Provocation

The following is a reflection I shared with my fellow parishioners at the "Faith at Eight" online service of our church on Sunday, November 15, 2020.

The epistle reading this morning is from the First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (5:1-11), and it speaks of remaining awake, so that we won't be surprised by the coming of the Lord, and so that we can find our salvation. 

      The gospel reading this morning is from Matthew (25:14-30), and it's The Parable of the Talents, describing how a wealthy man gives one of his servants five talents, another servant two talents, and another servant one talent, with the expectation that they'll return his money to him when he returns. The first two servants invest their money profitably, but the third servant buries his one talent in the ground because he's afraid of losing it, and when the master returns, the master is angry because the servant hasn't invested his money profitably, and the master calls the servant lazy and worthless and will have nothing further to do with him. 

      For me, the lectionary readings the last few weeks have been a series of provocations. There's something wrong with each of them. So I'd like to discuss what they do, rather than what they mean. We can discuss their meaning later.

      In the Old Testament reading last week from The Book of Joshua (24:14-25), Joshua described the Lord as " a holy God, a jealous God." Do we really believe in a jealous God?

      And in the gospel reading last week from Matthew (25:1-13), the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids, five bridesmaids were denied entry to the wedding banquet because they had forgotten to replenish their lamps with oil, and their oil had run out, and when they asked the bridegroom to be admitted, he told them, "Truly, I say to you, I do not know you." Is this any way to treat those who've come to celebrate your wedding?

      And in the epistle reading today from Thessalonians, Paul says "the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." Really? Like a thief in the night?

      And in today's gospel reading from Matthew, The Parable of the Talents, are we really supposed to accept the implication that the wealthy should rightfully receive a greater share and reap more profit from the distribution of society's resources than those who are poor?

      The parables of Jesus are often puzzling and paradoxical. They teach us about justice by describing injustice. They're provocations that cause us to question our assumptions, to look at the world differently, and to think differently about God.

      A dictionary definition of the word "provocation" is that it's something that incites, instigates, arouses, or stimulates.¹ It may be designed to elicit a particular kind of response, and it may be intended to elicit strong feelings (such as rage, anger, or resentment) in the viewer, reader, or listener. Provocative acts may also be iconoclastic, offensive, transgressive, or sexually suggestive.

      Provocation may be a psychological, social, aesthetic, legal, military, or political phenomenon. Examples of aesthetic provocations include controversial paintings, sculptures, songs, dramas, or novels. Examples of military provocations include unlawful encroachments on territorial boundaries, launching of short- or long-range ballistic missiles, and testing of nuclear weapons. Examples of political provocations include demonstrations against infringements on civil liberties, and protests against violations of human rights.

      How should provocation intersect or interact with tactfulness and discretion? When should we be forgiving and conciliatory rather than demanding and provocative?

      An example of provocation in Jesus's ministry might be his response to the Pharisees who bring him a woman who has been caught in adultery and ask him if she should be stoned. Jesus tells them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7).

      Another example of provocation might be Jesus's response to the young man who asks him what he should do in order to have eternal life. Jesus tells him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." The young man walks away sorrowfully, because he can't bring himself to part with his wealth and possessions (Matthew 19:16-22).

      Another example of provocation might be when Jesus drives the moneylenders out of the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus makes a whip of cords, and drives the moneylenders out of the temple, overturning their tables, and saying, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade" (John 2:13-16).

      Still another example of provocation might be Jesus's response to Caiphas, the high priest, after being arrested and brought before him for judgment. Caiphas says to Jesus, "I adjure you by the living God, tell me if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus replies, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." Caiphas is so angered, he tears his own robes apart, and says, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need?" (Matthew 26:57-65).

      Acts of provocation may have a variety of motivations. They may be strategies for teaching and communication. They may be acts of protest against social hypocrisy or political inequality. They may be acts of resistance against social injustice. They may also be acts intended to elicit a retaliatory response from those in power, thus revealing the brutality, corruption, and oppressiveness of a prevailing social or political regime. They may also be in some cases acts intended to offend people or to make them react angrily or violently.

