Pentecost 14 C: Dream Tenders
Dear Partner in Preaching,
Because I am an avid fan of the Olympics, I have been regularly staying up way too late to watch the struggles and victories of the athletes gathered in Rio. And while doing so I have been hearing a lot of “dream” talk. Michael Phelps described his recovery, comeback, and remarkable set of accomplishments in the pool this past week as a dream come true. Simon Biles, perhaps the greatest gymnast of all time, also talked about living out a dream, as did Simone Manuel, the first US African American to win a gold medal in swimming. Katie Ladecky, Kristin Armstrong, Ryan Murphy, Usain Bolt and so many others standing tall on the Olympic dais to receive their medals are also all living out their dreams.
All of which got me wondering: how many dreams had the woman in today’s gospel story gotten to live out before meeting Jesus? This isn’t to suggest that persons with long standing disabilities or illness don’t have dreams or can’t achieve significant accomplishments. Of course they can. But it is to recognize how different – and difficult – life would have been for someone like this woman who was so stooped over so she couldn’t stand up straight, let alone tall, and this for eighteen years! Little wonder that after being healed she immediately began praising God, as I suspect that whatever other dreams she harbored, this one was closest to her heart and now, because of Jesus, it was coming true.
In reading this story, it’s easy for us not only to sympathize and rejoice with this woman, but also to mentally chastise the leader of the synagogue. How could he, we wonder, be so cold hearted that he would object to the gift of healing Jesus offered? But before moving too quickly to judgment, it may help to understand a bit more about the origin and nature of the Sabbath commandment.
You may remember that the Sabbath has two origins in Scripture. One roots it in the story of creation – as God rested on the seventh day, so also should all creation have a time of rest and renewal. It’s second “origin story” comes from Exodus account, as Sabbath rest comes not as a command but as good news to slaves who never, ever had a chance to rest. Indeed, the command/promise of rest was extended to all. Rich or poor, adult or child, human or animal, everyone needs a time to rest, and so God makes it a commandment to safeguard rest for all.
For what it’s worth, I think this has implications for current debates about paid sick-leave and treatment of migrant workers and more, but that’s probably for another sermon. For this sermon, I simply want to point out that the synagogue leader was trying to defend a law that was at the heart of the Exodus covenant with God. He wasn’t saying, “Don’t heal.” He was rather saying, “There are six days on which to heal. Why not heal on one of those days and respect this core tenet of our faith?” More than that, I suspect this synagogue leader had a deep respect not only for tradition but for law and order. If one starts breaking the Sabbath law, after all, what will go next? Law helps to protect us, offers the possibility of creating order, and at its best provides stability, all of which are essential for human flourishing. And so this leader of the synagogue may have been trying to stick up for the principle of law and order with which most of us, truth be told, would support.
But whether it is respect for tradition, the value of rest, or the principle of law and order that is at stake, Jesus places this woman’s health and wellbeing above all of them. Jesus, that is, while also respecting the law, recognizes that the law itself was given as a gift to serve God’s children and draw them more deeply into the abundant life God offers. And so perhaps Jesus’ sharp critique is that the leader of the synagogue had forgotten that the law was intended to serve God’s people and instead revered it for its own sake. He forgot that the law is meant to create the conditions in which we can help each other live into our dreams – and into God’s dreams for us – and so ended up sacrificing this woman’s dreams to satisfy his sense of law and order.
It’s an interesting idea, isn’t it? That the law invites us to nurture, tend, and keep each other’s dreams. That the law is God’s gift to help us live into God’s dream that all persons would be treated with love and respect, that all people would grow up with a robust measure of dignity, that all persons would have enough to eat and a safe place to live.
We are dream tenders, Dear Partner, all of us. And I wonder if this week we can send our people out hearing of God’s profound love for us and all people and sensing God’s commission to us to look out for the welfare of each other, recognizing that while law is good, love is even better.
Interesting, the inherent logic of the law itself reinforces this. Absent law, it’s each person for him or herself, but when we receive the law as God’s gift to help us live into God’s dream of abundant life for all, we recognize that we are most faithful to the law when we use it to help and protect each other, not insist on it for its own sake or for personal again. And suddenly, rather than looking out for ourselves, we have a whole community of people looking out for us, even as we look out for all others.
Dream Tenders. What a wonderful identity into which we are invited, placing the law of love above all other laws and reaching out to help those around us stand up a little taller as they hear of and experience God’s love through our words and deeds. Thank you for sharing this word and promise, Dear Partner. Your proclamation and ministry matter, now more than ever.
Yours in Christ,
David
This text also presents the issue of Divine obedience (to the law, as originally intended) as occasionally a necessary act of civil, cultural, or legal disobedience. Gandhi was known to boldly and openly break British law (eg. the salt tax code) for the sake of a higher law (both salt and land belong to the people of India, not the British Raj). Dr. King was known to openly and boldly break Jim Crow laws for the sake of a higher law (all human beings are made in the image of God, and are “created equal” according to the Constitution). Daniel and Phillip Berrigan pounded on nuclear missile nosecones, destroying “property” supposedly made for our nation’s “national security” (the idol of our time), while attempting to express a higher, international law–as the Marten’s clause and the Geneva both state that weapons of mass civilian destruction are illegal and immoral, regardless of who builds them.
Unfortunately these weapons are still being built by our nation and, as we know, many others. Your tax dollars and mine (now to the tune of $1 Trillion as currently proposed by the Pentagon for “refurbishing” the nuclear “stockpile”) are now being spent for this purpose, even though existing weapons can destroy the planet many times over!
What would Jesus do? What laws would Jesus follow? Which laws would he disregard or resist for the sake of a higher law? Specifically, are taxes “due” to a nuclear armed “caesar”, even one elected by the people? Would Bonhoeffer have called for Christian resistance to the manufacture of “Zyklon B”? Should churches divest from nuclear weapons manufacturers, and universities which oversee this “industry”, as is currently pursued with respect to fossil fuel investments? Do churches nearby the many nuclear weapon manufacturing, design, or testing sites have anything to say about their members working in this “industry”, or the well-documented pollution and contamination which has already been a consequence?
Sometimes it is, indeed, both necessary and faithful to break the law for the sake of a higher law, including the law and the leading of Christ, the Prince of Peace+