Blog Layout

Family Values

Rebecca Clancy

Genesis 30:4-17 I Corinthians 7:32-38 Matthew 19:12

There are many proponents around these days of “Family Values.” And at first blush these proponents would seem to have a benign enough agenda. Proponents of “Family Values” would seem at least to be proponents of the sanctity of the family. The sanctity of the family. Could there be a more benign agenda than that? But in fact, “Family Values” is a loaded expression, as the Bible would call a shibboleth. Proponents of “Family Values” are proponents of the sanctity of the family, true enough, but the sanctity of only a certain kind of family -- the “traditional” family, as they refer to it.

The “traditional” family, as they understand it, is about what you’d expect – a mom, a dad, and two or three children with straight teeth. Proponents of “Family Values” believe in the sanctity of the “traditional” family because they believe the traditional family is the basis for moral society. Conversely, proponents of family values believe that the “non-traditional” family is a threat to moral society. And the strange thing about all this is that they use the Bible as support for their position.

And so let us examine the biblical family for what evidence it may yield that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. We may as well begin at the beginning, with Adam and Eve and their sons Cain and Abel. A mom, a dad, and two kids – O.K. so far, a nice traditional family, assuming Cain and Abel have straight teeth.

But the family of Adam and Eve, in fact, gives testimony to the fact that the traditional family is not necessarily the basis for moral society. Adam and Eve, after all, through their disobedience occasioned nothing less than the fall of humankind, some time after which Cain murdered his brother Abel in cold blood. The first biblical family in fact, though traditional, would appear to be the basis for immoral society.

Well then, what about the second biblical family, the family of Noah? Again, a nice traditional family -- a mom, a dad, and three sons this time -- Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Noah was, as the Bible states it, “a righteous man, blameless in his generation.” This in fact is why he was preserved
 from the flood. He wasn’t disobedient, like his forebear Adam. The Lord told him to build an ark, and he built an ark. The Lord told him to bring animals on board two by two, and he brought the animals on board two by two.

But after the flood, Noah’s run of righteousness and blamelessness ended. Maybe it was all that family time on the ark, but after he disembarked, he planted a vineyard and got drunk off the fruit of the vine. Poor Ham stumbled upon his father naked and unconscious, and when Noah learned of it he took it out on Ham’s son. He cursed his own grandson, declared that his descendants would all be slaves. Another biblical family that, though traditional, would appear to be the basis for immoral society.

Then comes the family of Abraham. Unfortunately, the family of Abraham starts off at a disadvantage, because it is not a traditional family. To be sure, there’s a mom and a dad, Abraham and Sarah, but then there’s an extra mom Hagar. And not in succession either; Abraham was a polygamist. He had the two sons, but that does little to override the polygamy piece. No doubt about it, the family of Abraham was a non-traditional family.
 
And the family of Abraham give testimony to the fact that the non- traditional family is not necessarily the basis for moral society either. Abraham’s wife Sarah got jealous of her rival Hagar and banished her and her son into the dessert where she hoped they would die of thirst. Add to this that Abraham nearly slit his son’s throat. The non-traditional family too would appear to be the basis for immoral society.

And if, in the interest of time, we skip a generation and jump ahead to the family Abraham’s grandson Jacob, we discover that the apple did not fall far from the tree— The family of Jacob was another non-traditional family that would appear to be the basis for immoral society. Jacob too was a polygamist. He married a sister set, Rachel and Leah, and then took their maids Bilhah and Zilpah as his concubines. And lest we lay all the blame on Jacob for this arrangement, the women were in full collusion. They didn’t care a fig about being one of four wives. All they cared about is getting a shot at Jacob so they could compete with one another as to who could produce the most sons. Recall this morning’s Old Testament lesson. Leah’s son Reuben found some mandrakes in the fields. Mandrakes were thought to induce fertility. So Rachel traded Leah her
 mandrakes for a night with Jacob who was temporarily in her custody. “…then he may lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes,” she bargained.

Maybe if we jump ahead a little further we could find the evidence we seek that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. What about David? Unfortunately, David is the worst of them all all. Definitely a non-traditional family -- at least 10 wives -- and innumerable concubines. King’s harems were huge. David’s son Solomon’s had 1,000 women in it. And again we discover a non-traditional family that would appear to be the basis for immoral society.

