based on a sermon preached to the First Presbyterian Church of Albany (beginning 27:45)
on Sunday, August 21, 2022. The Scripture lesson was Luke 13:10-17
Humans are creatures of habit. These habits are created, in part, by the social cues, we have been raised and conditioned to accept as norms, even as normal. Most of these queues are really assumptions we have come to accept, most without question or hesitation. And we accept them, I would argue, for three main reasons: 1. they have gotten us here thus far in our lives, 2. most of our senses – physical and otherwise – seem to confirm those assumptions, and 3. many of those assumptions we learned – whether by lesson or observation – from persons we respect and admire. These assumptions, social queues we have agreed, whether we realize it or not, to establish as the standard for social interaction and access, makes the world as we know it go round.
Now, the interesting thing about these assumptions that establish social normalcy and standard is that they are neither constant nor consistent. They may seem constant and consistent to us because their change happens slowly and often inadvertently, especially to those whose lives and livelihoods remain above or somewhere at or near whatever the “social standard” is. This whole process of creating standards is a constant cycle. It is, no doubt, controlled by those with social, political, and economic power to remain in power as long as they can. And it is, in fact, as long as they can because the world – the natural environment along with the social, economic, and political structures humans have built on top of it – is in constant flux. It may seem constant in the short-term appreciation of our journey through this earth.
Those of us who are in the historical arts or the social sciences can say that there are patterns for what is set as social standards. Truth is, however, that the sets of social norms are constantly changing. It is a cycle, and I would add a vicious cycle at that. Vicious and violent. Those of us who have been created in and made to believe that we are close to the social standard may be in a place where we can ignore or in fact not perceive the violence and viciousness of social standards. But it is so. It is vicious for those who seek to remain in power and stay in control for themselves and their kind. And it is violent for those who are continually created as the foundation, as the expendable grounding that support the livelihoods of others through social normalcy.
Some of us are beneficiaries of these social standards and often are taught to ignore how those benefits were achieved. We have been made to believe that some others of us are the expandable people. Structures have been created – literally and figurative structures – to not only ignore but to not perceive them. Many of us, far too many, are somewhere in that artificially created “middle” where we can decide to ignore and move about life not perceiving the viciousness of those with power to structure our social queues and the violence experienced by those whose lives have been deemed replaceable.
The trouble, even enigma of it all, is that no matter how and when we come to awareness of the viciousness and violence of the social, political, and economic standards we inhabit, many of us feel (as I am certain many of us are feeling now) that even when this social constructing might be true, there is little to nothing we can do about it. The “just go with the flow” lesson kicks in. And with that flow goes our human impetus to struggle for a better way of being. You see, humans, the social animals that we are who are also endowed, we believe, with an ability to think and analyze like no other created being, are found between two spaces that are, either, in tension or clashing against each other. On the one hand is our ability to hope – that we know that a better, more verdant, more solidarious, more equitable, more just world is possible. On the other is our drive to survive – that if I make it as close as to the norm as possible, I may just go through this life as untroubled as possible. And the reason I say that these two spaces are either in tension or clashing is because my imagination and experience can’t lead me to find a center between them. In my estimation one can keep one’s head down and go through life as undetectable as possible, or one will be very exposed, even vulnerable, for the sake of other humans and of creation. I tend to pragmatism in life, work, vocation, and service. As of today, I don’t seem to find the pragmatic in this tension and clash we have been socialized into.
Luke, the gospel writer, went headfirst on this tension and clash that was much a reality in the 1st century Roman Empire, as it is today in the United States. The story of the encounter of Jesus with a woman afflicted by a sickness for 18 years that made her be bent and unable to stand straight, and the argument with the leader of the synagogue that followed is unique to Luke. I wonder what was going on in Luke’s congregation that he decided to include this story only he seemed to have known about? The social norms and standards of the time was what framed this encounter. Illness and physical differences that were defined as limiting would have made a person untouchable – affirmed by ritual and religious language, unwelcomed, and even invisible. What is more, there were in the first century and still are in the 21st century religious believes that seek to affirm that an illness is a form of divine retribution. The gospel writer only tells us that this was a woman, ill for close to 20 years, made invisible not by any awareness of her life story, but because of how social norms separate and reject that which is created as limiting.
Many of us may ask, and should ask, who is anyone to determine what makes a human being whole and deserving of full social interaction. The argument of Jesus with the leader of the synagogue affirms two important things about religious community in particular, and about social interactions in particular. Language is also essential. One can read this lesson through, especially if this is a familiar story, and miss the nuances of language – both in Greek and in many translations. In his argument with the leader of the synagogue, Jesus clarifies the action taken, and the role of the religious community. One, is to identify the double standard that would have made the supposed healing of a person as daily work, when tending to animals that provide profit was excused as not work in the day of rest. The double standard lies in the prioritizing the benefit of some over the life and livelihood of all. Jesus goes a step further to say that even if healing was to be considered work, healing was not what Jesus did to this woman.
And here is where words are essential. The word translated to English as “infirmity” or “sick” comes from a Greek term that would have been better translated as weakness or frailty. What is more, Luke describes the condition of this woman as being afflicted by a “spirit of sickness.” And I make that point because, should Luke have wanted to identify her condition as a sickness, one that could have been addressed with medicinal knowledge, he would have used the term for such a condition. But he did not. And because the condition of the woman was described as a spirit inflicting weakness or frailty, a condition that had physical AND social repercussions for the woman, the action of Jesus as described by Luke was NOT to heal the woman, but to set her free from her illness. Jesus sees the woman, calls the woman, and touches the women setting her free from the social conditions that had made her invisible for 18 years. 18 years! And that is what Jesus argues right back to the leader of that congregation - that setting a member of the community free in order for that member to be able to be fully seen for who that person is with and in spite of the realities that might set a person apart from the artificially created social norms is not only NOT labor, but the essential role of the community of faith. Our role as witnesses of Jesus is to invest our senses in perceiving and interacting with the members of the community for who they are, and to create the conditions where, in spite of what society calls normal and excellent, people will be welcomed into a reality that provides them and all a better, more verdant, more solidarious, more equitable, more just reality. That is the good news – we are called to partner with Jesus to share the good news that God’s intention for humanity is to be with and for each other with the single standard that we are all created in the image of God.
May it be so. Amen.