Gospel For Gays

Blessed are you!

by Jeremiah Bartram on 08/02/10 at 11:36 am

He came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon…. Then he looked up at his disciples and said:  “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.  Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.  Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.  Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.  Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.  But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.  Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.  Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.  Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.” Luke 6, 17; 20-26.  Gospel for Sunday, February 14.

Commentators

NRSV:  Compare Matthew 5, 3-12.  “The focus is on economic and social conditions, not spiritual states.”  The woes “provide a point-by-point antithesis to the previous statements of blessing”.  “In Jesus’ declarations of blessings and woes, the earthly status of those addressed will be reversed in the divinely determined future.”

Hardy says that Luke’s version of the sermon “is not merely an abridged version of Matthew’s.  It has its own distinctive tone and in certain details it presents Jesus’ teaching in a more radical light.”

He goes on to explain how radical that difference is, on three grounds.  First, Luke uses the second person – so that his version of the beatitudes is very direct and immediate.  Secondly, where Matthew emphasizes the spiritual dimension of the beatitudes (e.g. blessed are the poor “in spirit”, etc.), in Luke Jesus addresses the truly poor, the materially poor.  Correspondingly, he warns those who are rich in the things of this world:  “woe to you who are rich…woe to you who are full now…woe to you who are laughing now”.  And thirdly, he distinguishes false prophets from true prophets on a radical basis:  the true ones are persecuted for the truth they tell.

Hugues Cousin, in Les evangiles, texts et commentaries, makes a really important point:  the “woes” are not curses, but rather a form of lamentation.   “Jesus laments those who rush toward catastrophe” in Luke’s set of reversed beatitudes.  That is, he does not condemn, he does not castigate, he does not curse or exclude.  Rather, he warns in love.

Gospel for gays

What exactly is Jesus saying in Luke’s account, which is so different from Matthew’s version of what appears to be the same event?

Is he saying that our economic system, which is posited on the creation and maintenance of personal wealth, is inconsistent with the kingdom of heaven?

Perhaps.

Is he saying that the little guy we don’t even notice, who doesn’t stay at the Fairmont and doesn’t eat fancy food and drink excellent wines and wear swell clothes is closer to the kingdom of heaven than we are?

Very likely.

Is he saying that those among us who are afflicted by sorrow, who are grieving over deep losses, who are sick and insecure, are closer to the kingdom of God than the strong and the healthy and the happy?

That’s what it sounds like.

And he’s telling us that if people speak well of us, that’s an indication that we are merely time servers and flatterers, like the false prophets?

Yup.  That’s what he’s saying.

How can he say these things?  Aren’t we – aren’t I – successful and well-adjusted and prosperous and above all generous?  I can’t be excluded from the kingdom of God!

**

My first thought as I pondered this text was, frankly, defensive:  obviously, Luke got it wrong.

I mean, look at the text from the standpoint of a contemporary journalist.  There are two accounts of the episode – Matthew’s and Luke’s.  Are they consistent?  No.  Was either reporter present at the event?  No.  Can we verify either of their sources?  No.  Therefore, neither evangelist is a reliable witness to what Jesus actually said.  We know what Matthew said he said, and we know what Luke said he said – but we will never know what Jesus himself actually said.

Therefore, why worry about it?  Why take it seriously at all?

Interpret it as you please.

**

But then I looked at the first reading for February 14, because the first reading often provides a key to understanding the chosen gospel text.

That first reading is from Jeremiah, after whom I’m named.  He adopts a similar rhetorical structure, describing one type of person who is blessed and an opposite type who is cursed.

But there are two big differences between Jeremiah’s text and Luke’s.

In the Jeremiah text, the person who is blessed has put his trust and his hope in the Lord, while the cursed person puts his trust in human things alone.

And secondly, Jeremiah labels one class of people as cursed.  Jesus does not curse the rich, the well-fed, the laughing, or the popular.

As Hugues Cousin points out, the Lukan text is more like a lamentation, a prediction that those who are now satisfied are at risk of missing the kingdom of God precisely because they are too full of other things to care.

If you are empty, incomplete, grieving, poor, unsatisfied – then you are in need.  And in your emptiness, you can turn to God, asking him to fill you.  You are open.

And in contrast, if your life is rich, abundant in material and psychological rewards, independent, delightful – then you are full, perhaps too full to need God, too satisfied to bother with the kingdom of Heaven.  You are closed.

That’s more like the text of Matthew, where we are all called to be poor in spirit, a concept that I can understand.

**

So what does this text tell me personally, as a gay person?

That I need to be rooted in God, not in human things.  More than that:  unless I’m rooted in God, I won’t find his kingdom.

Does our sexual orientation prevent us from being rooted in God?

No way.  Not even the Magisterium says that.

Do our relationships prevent us from being rooted in God?

Of course, the Magisterium says that they do.  That they leave no room for God, being exclusively focused on the riches, satisfactions and pleasures of this life – particularly sexual pleasure, a huge and generally unspoken taboo.

But tell me, somebody, please:  why should our relationships exclude God – if they’re all about love?

The love that supports, that encourages, that is tolerant, that endures in health and sickness, in poverty and loss and even in the dangerous moral and spiritual choices of wealth, with all its bogus and fleeting satisfactions?

A love, indeed, that challenges the false values of this world; love that doesn’t give a shit about such adversities or such advantages, but rather just keeps loving.  Keeps growing.  Keeps creating.  Keeps giving.

Why would such relationships be somehow contrary to God?

And that’s what we can have; that’s what we can offer to each other, and to the world.

Subscribe To Gospel for Gays