David impregnated a woman not of his harem, a married woman to boot, then murdered her husband to legitimate his child. And the Bible reports over and over again that David was a downright bad father – weak, indulgent, and inattentive. One of his sons raped his own sister, and another of his sons, because David refused to discipline him for it, avenged the rape by his murder. He was so embittered that he was driven to do what his father refused to that he rebelled against his father and brought the nation to war.
 
And then there is that biblical feature that never fails to raise eyebrows, even the eyebrows of progressives – the so-called Leverite marriage. If a
woman’s husband died, her husband’s brother, without benefit of formal marriage, was obligated to inseminate her so that she could produce children. This is so non-traditional as to border on repugnant. What did the children call their father, Uncle Dad?

But enough of the Old Testament. Maybe the evidence we seek that the traditional family is the basis for moral society is to be found in the New. We can’t exactly appeal to Jesus’ family though, because his family was unique. His father was, quite literally, out of this world. And when Jesus grew up, he had no family of his own. As he declared in this morning’s gospel lesson, “….there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” That was his way of saying that because of his messianic destiny to die, he chose to remain celibate.

So what then about the apostle Paul? In this morning’s epistle lesson, he counsels Christians against marriage. Only if they do not have their desire
 under control should they relent and marry, because marriage is preferable to fornication. This is not exactly evidence that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. Paul would seem to be suggesting that the basis for moral society is unmarried celibates.

And when Paul does in another of his epistles describe the traditional family as he understands it, he states that women must be subject to their husbands and slaves to their masters. This model of traditional family advances the subordination and domestication of women and the legitimacy of slavery. Few to none in this day and age would offer this type of traditional family as the basis for moral society.

I think it’s safe to conclude that proponents of family values must look elsewhere than the Bible for support that the traditional family is basis for moral society. For one thing, the traditional family as they conceive it is not privileged as such in the Bible. For another, where it exists it is not equated with moral society. The Bible depicts all different kinds of families that were peculiar to its day, just as there are all different kinds of families peculiar to our day. And the Bible would appear to be saying that none has cornered the market on righteousness.
 
So maybe we too should refrain from equating the traditional family with moral society. There’s certainly no biblical evidence on which to do so. And too, it only serves to stigmatize nontraditional families -- to make them feel inadequate or inferior or ostracized. And why add to their burden? Why add to the burden of anyone for that matter? That’s not what Christians are called to do. It’s much better, I think, to recognize and affirm that just about anyone can make up a family.

So long as there’s one key thing: Love, love and all that cascades from it: respect, commitment, acceptance, encouragement, forbearance, affection, sacrifice. My sense, anyway, is that if we want to equate the family with moral society, it’s not about traditional families over against non-tradition
families. It’s about loving families. It’s nothing more than Christ taught us: In all respects, love is the basis for morality. Amen.

