to see what is happening and put a stop to it. We are beginning to see
them challenging Jesus’ authority and actions at every turn, and when their
challenges fail to stop him in his tracks, they begin to consider more drastic
ways to get rid of him.
From our point of view as readers, it’s
interesting that Mark has several times drawn our attention to the authority of
Jesus’ teaching, but for the moment we mostly learn about his teaching – not in
records of his preaching – but in pithy replies to the challenges of his
opponents.
The two incidents we are looking at today
both concern Sabbath observance. In our first reading from Exodus 20 we heard
the familiar recital of the ten commandments. There we learn that the Sabbath
(Saturday) must be a day of rest for the Jewish people, and therefore they must
refrain from ‘work’. So the obvious question arises ‘What constitutes work?’.
Over the years the Pharisees had progressively
drawn up more and more complicated and intricate rules about what you could and
could not do on the Sabbath. The rules ran to at least 39 regulations which
were very restrictive indeed. Their purpose, of course, was to try and
interpret God’s will for the Sabbath, so that God would be pleased to see his
people observing the Sabbath correctly.
To their eyes, Jesus and his disciples could be seen flouting some of
the finer points of their complicated rules, and the question Jesus is
effectively posing is: have they lost sight of the spirit and intention of
God’s Law in the mass of practical, detailed rules and traditions? Were they
failing to see the wood for the trees?
This, of course, has implications for us. But
before we get to that, we need to note that it had very practical implications
for the early Christian church members for whom Mark was writing.
The early church had mixed congregations of
Jews and Gentiles. The ordinary Gentile had never observed the Sabbath. The
Romans and Greeks normally worked to a seven day week, interspersed with
various holidays in honour of their many gods. Christian slaves had no holidays
at all. So the Jewish Sabbath ceased to be observed by the new Christian church
at a very early date. They met for worship whenever it was possible on Sundays,
because this was the day of the Lord’s resurrection. Often worshippers could
find time to meet for worship either early in the morning or in the evening.
But there remained for some years groups of Christian Jews who wanted to insist
that, for the Christian, there remained under the new covenant an obligation to
observe the Sabbath. Paul writes about this very strongly in Romans 14, where
he argues effectively that there is absolutely no obligation on the Christian
to observe the Sabbath. But as it remained a point of contention at the time
Mark was writing this Gospel, Jesus’ words and actions will have re-assured
Gentile Christians.
But over the centuries of course, the kind of
restrictions that applied to the Jewish Saturday Sabbath now applied to
Sundays. Some periods of Christian history have tried to apply very strict
rules indeed, and over time the argument has swung to and fro, the latest being
over the question of Sunday trading. But whereas there is much to be said for a
day of refreshment, re-creation and rest on one day in every seven, - a family
day - there is nothing in the New
Testament to say that this is in any way obligatory. So passages like these
which deal with Sabbath observance have continued to have relevance. Perhaps
two points remain open to debate:
1. The first goes back to the creation story,
and suggests that life at its best has a natural rhythm, and that six working
days followed by a day of rest (whatever day that is) fits best with our life’s
rhythm and contributes to our health and well-being.
2. The second is that traditionally the
Christian Church has met for worship on Sundays, and that a State which claims
a Christian heritage should try and make it possible for as many Christians as
possible to be free to attend worship at some time on that day.
But we must now go on to consider more
generally the main points of principle which arise from the two incidents in
today’s Gospel reading. Jesus is effectively saying : Can you not see that – in
me – God is opening up a new era, a new covenant, the kingdom of God, and that
the old rules and traditions must not be allowed to get in the way.
It’s easy for us to be critical of the
Pharisees for attacking Jesus with their rigid traditional regulations. But is
it not true that, over centuries, the Christian Church has also built up great
rafts of rules and traditions about how things should be done, and how easily these can also inhibit the work of
Jesus through the Holy Spirit?
Even I can remember the time when it seemed
almost mandatory that Church services should be held at certain set times, and
should be done in precisely the way the Prayer Book dictates. People sat in
their traditional seats and wore clothes deemed proper and fashionable for church. If children were allowed at all, it was only
under strict rules of behaviour and noise. And this would be defended by what
the New Testament calls the ‘traditions of the elders’. ‘When I was young
.....!’ By definition, this would exclude many people, and arguably still does.
Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
these traditions and rules have gradually loosened. The wind of the Holy
Spirit – the wind of change – has blown through the churches, and the fresh air
that we see Jesus insisting upon in these Gospel stories, has allowed many new
forms of worship and freedom of expression.
When we consider the proposals for the
renewal of this church building, the first essential is to rid ourselves of
traditional ideas about what a church building should look like. We believe
that God wants to do something new. It mustn’t be dictated by the ‘traditions
of the Pharisees and the elders..’ The church building and complex must serve
the needs of those in Camberley now, and be a place which is attractive, welcoming
and fit for purpose. A church building is no more than a space for worship and
fellowship. It can be in almost any conceivable shape and format. There are no
rules in the New Testament or the teaching of Jesus!
What that shape and format should be are
proper matters for debate and decision. But if we start by making assumptions
based on tradition – or even preference based on tradition – we are trying to
restrict the work of Jesus in the Spirit in just the way the Pharisees are in
these stories.
This month the General Synod of the Church of
England will be debating whether women can be consecrated as bishops. The fact
is that – over many years now – we have seen the manifest work of the Holy
Spirit calling women to ordained ministry. Who would oppose this manifest work
of the Holy Spirit, clear for all to see? Surely only those whose theology of
priesthood is rooted in tradition, or those whose theology of the church is
rooted in tradition, or those who fear the implications of change from the
accepted norm. We need to take great care that we are not found to be opposing
the work of the Holy Spirit, for Jesus calls that blasphemy.
Many more examples come to mind but the
principles at work in these two stories are clear enough. The Pharisees
sincerely believed they were pleasing God by adhering strictly to the
commandments as they had received and interpreted them. But Jesus is Lord over
all these rules and regulations. The wind of the Holy Spirit must be allowed to
blow through the church, and we must pray for discernment to know what is of
the Holy Spirit, and what is no more than the latest human fashion.
Our situation is not the same as that described in today’s
Gospel but the principles are. Discernment is stated by St Paul to be one of
the principal gifts of the Holy Spirit. We need to pray deeply and often for
that gift. But the starting point is the fresh and open mind that is not ruled
by the past, but open and expectant that our God will do a new thing in our
lives, and in our church.
Discussion.
1. Discuss how your own ideas about ‘Sunday
Observance’ have changed (or not) over the years. What do you think are the
most important principles at stake?
2. When considering proposals about
re-ordering the interior of St Michael’s and the building of a new hall, how
far do you think traditional layouts and uses are important? What do you think
are the essentials which need to be preserved?
3. It’s easy to confuse the latest fashion or
idea with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How do we seek to tell the
difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment