Reflection 6 October 2024

‘DARE I GO THERE?”

By Rev Dr Fei Taule’ale’ausumai

I personally have avoided this lectionary reading over the years but today I decided to write a reflection on it. On the one hand for many families divorce means failure. Broken familes, broken spouses, broken children. However on the other hand the reality for many particularly women, divorce can be a liberating life changing experience. Economically however many women will be disadvantaged financially as well as asset wise as a result of divorce. I attended a conference in Stuttgart some years ago and we looked at the statistics in Europe on divorce and it had increased with the comment “divorce is on the increase because women are no longer putting up with abusive relationships and are now finding the courage to walk out. So it was viewed as a positive thing. For everyone the reasons for failed relationships/marriages are manifold and one should not to pass judgement.

Having grown up with almost 20 whangai siblings throughout my child hood and young adult life I got used to my mum the full time nurse, social worker and counsellor intervening/stepping in to relationship disputes between one or two of my cousy bros. There was a time when my first cousin had an affair and so his wife kicked him out of the house and came to let mum and dad know that this is what she had done. For me personally if it happened to me I would have told him good riddance and let him go for cheating on me. But no, my mum was the consummate negotiator and relationship

broker. She would broker a way forward for the husband and wife and send the woman caught in adultery down the road. They are still married today and happily I might add. My mum was used to being called into to healing not only broken relationships but also broken spirits. She always saw the bigger picture, children, mortgage, stability. Yet unbeknownst to us we couldn’t see behind the walls whether these were merely bandaid fixes and that there was relative stability or not. Atleast in the Samoan villages in earlier days there were no walls on the houses so your domestic affairs was public and everyone knew what was happening in your family, there was no concept of privacy or confidentiality.

According Biblical scholar Bill Loader, in this gospel text from Matthew “Not only is divorce out; so is remarriage by either of the original partners. Only Mark includes the possibility of women also divorcing, normal in non Jewish contexts. In Judaism it was usually a male prerogative, although cases of Jewish women initiating divorce are known.

It is common to soften the blow which these texts have in modern times by painting Jesus as concerned here with the abuse of women and the plight into which they would be forced by divorce. This may be so, but it may also be reading in something which is not the primary concern. In our passage women’s plight is not given as the rationale, but rather a belief about sexual union. If women’s plight were really the focus then it is hard to understand why remarriage of (at least ‘non guilty’) divorced women (or men) is forbidden. The most we can say is that Jesus’ positive regard for all people, especially the oppressed, could easily have led him to attack cheap divorce, but this is not the focus of what we have.

There is always a problem when people take Jesus’ sayings as legal pronouncements. Perhaps Matthew is already heading in that direction, when he added the exception clause (5:31; 19:5) reflecting the common law, that a partner who committed adultery must be divorced. No forgiveness is possible. Joseph, for example, had no choice in that regard. Much of Jesus’ energy in controversy with his fellow Jews was spent trying to show that we must interpret scripture in a way which sees its priority as concern for human well being: the sabbath was made for people not people for the sabbath. One could reformulate: the order of marriage was made for people, not people for the order of marriage.

The Apostle Paul had no difficulty contemplating that there could be circumstances where divorce might be appropriate almost in the same breath as citing Jesus’ prohibition (1 Cor 7:10-16). The way Jesus interpreted scriptural law (which he upheld) ought to be a clue for us in how we interpret this. Would the primary concern we find in Jesus with human well being result sometimes in a decision which would override what he might have said about aspect of life at one time?

I remember in a New Testament lecture at Knox when I was training for the ministry our lecturer said that when it came to Jesus teaching on divorce the disciples and the crowds listening didn’t heed too much to the details of what he had to say once he had gone. As far as they were concerned all will be sorted on Jesus return so they didn’t have to dot the I’s and cross the t’s. The detail was not so important at that point in time so. It only became a problem when he did not return and so the problem of interpreting or reinterpreting arose.