By Rebecca Clancy August 3, 2022
Pharaoh, King of Egypt, enslaved the People of Israel. It was not out, as you might assume, out of cruelty. It was, rather, out of judiciousness. The People of Israel were not Egyptians. They were foreigners. They were the rough equivalent of what we today would call the undocumented. So now as then they were deemed to be threats. Add to this that the People of Israel grew increasingly numerous, as numerous even as the Egyptians themselves. This intensified the threat. In those numbers they could simply take over. Or Egypt’s enemies could induce them to fight for them, as a kind of built in fifth column. Pharaoh, King of Egypt, had to act. And so he enslaved the People of Israel. It was the judicious thing to do. But his judiciousness was not rewarded. In slavery, unpredictably, their numbers only increased. Pharaoh’s patience with the People of Israel grew thin. Judiciousness then crossed over to cruelty. He ordered the Hebrew midwives to murder the infant boys as they delivered them. That would thin their ranks. But the Hebrew midwives refused to do so, and with their refusal, civil disobedience was born. They chose to heed God not man. But Pharaoh King of Egypt was not so easily undone. He ordered his army to search out the infant boys and throw them into the Nile. Thereafter, cruelty no doubt took on a life of its own. Pharaoh King of Egypt rightly ranks with the likes of Caligula, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. One wonders why it is that so many who rise to power become murderous and maniacal tyrants. The human cost - the suffering and misery and despair and tragedy -- are unimaginable and incalculable. Against this backdrop, a woman from the house of Levi gave birth to a healthy and beautiful infant boy. It would normally be the occasion for celebration and joy, but it was for her the occasion for anguish. When a child is born, a mother’s first instinct is protectiveness. But how could she possibly protect him? She thought desperately at first that she could hide him, and she did so for several months, but that could not go on forever. He could any day be discovered. The lesser of two evils was to abandon him to his fate. So she plastered a reed basket with bitumen and pitch, and she cast her hope upon the water. Low and behold, the daughter of Pharaoh happened upon the basket. She peered into it, beheld the crying infant, and she had compassion. The daughter of Pharaoh has never received the appreciation and respect she deserves. She is, inexplicably, overlooked. What she did was exemplary. Normally when people enslave others, they find justification for it. The enslaved are not deemed the equal of their enslavers. They are deemed subhuman. Slavery, therefore, is a necessity. More than this, it is morally right. That’s what the South advanced in this country, after all. But the daughter of Pharaoh did not fall prey to justification. She had compassion. And she acted upon that compassion. Here is an important reminder. It is not enough to have compassion. To have compassion, or any other altruistic emotion for that matter, does not make you a good person. You must act upon it. If you have compassion and you do not act upon it, that makes you decidedly less than a good person. As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously declared, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” And here is something truly astounding. Her act was to adopt him. That was, to say at the least, a courageous thing to do. It certainly would not have put her in good stead with her father. I can just imagine it. “Father, I have a surprise for you. You have a new grandson.” Such an announcement could only have dumbfounded him, but his confusion would have given way to horror as she went on, “I have adopted an infant boy from among your slaves.” If nothing else, we can now set the record straight. We can give Pharaoh’s daughter the appreciation and respect that she deserves. But we can do more than that. As I said, she is exemplary, and so we can follow her example. We can show compassion to those who have cast their hope upon the water. Yes, a mother forced by dire circumstance to give her child up for adoption, hoping that her child will be loved and cherished. But too, one with an atypical identity, hoping to be accepted for who he or she really is. One of a different race, creed, or income level seeking to relocate, hoping not that she will be welcomed, for that would be too high a hope; but hoping she will be at least be tolerated. One who has transgressed, hoping he will be forgiven. One who has something difficult to impart, hoping she will be understood. We can show compassion for those who have cast their hope upon the water. For someone greater, much greater than Pharaoh’s daughter did the same. “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on us!” “My daughter has just died. Come and lay your hand on her, that she may live.” “Even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him.” “Jesus, come before my son dies.” “Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.” “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David, for my daughter is tormented by a demon.” “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and suffers terribly.” “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” They cast their hope on him. And he showed compassion for them all. And when we cast our hope on him, he will show compassion for us -- unlimited even by a cross. Amen.
By Rebecca Clancy August 3, 2022
