Today the
lectionary gospel passage (Luke 14:25-33) is a hard one for us to understand in contemporary
times. None of us follow it. None of us do what it says.
There are three main
instructions for discipleship contained within the passage:
1. Hate mother, father, brothers, sisters, spouse, children, self.
2. Give
up all your possessions.
3. Check
you are willing to do all that before you try to be a follower.
It was a passage
I read and almost wanted to skip but decided to pursue it. I will follow Phyllis
Trible’s advice and shake the passage in the hope it will yield a blessing.
Firstly, as one
with an interest in feminist theology. I want to comment on the verse about hating
your family. In my list of the requirements for discipleship I use the word
spouse, that is how we understand it in contemporary times. However, the actual
word is “gunaika” which means woman and wife. Therefore, when the author of
Luke penned these verses they were being spoken to males. The females were, as
is often the case in the scriptures, invisible. They were not thought of or included. The
people who were being called to discipleship were told to hate their wives. If the
verses are taken literally they are not for women! I think that is worth taking
very seriously and pondering.
Secondly I want
to comment on the requirement to give up all one’s possessions. It would be
easy to conclude that in this passage the possessions are wife, children and
family. The wife and children belong to the male. Once again confirming the
patriarchal nature of the passage. It may, of course, also refer to material
possessions yet in the Lucan passage there is no thought of selling to give to
the poor. This is not a passage about sharing means with those less fortunate.
The poor are never mentioned. It is merely a leaving behind and renouncing of all
one owns.
In our culture
both family and possessions are understood very differently. Society functions
in a completely different way. If everyone gave up their homes, their means of
income, and disowned family members then society would collapse. The few people
who try to do this become reliant on others to support them.
Many years ago I
had a colleague who chose not to have a car. It was not for religious reasons
but to try and live more simply and care for the environment. A laudable aim.
This colleague happily used public transport to work but then wanted to go on
vacation. She asked me to take her to the airport about 50 miles away. I agreed.
Then I realized not only would I have to take her but also pick her up ten days
later. This colleague’s living simply actually meant I did two one-hundred-mile
round trips!
I’m not using
the story to say that the colleague should not have followed her conscience,
trying to reduce car emissions is a good thing. Nor am I saying that I resented
taking her to the airport, I did so gladly. What I want to do is use the story
to say that if everyone followed the recommendations in this Lukan passage our
whole society would change. It would be inevitable. At the barest level everyone
who took the scripture seriously would be homeless with no supportive
relationships.
So can the
passage be interpreted in a way that is relevant for us today?
Or should the
passage simply be disregarded as irrelevant?
When interpreting scripture I often use a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. I used it extensively in my work looking at corporal punishment
which I quickly realized was, in large part, a religious argument.
The term redemptive-movement
hermeneutic was first suggested by William Webb. It bears much resemblance to
other forms of interpretation, in particular the historical-critical method. What is suggested is that when looking at
practices in the scripture one has to take into account the practices of
surrounding culture. Then note the way the practices advocated are modified
so they are somewhat redeemed. This process happens continually as humanity
develops and progresses.
A classic example
is slavery. To our mindset slavery is abhorrent. Yet it was accepted as the
norm in the scriptures. In the Old Testament there are many regulations for the
treatment of slaves (Deuteronomy). When the redemptive-movement
hermeneutic is applied the contrast between the practices of the surrounding tribes and the
treatment prescribed in the text is noted. This shows that improved conditions were insisted upon for slaves. In
another of the lectionary readings for today Paul advocated for a slave who had
served him in prison. Paul did not advocate that the slave was freed but that
he was to be treated as a brother (Philemon 1:16). Time and space don’t allow
for fully tracing the history of slavery in the scriptures but even these two
citations show a movement in the way slaves were viewed. Of course, neither reflects a contemporary view on slavery. The redemptive-movement hermeneutic allows
things to continue moving towards a better position beyond the time frame of
the scriptures.
If the
redemptive-movement is applied to the passage it allows the freedom to not take
it literally. The text can be understood within its own culture. It was said at
a time when women and children were possessions, not partners in a relationship.
It was said to a comparatively small group of people in a localized setting. Today,
everyone would fall far short.
Recognizing that
this passage, if taken literally, has little relevance today gives a freedom to
explore what seeking after spirituality and discipleship means. So often when a text such as
this is read it produces guilt. Often expressed as, “I’m too fond of my family”
or “I haven’t given away all my possessions” or “I’m not being true to the
scriptures.”
Seeing that there
is movement within and beyond scripture allows common sense to be applied.
It doesn’t deter
people from seeking spirituality. It is not rejecting family and leaving
possessions that are the face of true spirituality for contemporary society. It
is helping those who are marginalized or being a voice for those who have no
voice or serving society or simply being as Christ to those we meet.