According to Shirley Jackson Case in her article “Divorce and remarriage in the teaching of Jesus” she says, today, “perhaps Jesus would wish to frame his answer differently if he were confronting, and teaching with definite reference to, modern conditions. At any rate, his word would probably be more searching than some opinions which are now held on the assumed

authority of his name. Would he, for example, be likely to take the position, which has sometimes been taken by the church, that a divorced individual may not remarry unless perchance the other party to the divorce has died? Surely the decease of a former wife or husband cannot of itself render the survivor any more worthy than before to assume new marital responsibilities. If the individual ought not to be allowed to remarry before this event-and in many instances they probably should not—ought they to be allowed to do so afterward? To state our conclusions in a word, the modern problem regarding divorce and remarriage cannot be solved by any legalistic application of specific enactments attributed to Jesus. Not only are we insufficiently informed of his teaching on this subject, but the principle underlying this proposed method of solution puts the emphasis on the wrong place.

Women as chattels part of the fixture and fittings of a house, Past their use by date? I compare this comment to buying a new house, what comes with it? What are the chattels, curtains, carpet, heat pump, wife… That’s probably what life amounted to back in many different cultural histories both past and sadly for many present. A woman needed to marry in order to have a roof over her head, however she may not inherit that roof on the death of her husband. If she divorced she became homeless and poor. There is a huge emphasis in the bible on our duty and care to look after the

widows and children but not necessarily women who were divorced, regardless their predicament is nonetheless similar.

The story of Ruth and Naomi is an example of widows, homeless women having nowhere to go, but how in Naomi’s strategic plan to organise an

encounter with Boaz the farm owner in the threshing field eventually led to their marriage. Ruth becomes his wife and is no longer homeless.

The writer of the Book of Ruth gives a picture of the relationship between the two women. Based on the story’s context, it is obvious the two women had a healthy relationship. There was love and understanding; Naomi is seen playing the leading role of mentor, and Ruth remains humble and accepts the position of Naomi’s caregiver.

Naomi was older and wiser and hence took on the task of decision-maker (as seen when she decided to return to Judah and gave instructions to Ruth concerning Boaz). Nowhere in the story have we seen Naomi taking advantage of Ruth due to her age, becoming burdensome to Ruth, or being jealous of Ruth’s catch of wealthy Boaz. Naomi was indeed the mother-in-law who meant well for her daughters-in-law, and this can be seen in the first chapter when she told them, “Go, return each to your mother’s house” (Ruth 1:8 KJV).

Ruth was never seen to be the carefree or rebellious type. Instead, she is depicted as one who loves and cares for her mother-in-law and listens to sound instructions. Because she was humble enough to submit herself to Naomi’s council, she ultimately married one of the wealthiest men in Bethlehem.

As I was writing this reflection in KY office my dog Snoopy used his nose to push a book from my bottom shelf onto the floor. I decided to have a look at it to see if this was in anyway significant. It was a book by Rev Dr Nan Burgess who I had the privilege of studying under at Knox it is called “Looking into the Depths” she looks at NZ short stories and explores the depth of meaning from these stories. Each chapter has a photo of a scene from nature. In her chapter Unfurling there is a picture of a fern frong, the heart of the frong, she says “Estranged relationships, presented through stories, hold in their dark, unfurled centres the potential realised in the world of the bush. Authoritarian Patriarchal ideology is the accepted norm of relationships of women and men. That such ideology stifles spirituality is hidden from the male characters, who know no other way of viewing the world than through their own values.

Marriage is no longer the chosen trajectory for many of the millennial generation and some of us, times and contexts have changed, we live in a try before you buy culture mostly. Ultimately however, for all of us relationships are based on mutuality, love, giving and taking, treating one another with respect and integrity. As my brothers would say “happy wife, happy life”. Something I hope we can all aspire to in our own families and relationships with our partners and spouses and one another. Amen.

Audio of selected readings and reflections

Audio of the complete service