      Provocation played a role in the American civil rights movement, and it has also played a role in other human rights movements. Thus, the lunch counter sit-ins protesting segregation is Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960 were acts of provocation, as was Rosa Parks's refusal to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, leading to her arrest and the subsequent Montgomery Bus Boycott. The pro-democracy Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing, China in 1989 were acts of provocation, as was the defiant act of an unidentified protester who stood in front of a column of tanks (I'm sure you'll recall that famous photograph of the protester in Tiananmen Square standing in front of the column of tanks), blocking their path as they were leaving the square, on June 5th, 1989, the day after armed troops had killed hundreds of protesters in what has been called the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

      Controversies regarding the nature and importance of provocation as a motivating factor for human behavior may be produced by the fact that people may vary in their opinions as to what constitutes provocation and what kinds of responses to provocation are appropriate. An example may be the divergent responses to the cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad that were published in 2006 by the French satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo. The cartoons were viewed by some as merely an example of freedom of expression, but by others as a vicious attack on Islam. French President Jacques Chirac condemned the cartoons as "overt provocations" that could dangerously fuel passions, and he said that freedom of expression should always be exercised in a spirit of responsibility.² In 2012, Charlie Hebdo published more crude caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, which the magazine must have known would be extremely offensive to Muslims. The responses to this renewed provocation varied from public indignation and outrage to violent terrorist attacks, one of which, in 2015, killed twelve people.

      Jesus teaches us how to respond to attempts to provoke us into acts of resentment or anger. He says, in the Sermon on the Mount, "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). He also says, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father, who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45).  And the apostle Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, says, "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way, it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends" (1 Corinthians 13:4-8).

      What actually started me thinking about the concept of provocation is the fact that a Black Lives Matter banner hangs over the front door of our church. When I first saw the banner, I thought, "Gee, that's great!", just as I thought "Gee, that's great!" when I first saw a Black Lives Matter banner hanging over the front door of the Cathedral of the Incarnation a few years ago. But in view of the results of the recent presidential election, in which 81 million people voted for Biden and 74 million people voted for Trump, it's clear that "Black Lives Matter" is a message that doesn't resonate with a large percentage of the American people, particularly white male voters, and which alienates them. So I'm wondering whether the banner over the front door of our church may be viewed by many Americans as offensive or as a provocation to some act of denial or rejection. Indeed, many "Black Lives Matter" banners in front of churches across the country have been vandalized in the last few years. Should we, as members of Memorial Episcopal Church, be promoting a message that many Americans feel is divisive and overly confrontational? Is our message consistent with our saying we're a church that welcomes everyone? It may be easy to hang a "Black Lives Matter" banner in front of our church and to feel good about ourselves for doing so, but it may be more difficult to actually translate that message into social action. Shouldn't we consider the extent to which we've actually shown in our actions that Black Lives Matter and reflect on what we could do to better promote social understanding and equality? I don't think we've discussed the meaning of our having a "Black Lives Matter" banner in front of our church. Perhaps, in the context of the history of our church and the revelation that the founders of our church were slave owners, the banner needs to be there.

      I'd like to conclude by quoting the Rev. Tim Kutzmark of the Unitarian Universalist Church, Fresno, California, who explains why his church displays "Black Lives Matter" banners. He says, 

"As a predominantly white congregation in a predominantly white section of Fresno, we are committed to doing whatever we can to disrupt the deep roots and present reality of racism; we also know that work must start with our own congregation...

      For two years our congregation has been intentionally educating ourselves on the history of race in America and current racial injustice...

      Like most majority white institutions, we’ve learned our faith tradition has its own shameful history of racism...

      We affirm Black Lives Matter along with hundreds of Unitarian Universalist Churches across the country because affirming and promoting the worth and dignity of all people is a core tenant of our faith. It calls us to act for justice.

      The Rev. Louise Green captures this spirit: “To display the sign, Black Lives Matter, is an act of public witness . . . to keep the spotlight on the complex set of issues affecting black people in this country..."

      Black Lives Matter is the next chapter in the civil rights movement. There was fierce white resistance to the earlier civil rights movement. There is fierce white resistance now. Our banners were first defaced and then ripped down. We’ve replaced them.

      Black Lives Matter is not a terrorist group, nor is it anti-white or anti-police. It is against policing practices that lead to the death of too many unarmed black women and men. It is against mass incarceration of black and brown lives in prisons...

      Affirming the rights of Black people and People of Color does not take rights away from white people. There should be enough to go around."³

      So I hope I've provoked you into sharing some of your thoughts about the readings this morning, and I hope we can talk about those thoughts together.

FOOTNOTES

¹Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provocation.

²Anne Penketh, "Chirac condemns 'overtly provocative' cartoons," Independent, February 9, 2006, online at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chirac-condemns-overtly-provocative-cartoons-466018.html.

³Rev.Tim Kutzmark, "Why we display the 'Black Lives Matter' banners," Unitarian Universalist Church of Fresno, September 30 2017, online at https://uufresno.org/black-lives-matter/.

       

      

Fragments II

In what ways can the act of writing make us heroic? Perhaps to the extent that we reveal who we truly are, we can become heroic (or antiheroic). By expressing our concerns, inadequacies, uncertainties, doubts, and (dis)abilities, we can become heroic (or antiheroic). By being honest with ourselves (and with others), about ourselves, and by making ourselves vulnerable to others, we can become heroic (or antiheroic).

I think sometimes I may take the intuition, "That's just my opinion," as an excuse for not expressing my feelings or judgments about things.

One of the reasons I haven't given up on the idea of being a philosopher (however that calling may be defined) is that I feel I still have things to say that I haven't yet said: things that are interesting (at least to me, and hopefully to others as well), and things that need to be said (even though I may not yet know exactly what they are).  Perhaps there are things the world needs to hear about that I may be in a suitable position to tell the world about. "The world needs to hear from you, because you might actually something important to say," I say to myself. Perhaps we should try to support and encourage one another in this way, in order to discover exactly what it is we have to say to the world and what is unique and distinctive to each of our own perspectives.

Variations on the Ubuntu principle that "a person is a person through other persons":

A person becomes a person through others.

We become, and are, who we are through others.
I am, because you are (I.A.B.Y.A.).
I am who I am, because you are who you are.
As long as you are, I am.
If you weren't who you are, then I wouldn't be who I am.

If you weren't "you," then I wouldn't be "me."
My being "me" is due, in no small part, to your being "you."
Indeed, my being "me" is only possible through your being "you."
I am who I am, because of you, and through you.
I love you, because you are "you" (i.e. because you are who you are).
Without you, I couldn't say, "I am," because there's no "I" without "you."
My being "me" is only possible through you.

Some Limitations of Video Conferencing and Live Streaming as Media for Conducting Church Services

(1) Church services via video conferencing or live streaming may not be accessible to those who don't have internet access. They may also not be accessible to those who have difficulty downloading a conference app or have difficulty connecting to a platform (such as Zoom, Facebook Live, or YouTube Live). Vulnerable populations, such as the poor and the elderly, will be among the most likely to be denied access to online church services. Many elderly people may not feel comfortable using computers or may prefer not to use them. Conferencing or streaming platforms shouldn't in effect be able to decide who can go to church and who can't.
(2) Some churches may not have the technical resources to do video conferencing or online streaming.

(3) Services outages, cyberattacks, and other disruptions may occur during video conferencing or online streaming.

(4) Audio disruptions may be embarrassing for the host, and may be difficult to immediately correct without returning to the point at which the disruption occurred and then resuming the broadcast.

(5) Participants may find they've unintentionally muted themselves or been intentionally muted by the host.

(6) Noisy participants who haven't muted themselves or been muted by the host may be unaware that the noise in their environment is disrupting the service.

(7) It may be difficult or impossible to synchronize the voices of a choir or congregation in order to allow them to sing together, since each participant may have a different connectivity speed to the internet. Singing together may therefore result in cacophony.

(8) The "Hollywood Squares" format on Zoom is kind of cheesy. Participants are visible in little boxes on a screen, and a limited number of participants are visible on any particular screen view.

(9) Sacraments may not be able to be administered via the internet, due to guidelines established by the church.

"Church" as a Noun without an Article

Figures of speech employing the noun "church" without a definite or indefinite article, e.g. "being church" or "doing church," seem to be used with increasing frequency by clergy and laypeople. Why not use the definite article "the" or the indefinite article "a" when using the noun "church"? Instead of saying "being church," why not say "being the church" or "being a church"? Instead of asking "What is Church?", why not ask "What is the Church?" or "What is a Church?" Is there really something noteworthy signified by the dropping of the article before the noun or is this merely a popular form of speech that's increasingly being used out of habit?

      The noun "church," like the nouns "hospital" and "university," may often be used without an article, e.g. "We're in church" or "George is in hospital" or "Margaret is in university," without referring to any specific church or hospital or university.

