Union Chapel Fallowfield (Baptist) Manchester UK

Events of 2005

Site map

A Call to Work for Justice in Matthew 13
10 July, 2005

Union Chapel Fallowfield

by Simon Adnams

This has been a complex and emotional week in the UK. It began with a great deal of optimism. Hundreds of thousands of people from this country, and around the world, expressed their support for the Make Poverty History movement by attending the demonstration in Edinburgh and the various Live 8 concerts worldwide. For the first time in many people’s living memory the goal of eliminating poverty in Africa seemed achievable. People had come together to put pressure on the leaders of the G8, and it seemed as though the pressure had worked. Africa and climate change were, in the words of Tony Blair, put at the top of the agenda for the summit meeting. Public morale was further boosted with the announcement that London had won its bid to host the Olympic games in 2012. For London, and for much of the UK, this indicated a likely boost in tourism, and it also promised a government focus on rejuvenating one of the UK’s most notorious centres of urban decay, East London. But on Thursday of this week many of the hopes and dreams of the British public were brought crashing back to reality with four bomb attacks in central London. For the many people affected by those attacks there is not much reason to celebrate today. And, for the rest of the nation, Thursday gave us a very graphic illustration of the fact that we do not live in a peaceful world, and that any optimism we might have must be checked by that reality.

From the outset I have to admit that I do not necessarily feel up to the task of leading you in a reflection drawing together themes from the events that all of us have witnessed with themes from the readings we have heard this morning. In circumstances such as these there is a risk that any attempt to work together themes from current events and themes from the Bible will seem contrived and in some ways irrelevant. For me there is the danger that the tragic nature of the events will somehow be downplayed for the sake of making the Bible mean something, thus maintaining its status of sacred text. Yet I do feel compelled, nonetheless, to ask, how are Christians to make sense of horrific acts like the ones we saw this week? And, is it possible that the Bible might have some things to say that can help us wend our way through the emotional and intellectual mazes that such events create?

Again, I have to admit that answering these questions is no easy feat. The first one carries with it a kind of prescriptive tone, as if there is only one way for Christians to make sense of horrific events. And, the second opens up the possibility that the Bible can still speak to us today, a possibility that many would find problematic at the very least. Nevertheless, given that I am speaking in a Christian community, I think these are important questions to ask, no matter how problematic they may seem. Meaning is partially made by locating ourselves in the world, and if the events of this week are to mean anything to us we must acknowledge the perspective from which we view such events, and draw upon the resources that that perspective has to offer. Thus I turn my attention now to the readings we have just heard.

What immediately struck me when I was preparing this reflection was the way in which Jesus uses the parables in our readings to create a distinction between those who know what he is talking about and those who do not know. Here it is as though only the privileged few will be given the secrets of the kingdom. Those who do not meet Jesus’ criteria for being a part of the privileged few will always be mystified by his parables. As Jesus quotes from the prophet Isaiah, “You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive.” In other words, Jesus here uses a particular mode of communication to create a community around himself. And, within the context of this community Jesus makes himself clear, explaining what his parables mean, but never justifying the reason for why some people are excluded from his inner group. As readers of Matthew’s Gospel, we are placed inside this inner group by virtue of the fact that Jesus’ explanations are given to us. In fact, this is one of the devices that Matthew uses to build his community. By including the language of “in” and “out” in Jesus’ speeches, Matthew draws his readers into a discourse that is based on an “in” and “out” distinction, all with the goal of bringing his readers “in”.

In my mind there are a couple of ways to understand this dynamic in our readings. First, we could say that this dynamic is a natural part of a community which is in its formative stages. In order to understand itself in relation to other communities a young community must create some sort of boundaries around itself, however artificial they may be, to establish some sense of identity. For Matthew’s community we could say that one of the hallmarks of its boundaries was its possession of privileged interpretations of Jesus’ teaching, namely the interpretations given by Jesus himself. The other way of reading this dynamic is much the same as the first, but a little less favourable. We could say that Matthew is here creating a boundary to facilitate a sense of triumphalism within his community. For him, his community is to be given priority within early Christianity because it possesses the authoritative understandings of Jesus’ teachings, those given by Jesus himself. Whatever the motivation behind the “in” – “out” distinction in Matthew’s Gospel, this is what remains the same: those who are “in” possess the truth, whereas those who are “out” possess little more than falsehood.

Regardless of what we may think about the presence of such distinctions in the New Testament, I think it is important that we acknowledge the tendency to make such distinctions in our own discourses. Social groups are formed by certain uses of language. And, language can become a tool for maintaining social distinctions and inequalities. In some cases overcoming such distinctions and inequalities can only be achieved by performing symbolic acts, acts like protesting the G8 in Edinburgh, or acts like bombing the subway in London. This does not mean that I condone or support the bombings that took place this week. Rather I bring this up in this way to indicate that in many cases acts of terrorism are produced out of a feeling of powerlessness to change a system that seems unjust and unwilling to change. Jesus, in explaining why he uses parables, sets in motion a system of thinking and speaking that ultimately becomes, at least in some of its expressions, unjust and unwilling to change. As an early 21st century reader, my natural inclination is to oppose such a system.

Yet, in the next section of our readings, the section where Jesus gives his explanation of his parable, the distinction between those who are “in” and those who are “out” is expressed in a slightly different way. According to Jesus’ interpretation, the sower who sows the “word of the kingdom” is indiscriminate. The image that we are given of him is of one who sows his seed on any soil, regardless of whether it can accept the seed or not. Thus those who are “in” are those who, for whatever reason, are able to receive the “word of the kingdom” and bring it to some sort of fruition. What is important here is that Jesus does not place any sort of value judgement on those people who cannot accept “the word.” Rather, he presents the fact that they cannot accept “the word of the kingdom” as being something that is natural, if not to be expected. Again, there is an important distinction to be made here. According to Jesus’ interpretation of his parable, the people who are not “in” are not “in” through no deliberate fault of their own. Instead there is something about them, whether it is a part of themselves or a part of their circumstances, that prevents them from bringing the seed to fruit. Here I want to caution against reading this portion of Jesus’ interpretation as being an indication of some sort of doctrine of double predestination. I would much rather think that Jesus is talking here about a normal part of life: there are simply some people who will not be able to accept good news however it is presented to them.

Although this reading goes against the grain of some of my more optimistic tendencies, I think there is an important lesson to be learned here. No matter what kind of work we are involved in, there will always be people who will not be able to accept our good intentions to bring about positive change. Whether this be in the form of a difficult client, patient, student, or colleague, or in the form of police forces opposing peaceful protestors, the lesson remains the same: movements done in the name of good will often go misunderstood and be opposed by those who do not share our perspective. This week, this lesson was most profoundly illustrated by the bombings in London. As Tony Blair said on Thursday afternoon, the G8 leaders were assembled to discuss how to make the world a better place. Those who set the bombs denied this interpretation of the G8 meeting, stating through their actions that the G8 could only seen by them as a force of evil in the world.

Regardless of whether we agree with this assessment of the G8 or not, I think most of us would agree that the way in which this view was expressed in London this past week was highly inappropriate, and, for lack of a better word, evil. By choosing to adopt such extreme forms of protest, those who set the bombs immediately closed off any avenues for respectful dialogue that they once might have had. Although we are not sure right now what the government’s response is going to be, it is almost certain that there will be some form of retaliation, either military or political.

Where Jesus speaks to this sort of situation is in the last parable we heard this morning. In this story Jesus talks about keeping wheat and weeds together in the same soil because uprooting the weeds might uproot the wheat as well. What I take this to mean is that in some ways the wheat needs the weeds because the weeds help maintain the stability of the soil in which both of them grow. If either were to be uprooted, the other might not survive. Obviously keeping the wheat is more desirable than keeping the weeds. Yet in the structure of the parable, although the weeds were sown with evil intent, they do serve a temporary purpose, namely to support the wheat as it grows. Yet in Jesus’ interpretation of this parable, which occurs several verses later, and which was not read for us this morning, Jesus again uses the “in” – “out” distinction that we first encountered in his explanation of why he uses parables. In his explanation of this second parable, Jesus identifies the weeds as “all causes of sin and all evildoers”, saying that these things and people will be thrown into “the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Although this language seems very foreign to our context now, what it does carry with it is a promise of judgement, meaning that all who perform evil deeds will be brought to account for their actions. It is inconsequential as to whether this refers to terrorists who plant bombs, or governments that reinforce unjust economic and political policies. Jesus’ statements here are unrestricted: all causes of sin and all evildoers will be brought to judgement.

If we are to locate ourselves in relation to these parables, therefore, the situation, in a word, is complex. On the one hand there is an impulse against the “in” – “out” distinction that Jesus has in the background of his parables, and the promise of judgement is again something that we might want to work against. Yet on the other hand, after events like the ones we saw on Thursday, there is a drive to demand justice, asking that those who committed such deeds will be brought to judgement. This morning I do not want to resolve the tension that these two impulses create in us. Rather, I want to raise a question that brings us here in this room to judgement. The question is this: to what extent do we as members of a wealthy western society utilise an “in” – “out” distinction that creates circumstances in other parts of the world where terrorism is one of the few options left for people to make their voices heard? In other words, how do we in our nations pronounce judgement on others, thus depriving them of the opportunity to judge themselves?

In some ways I think we have gone a long way toward answering this question by acknowledging, as some of us did in the second session last Sunday, that if we really want to work for justice in the world, working for justice here at home is at least equally as important. By working against the “in” – “out” distinctions in our own discourses we can begin to work against creating circumstances wherein terrorism is a perceived necessity. Nevertheless there will always be people who misunderstand us and refuse to accept our efforts, just as there will always be a necessity for judgement. Yet if we can begin by placing ourselves under judgement, we increase the chance that we will escape the judgement of others in the future. The call of these parables, therefore, is a call to reflection, to self-examination, and to commitment. Last weekend a great thing was accomplished in Edinburgh, but as the events of this week demonstrated, our action cannot end there. Only by making ourselves aware of our own participation in unjust systems can we begin to overcome the injustice against which we claim to be fighting.

As we move into the last part of our service, you will be given a chance to respond to these issues however you feel appropriate. Around the room you will see some tables: one contains some pots, soil, and seeds; another contains some prayer flags and pens; and the last one has some postcards and pens as well. At the table with the pots, soil, and seeds, those who wish can plant a seed and take it home as a symbol of their ongoing commitment to work for justice at home and abroad. At the table with the prayer flags, feel free to write a prayer in response to some of the issues that have been raised during this week and in our service; the flags will be flown at the end of the service. At the table with the postcards, again those who wish can write a postcard to their MP, encouraging him or her for the many good things that have been accomplished this week, but at the same time challenging him or her to continue to work for justice, both here and abroad. Finally, those who feel as though they would like to spend some time reflecting on what has been said and done here this morning can feel free to do so by remaining in their chairs while others go to do their activities of choice. After a few minutes of action and reflection, we will all reassemble here for our final hymn and blessing.