I attended a funeral recently. It was for my high school math teacher. He was one great guy. Everyone loved him. He taught math at my high school for forty years, and he also coached wrestling. By the time he retired, he had become something of a legend in his own time. The funeral was upbeat, not like so many funerals that are so very sad. He lived a full and long life, and we gathered to celebrate that. But for one man – a classmate of mine who wrestled for him. He was absolutely devastated. I approached him in the parking lot after the funeral and asked if he was okay. He broke down. “That man was everything to me,” he said. “I was O.K. so long as he was in the world.” Then he shared his story. His mother died when he was very young. His father was a physically and emotionally abusive alcoholic. By the time he was in high school, he was far down a bad road. He hadn’t the support to do well at school, so he didn’t. He was very angry, so he was a behavior problem. The only friends he could make were kids like himself, so he hung out with a tough crowd. And he had begun to dabble in drugs. He was pretty much a lost cause at the age of sixteen. Enter my math teacher. He approached him one day out of the blue and told him he could tell by his gait that he was born to wrestle. This could only have been a ruse to intervene. Even I, who knows nothing about wrestling, am suspicious that you can identify one born to wrestle by his gait. At any rate, the ruse worked. He intervened. And he made him into a great wrestler. On top of that, he made him into a great young man. His advice, understanding, and support were unwavering. He helped him to deal with his past in such a way that it didn’t destroy him. He filled his present with new found responsibility, purpose, structure, and discipline. And he paved his way to a future. After graduation he went to college on a wrestling scholarship and eventually became a doctor. “I feel so lost,” he concluded his story. “What am I going to do now?” While he was sharing his story, I could not help but think how hard life can be. We here are generally prosperous and privileged, so we can afford to put up a front. But behind that front life can be hard. Because it’s out there -- loss, abuse, addiction, and a host of other afflictions. It’s enough to make you lose your way. And as I said, we here are generally prosperous and privileged. What if the loss, abuse, and addiction are compounded by poverty or racism? Then it’s all but a foregone conclusion. Your way is lost. Yes, life can be hard. Life takes casualties. Lots of them. It can make us feel helpless and overwhelmed. We want to make things better, but what could we possibly do? The answer is no farther away than my late math teacher. What could we possibly do to make things better? We could reach out, like he did. And what is in view here is not merely a good example, although we must never underestimate the power of a good example and must always strive to be one. But there’s more in view than that. It has to do with the Bible. The Bible may seem like a forbidding book. For one thing it’s thousands of pages long. It makes War and Peace look like a short story. For another thing, it’s unimaginably ancient. The Bible’s story begins 2,000 years before the Common Era. I just read that a sizable portion of millennials don’t know what the Holocaust was. To them that’s ancient history - a mere 75 years back. The Bible is more than 4,000 years back. That’s unimaginably ancient. For yet another thing, it traffics in extremely complicated and sophisticated theology, plumbing in its unfolding the depths of such mysteries as our nature, the predicament that our nature has landed us in, and the means of our redemption. And it does so all the while purging itself of false starts or conclusions. So it may seem forbidding. But at the same time, ironically, the Bible lends itself to succinct summaries. Here’s one: God lives. Here’s another: Good triumphs over evil. And another: Love triumphs over fear. And another: Practice universal justice. And another: Love one another. And here’s one that’s right on point: Reach out. The Bible can be summarized in just two words. Reach out. Think about it. That’s what God did. God reached out. God reached out to Abraham and told him that from him would one day issue a nation, and not just any nation, but a nation that would somehow bless all the nations by bestowing upon them redemption. God reached out to Moses and bequeathed him an ethical law so that God’s people could bear his righteousness. God reached out to David and told him that from his descendants would emerge one who would embody that redemption. And that one in the fullness of time emerged. God reach out to his son. He told him that if he would make a great sacrifice, the greatest sacrifice, it would be the means for all people to reach out to one another. In a real way. A way that advanced God’s own being and cause. And his son made that sacrifice. And in his brief ministry that preceded that sacrifice, he reached out to everyone. And I mean everyone. Lepers. Prostitutes. Beggars. Even a bitter little man perched up in a sycamore tree. So reaching out is not just a good example. It is nothing less the mechanism that God that employs to bestow redemption. Yes, life can be hard. Paul knew this. “We would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” But Paul goes on. “So we must make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.” And this means reaching out. “I feel so lost now. What am I going to do?” asked my grieving classmate. I told him that his coach had already showed him what to do. I told him to reach out. Amen.
By Rebecca Clancy August 2, 2022