      The question "What is Church?" might have a slightly different meaning than the question "What is church?", however. The capitalization of "Church" might imply the institutional nature of the Church, while the non-capitalization of "church" might imply its everyday reality.

      The question "What is Church?" and the question "What is church?" also bring to mind the experience of going to church or being in church (or a church) or being in the midst of a congregation. To be "in church" is also to be in community (or a community) with others. ("Community" is another noun that seems to be used increasingly frequently without a definite or indefinite article). To be "in church" or "in community" is also for members to be in communion with one another.

       Thus, the question "What is Church?" brings to mind that Church (or a Church or the Church) may not be a physical location. It may be a form of koinonia (fellowship, unity, and joint participation) that Church members share with one another. Church members may be present with and for one another, in community or as a community, in virtual or actual reality, in the online as well as the physical world. Church members may also be with and for one another, even when they are "socially distanced" or physically separated,¹ because they are part of, and belong to, the same spiritual body.

FOOTNOTES

¹Susan Ella George, Religion and Technology in the 21st Century: Faith in the E-World (Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2006), p. 120.

The Cornerstone of the Church

The following is a reflection I shared with my fellow parishioners at the "Faith at Eight" online service of our church on Sunday, October 4, 2020.

In the gospel, Jesus says, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes" (Matthew 21:42).

      I think the most common interpretation of this verse is that Jesus is the stone the builders rejected, and the builders are the priests who rejected him, and Christ is the cornerstone of the church.

      But another interpretation might be that all those who are rejected, persecuted, or oppressed are the cornerstone of the church. Jesus proclaims the coming of a kingdom in which the suffering of those who've been rejected and oppressed will come to an end. The church will become a sanctuary for those who've been mistreated, ignored, or dispossessed.

      In Matthew 25:35-40, Jesus says, "I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you welcomed me. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me...Truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." 

      So "the least of these," whoever they are, may be the cornerstone of the church, insofar as if the church isn't helping to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, and offer hope to the imprisoned, then the church isn't really fulfilling its mission. This social mission isn't the only mission of the church; the church also has a kerygmatic mission: to proclaim the gospel, and to present the preachings and teachings of Jesus Christ.¹ But if we're not fulfilling our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, then we're not really fulfilling our mission to continue Christ's ministry, and we're not "loving our neighbors as ourselves."

      So the rejected, the poor, the homeless, the destitute, and the vulnerable may be described as the cornerstone of the church, insofar as caring for them is a true indication of our faith. Jesus said, "The last shall be first, and the first last" (Matthew 20:16). He also said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3).

      This brings to mind the teaching in the Catholic Church that the Church has a "preferential option for the poor." The phrase "preferential option for the poor" arose from the meetings of the Catholic Bishops of Latin America, in Medellin, Colombia (in 1968), and in Puebla, Mexico (in 1979). The Medellin Conference called upon the Catholic Church to become a church of the poor, and the Puebla Conference described a "preferential option for the poor" (opción preferential por los pobres),² which became an important principle of Latin American liberation theology.

      Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian theologian and Dominican priest, who's considered a founder of liberation theology, and who has taught at many American universities (and is currently Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame), explained in his writings on the theology of liberation that the preferential option for the poor doesn't deny the universality of God's love or that God loves everyone equally. Gutiérrez explains, however, that the preferential option for the poor does recognize that the last shall be first, and the first last.³ Our obligation to protect the poor and vulnerable must come before other less pressing obligations.

      Oscar Romero, the Archbishop of San Salvador who was assassinated in 1980 because he spoke out against social injustice and human rights violations committed by the military government in El Salvador, was particularly concerned with the plight of the poor and marginalized. Archbishop Romero said, "I am glad, brothers and sisters, that our church is persecuted precisely for its preferential option for the poor and for trying to become incarnate in the interest of the poor and for saying to all the people, to rulers, to the rich and powerful: unless you become poor, unless you have a concern for the poverty of our people as though they were your own family, you will not be able to save society."⁴

      Archbishop Romero also said, "When we say "for the poor," we do not take sides with one social class...What we do, according to Puebla, is invite all social classes, rich and poor without distinction, saying to everyone: let us take seriously the cause of the poor as though it were our own--indeed, as what it really is, the cause of Jesus Christ, who on the final judgment day will call to salvation those who treated the poor with faith in him."⁵

       Pope John Paul II, in an encyclical entitled Centesimus Annus (1991), said the preferential option for the poor is never exclusive or discriminatory toward other social groups. The option for the poor applies not only to those who are suffering from material or economic poverty, but also to those who are suffering from spiritual poverty.⁶

      The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, in a document entitled "The Common Good" (1996), said that "People who are poor and vulnerable have a special place in Catholic teaching: this is what is meant by the "preferential option for the poor." Scripture tells us we will be judged by our response to the "least of these", in which we see the suffering face of Christ himself. Humanity is one family despite differences of nationality or race. The poor are not a burden; they are our brothers and sisters. Christ taught us that our neighborhood is universal: so loving our neighbor has global dimensions. It demands fair international trading policies, decent treatment of refugees, support for the U.N., and control of the arms trade. Solidarity with our neighbor is also about the promotion of equality of rights and equality of opportunities; hence, we must oppose all forms of discrimination and racism."⁷

      I think the phrase "preferential option for the poor," like the phrase "black lives matter," may be subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding, however.

      To say "black lives matter" isn't to say that only black lives matter or that black lives matter more than other lives or that all lives don't matter. This is a common misunderstanding on the part of those who express opposition or antagonism to the Black Lives Matter movement. To say "black lives matter" is rather to say that when black lives don't seem to matter to society, we need to take some time to focus on the fact that black lives do matter, and that further steps must be taken in order for society to recognize this fact.

      Similarly, to speak of the church's "preferential option for the poor" isn't to say that God prefers the poor to other people or that poor people are somehow better than other people or are more deserving of God's love than other people. It's to recognize, however, that we have a particular obligation to help the poor, as well as an obligation to correct social injustice and protect the most vulnerable members of our society.

      The phrase "preferential option for the poor" may be ambiguous or problematic in other ways, however. 

       First of all, who are the poor? The Puebla document of the Catholic Bishops of Latin America in 1979 described the poor as including the indigenous peoples, the peasants, the marginalized urban dwellers, the unemployed and underemployed, children, and the elderly.⁸ Thus, the concept of the poor may be broadened to include all those who are disadvantaged or in need or vulnerable. 

      Second, is it really "optional" to care for the poor? Isn't it morally imperative, rather than optional?

      Third, is the preferential option for the poor really a matter of "preference"? Doesn't God love everyone equally? Will global poverty ever be eliminated if the wealthy feel social policy is being determined by preferences for the poor over the wealthy?

      So who or what do you think is the stone the builders rejected, the stone that has become the cornerstone of the church?

      Do we actually have to choose between seeing Jesus as the cornerstone and seeing the marginalized as the cornerstone?

       Jesus was a voice for the rejected and marginalized. He identified with, and was himself one of the poor, the persecuted, and the oppressed, and he expressed God's love for all those who have been rejected, ignored, or forgotten.

      In  Luke 4:18-19, we can hear Jesus speaking for the poor and dispossessed when he reads from the Book of Isaiah and says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

FOOTNOTES

¹Albert Mohler and Jim Wallis, "Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?" October 27, 2011, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5hmQL61PrQ&t=4434s.

²Thomas A. Nairn, "Roman Catholic Ethics and the Preferential Option for the Poor, AMA Journal of Ethics, May 2007, online athttps://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/roman-catholic-ethics-and-preferential-option-poor/2007-05#:~:text=During%20the%20Puebla%20Conference%2C%20the,for%20the%20poor%22%20was%20coined.&text=The%20preferential%20option%20or%20love,of%20the%20Church%20bears%20witness.

³Gustavo Gutiérrez, Essential Writings (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1994), p. 145.

⁴Oscar Romero, "Christ Gives to Us a Prophetic Mission," (July 15, 1979, p. 5, online at

http://www.romerotrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/homilies/christ_gives_prophetic_mission.pdf.

⁵Oscar Romero, "True Independence Comes Only From Christ," (September 9, 1979), p. 4, online at http://www.romerotrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/homilies/true_independence_comes_only_christ.pdf.

⁶Pope John Paul II, "Centesimus Annus," 57, 1991, online at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1ocIPvUfN1IJ:www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.

⁷The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, "The Common Good and the Catholic Church's Social Teaching, 1996, online at http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/THE-COMMON-GOOD-AND-THE-CATHOLIC-CHURCH_1996.pdf.

⁸Encyclopedia.com, "Option for the Poor," online at https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/option-poor.