Jesus was always one to bring the party. All he had to do was show up, and lots of others showed up too -- eager for engagement, eager for excitement, eager for something new. It was little wonder. Here at last was someone who had something to say. Something different. Something provocative. Something truthful. Jesus had a way of uttering truths that had never been uttered before, but at the same time, were strangely recognizable. And it was happening once again. Once again, Jesus had brought the party. He showed up at the house of Mary and Martha, and suddenly the place was filled with men who immediately took their place at his feet. This gesture was an indicator that they were ready and willing disciples. They wanted him to teach them. And so he began to teach. That was Martha’s cue. She sprang into action. After Jesus’ teaching, it would be fellowship hour, and as we all know, fellowship hour is predicated upon food. And in ancient times, you couldn’t rely on your reserves from Costco. Feeding a room full of men was labor intensive. Animals had to be slaughtered and dressed. Bread had to be baked. Water had to hauled. Martha went directly to work, expecting Mary to fall in place behind her. But what did Mary do? She went and sat at Jesus’ feet with the men -- shirking her role, defying expectations, and leaving Martha to shoulder the burden alone. I can imagine Martha’s frustration. I can imagine her passive aggressive attempts to get Mary back in the kitchen. Staring daggers at her from the threshold. Uttering loud sighs as indicators of her strain. Dropping pottery on the floor to startle Mary to awareness. But Mary took no notice. None whatsoever. Martha should have counted to ten. How much strife could be averted if we could all just remember to count to ten, or perhaps twenty. Martha for her part shot like a rocket from outrage to outburst. “I’m doing all the work in here Jesus, while Mary has yet to raise a finger. It’s hardly fair. And have you even noticed? Do you even care?” And there was doubtless more to it than the fact that Martha had to provide all the hospitality on her own. There too was the fact of what Mary was doing. She not day dreaming or singing idly out the window. She was sitting at Jesus’ feet. She was in there with the men. Martha was doubtless chagrined and embarrassed that Mary did not know her place. It certainly did not reflect well on the family. But Jesus did not vindicate Martha. Jesus chastised her, “Martha, Martha,” (and when someone says your name twice, wait for some kind of a correction to follow) “Why are you so distracted and stressed and scattered? Let it go. Mary’s right where she should be.” We’re left to wonder how Martha felt at that point. I bet she wasn’t happy. She simply didn’t get it or she would not have reacted that way in the first place. Now normally this text is interpreted as a caution against busyness. Martha with all her busyness is a prototype that we should avoid. Not that productivity is a bad thing. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop after all. But there’s a certain kind of busyness that’s not good. It’s when we become enmeshed with worldly or personal concerns and address them with obsessive application – application that mixes with pride, competition, insecurity. It becomes a kind of self-perpetuating force. And it causes us to lose all perspective. It causes us to become disoriented. We forget that we’re supposed to be at Jesus’ feet – his disciples, listening to him. And this is a fair enough interpretation, but I think there’s something else here. An elephant in the living room. Mary was right where she should be. She was at Jesus’ feet, his disciple, listening to him. But Mary was, obviously, a woman. Women did not seat themselves at the feet of rabbis. Women were not disciples. All they needed to know was taught to them by their mothers. Women did not sit side by side with men learning. It was unheard of. It was forbidden. And yet Jesus told Martha that Mary was right where she should be. Her place was with the men. Really Jesus? A woman’s place is with the men? Really Jesus? In first century Judaism? Jesus was a revolutionary and a radical, and don’t ever forget it. All down through history and even to this day there has an unspoken and inviolable code. It could be expressed as a variant of a line from the wedding ceremony. What society has divided, let no one unite. And Jesus was saying the polar opposite. A women’s place is with the men. Think about what this means by extension. Women, your place is with the men. Men, your place is with the women. Whites, your place is with blacks. Blacks your place is with whites. The wealthy, your place is with the poor, and the poor, your place is with the wealthy. The powerful, your place is with the powerless. The powerless, your place is with the powerful. The old, your place is with the young. The young, your place is with the old. Jesus was smashing down all dividing walls. His disciples are to be completely and utterly integrated. This is simply too radical, simply too revolutionary. But that’s who Jesus was. This is why he brought the party. It’s because he spoke God’s truth. Disciples are to be completely and utterly integrated, and this in service to humankind that is to be completely and utterly integrated. That all should be one. But this is so radical and revolutionary that it is very seldom approximated. It’s too hard. But is it really? Is it really that hard to forge the way? Is it really that hard to reach out? Is it really that hard to cross the aisle? To be vulnerable? To be risky? To be open? To be accepting? To be understanding? One thing’s for sure. It’s a lot easier than hanging on a cross in faith it could be so. Amen.
Share by: