John 12:1-11
Lent 5 - Year C
"Holy Week" Monday - Years A, B, C
Generosity of others brings out the worst in us. It affronts our myth of never-ending progress for us in a zero-sum world. When someone else is generous, we can’t help but wonder what that will cost us. We could have been the recipient of that generous gift and we would certainly value it more highly that the ne’er-do-well who received it. We would have been able to turn a pound of nard into an even better return than a pound of heroin. In our imagination we can see all the good we would do with that resource. Of course there would have to be just a little taken out for administrative costs. Then, certainly, there will be a consideration given for management of this fund,. A laborer is due their due, so a little more may have to come out. Obviously there are a few palms to grease to efficiently and effectively oversee the movement of these monies to the poor souls so in need of a hand-out. Yes, someone would certainly receive something if only we had the nard.
Here in this week called “Holy” we may need to question the capitalist model of charity. It does seem we have poor folk all around us. It is hard to make a maximal profit with them having so many needs. Surely we should be able to market Jesus Nard or Lazarus Wrappings. with some of the proceeds going to the poor. We wouldn’t expect to do worse than the American Tract Society’s administrative expenses of 68% of their take as reported by Charity Navigators. Well, we might, but we would not expect to.
As a first reflection on life this week we see that we don’t see clearly. The way we measure importance and identify key values gets pretty messed up pretty quickly. Generous women have to go. People miraculously alive have to go. This is not to mention all the unmentionable folks we already dismiss as a matter of course by rendering them invisible. When honor comes up against profit, honor loses. When new life comes up against institutional survival, new life loses.
What is the half-life of generosity in your life? What is the distance between a reason to be generous and generosity itself?
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2013/03/john-121-11-holy-week-monday.html
We are behind on our postings. The snow pack, rain, and warm temperature conspired this past Sunday to find a weak spot in a basement window and the flood waters rose. All in all not the worst flood, but it does bring opportunity to reconfigure the basement and finally toss some things that have simply been carried along. If we take advantage of this, we will lead a less cluttered life. If we don’t, we will be plotting against Lazarus who scares us with his witness to the uncertainty of our certainties and the possibility of a next chance to evaluate and modify.
- - - - - - -
Have you had a resurrectional experience? One that shifted your ground of being toward receiving the gifts of people as they are able to share their gifts? One that re-evaluates our usual responses in light of the preciousness of time and energy?
If so, you are on someone’s “hit list”.
Your covert or acknowledged adversary might be a supposed comrade or some level of competitor. All you can be certain about is that someone thinks they have a better response to life or a particular occasion than you do.
Given that generalized reality, the poor have remarkable gifts to give that no one would expect. When given wholeheartedly they are highly valued. If we lived only in an economic world, we would say they were costly or expensive. We would also know that you don’t give gifts away as that would lessen the total assets we have without an in-hand quid pro quo.
When we get caught up with the details of this story it is mostly to excuse ourselves from generosity similar to Mary’s. Our details would be different, but not the desire to give the best we have to the creative process in order to encourage it onward.
So, why are gifts from the poor to the poor denigrated? They confront the rich with the reality that they won’t even share with the rich, much less the poor. We so don’t like our certainties to be questioned.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2013/03/john-121-11.html
Mary is a prodigal daughter. She wanders away from the cultural norm. What a wastrel of time and resources she is -- sitting at feet, anointing feet.
Judas is an elder son. He complains about having his share reduced whenever prodigal behavior is present. What a linear thinker and believer in a zero-sum game of life.
Mostly I've wondered about Lazarus. Apparently once dead is not always dead. There are some questions, though about once raised, always raised. We learn in the next section that there were those who were going to test this out by killing him.
How was Lazarus in this scene? Mary probably had not anointed his feet in anticipation of his "day of burial," so how was it to see this happen with someone else? Was he loved the less, as evidenced by the expenditure of at least resources (and maybe time) not being directed toward him?
Is Lazarus just a marker here with no other part to play?
Where do you see the prodigal parent in this scene?
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2004/march2004.html
The liberation theology notes in the Christian Community Bible from the Philippines makes a distinction between giving to the poor and loving the poor.
The poor we will always have with us as long as we consider our relationship with them to be one of giving. Somehow or other I will always steal just a little from the commonwealth so that someone else will remain poorer than I am. As long as the relationship is on a giving/receiving plane it is incumbent upon me to have that bit more so I can continue to give, and thus continue to claim my place as a "giver," even a "cheerful giver."
But to love the poor means that the giving/receiving process goes beyond resources. A key way out of having the financially poor with us is to warp the category so that we are interdependent with one another, not setting up my independence and your dependence upon me. Until we can hear Jesus not predicting that we will always have the poor, thus justifying our giving, rather than loving, we will have missed the point of the passage.
Paul picks up on this with his comment, "Even if I give all my resources, but have not love, who am I?"
The Christian Community Bible puts it, "If we are not among [the poor] we need conversion and true poverty to discover with them the Kingdom."
What would the "general welfare" of the USofA look like if our first order of business were to love the poor?
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2004/march2004.html
Tomorrow [March 25, 2007] is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. A current movie, Amazing Grace profiles William Wilberforce as a key presence in the years of work for this abolition.
To learn more you can see many reviews at RottenTomatoes, here is one from Spirituality and Practice. A helpful interview of the cast comes from The BBC.
At least one take looks at the potential of Jesus within our sisters or brothers or you or me and the very practical question of how we put together loving God and loving Neighbor. Mary's anointing shows up in the presence of Barbara who, having studied Jesus' teachings (William's speeches), brings affirmation to continue in the path that he is traveling. Judas' concern about the poor as a cover for greed is apparent in several political proponents for slavery.
There are implications for any number of social justice movements still going on, including that of literal and actual slavery (from sex trade to non-living wages) in our day. Amazing Grace would be an excellent way for you to honor the historic vote to abolish slavery in one political system and to recommit to a community of people whose faith must be put to work for a greater common good than we presently experience. [You may also hear in this film small but specific references to bringing troop home before more die - in regard to the British experience of the American Revolutionary War.]
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
This Mary has stolen a march on the Magdalene by getting her hands on Jesus. Headlines: strike while the iron is hot, give roses while folks live. It seems that our little needs to honor aren't as easy to give to a missing body as a present one.
Once in awhile I wonder whether Mary got confused and had meant to anoint Lazarus, who may not yet be over his four-day stink - thus making him a more acceptable dinner companion. Or, having come to believe Jesus is Messiah and having experienced him getting out of many a scrape, Mary, knowing the authorities were out to get Lazarus (following 3 verses), anointed Jesus to throw them off the scent.
Regardless of such silly musings, Judas is often maligned for his imputed motivation of materialistic greed and Mary is lauded for her spiritual generosity. Into this too easy a dualism - hear William Stringfellow in Dissenter in a Great Society:
"In the Gospel of Christ there is no dichotomy between "material" and "spiritual." Indeed, the realities to which these words refer in the Gospel do not exist separately, in distinction one from the other, or in opposition to one another--although that was what the Greeks supposed and what many Americans still vainly assume. In the Gospel, these are made one, each indispensable to the other, each inherent in the other. The very event of the Incarnation concerns the reconciliation in the world of the realities which men call "material" and "spiritual." Since the Incarnation, for men to persist in thinking and speaking of "material" vs "spiritual" is not only a sign of confusion but is also both false and profane." (p. 36)
If we can associate Jesus with the outcasts, a question for Mary is whom should we be anointing today? Might it be the poor and would that, after all these years, reconcile Mary and Judas?
If we can't associate Jesus with outcasts, it's everyone for their own gain. Those honor Jesus best who end up with the biggest stash. Reconciliation seems absent here.
- - -
A Duel
The prodigal Mary and the older-son Judas
Side by side on the table sat;
'Twas half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)
Nor one nor t'other had slept a wink!
The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate
Appeared to know as sure as fate
There was going to be a terrible spat.
(I wasn't there; I simply state
What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)
The prodigal Mary went "Anoint, Anoint!"
And the older-son Judas replied "The Poor!"
The air was littered, an hour or so,
With bits of nard and purse,
While the old Dutch clock in the chimney place
Up with it hands before its face,
For it always dreaded a family row!
(Now mind: I'm only telling you
What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)
The Chinese plate looked very blue,
And wailed, "Oh dear! What shall we do!"
But the spiritual Mary and the material Judas
Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
Employing every tooth and claw
In the awfullest way you ever saw-
And oh! how the oil and coins flew!
(Don't fancy I exaggerate!
I got my news from the Chinese plate!)
Next morning where the two had sat
They found no trace of Mary or Judas;
And some folks think unto this day
That religion scholars stole the pair away!
But the truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!
Now what do you really think of that!
(The old Dutch clock, it told me so,
And that is how I came to know.)
[with a nod and apologies to Eugene Field and the gingham dog and the calico cat]
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
Judas' question today is asked more bald-facedly with no veneer of piety. "Why was this social security not marketed for volatile investments and the benefit given to the rich?"
This is the equivalent of giving a child a scorpion when they cry for an egg.
In the sweet scent of revelation we get the crass propaganda of those in cahoots with power that talks of Clear Skies while it pollutes or Healthy Forests as it clearcuts landscape-wide.
The concern is not for the poor, the skies, the forests but for the rich to get richer.
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2005/march2005.html
Yes, PreEaster, not Holy Week. Our very distinction of "Holy This" or "Holy That" belies the holiness of life in all things. We move into unhelpful dualities that end up with a split between spiritual and material.
Let us take hands and declare to one another that which is yet to come to pass before it has sprung forth. This imagery from Isaiah sees us through every sort of life situation.
The Psalmist reminds us of the continuance of steadfast love (salvation, if you will). We participate in this love and add our part to its continual revelation. Hold hands, do not be driven from this reality.
The writer to the Hebrews knows that a new covenant does not depend on some third party, but on the integrity of those engaged together. She reminds us that it is not the sacrifice of others that brings life, but that of our own participation in that which we deem essential that moves us from life's repetitive works to continually revealed expressions of a steadfast love not held away as a carrot for tomorrow, but offered as a full feast for today.
Whether it is our commitment to giving roses, perfume, anointing, relationship now instead of later or our past experiences of resurrection coming to challenge the leaden, deadly inertia of cultural and political blocks to more life for more people, we challenge the current status quo striving for more advantage and control. It is in fact our generosity and awareness of new life that bring forth the opportunities for revealing the basic choices of life. Here we immediately run into the fears and tremblings of past teaching that we now know what's what. Generosity and awareness of abundance of life are still counter-cultural fulcrum points that can move the world.
Let's keep telling a larger story than our own small part and honor our small part in moving a larger story along.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
Indeed! Why wasn't Mary's perfume sold for the benefit of the poor? Why was it even purchased in the first place? Why was a dinner opened to an honored guest and not opened to the poor?
We can track cause-and-effect back and back and back even farther. So any High Priest, as well as our very own lowly self, can decide where a difficulty lay and excise that particular and feel extremely proud about having done so. This is a time-tested process to find a scapegoat and hie it to the hinterlands. This process puts each of us into the role of Nard, Mary, Lazarus, Judas, Poor, and High Priest.
The trick is to raise this process from the page that leads us to cover up our own continuing way of divide-and-conquer by stealing a reputation with an unanswerable question. A retranslation is needed for verse 8. Here is one suggestion for both individuals and congregations: "You always have (someone to blame for the current situation), but you do not have (an assurance of being beloved)." Presumably folks can make the connection between poor and blame, between Jesus and assurance.
- Poverty is not measured in money, but in relationships.
- Jesus is a mentor in assurance.
- Assurance and Relationships are Related and Learnable.
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-121-11.html
Thieves of the common purse abound. An appeal made to care for the poor turns out to be a cover to rob them. Sound familiar?
Note that Monday is a day of Jesus' burial, this is the anointing of his dead body with lots and lots of nard.
Note that the earthy odor of nard might also be an enhancement of a woman's estrus pheromone or lover's scent (ref. Song of Songs) - and so the wrong Mary may have been speculated about regarding Jesus' and the "little death".
Note that plots were also made against Lazarus. Whether you feel youself more closely related to Jesus (beloved of G*D) or to Lazarus (given a new opportunity) — it is time to get on with being who you are - time is short and the "relief, delight, triumph" to great to miss. [Note: you may want a shirt with a reminder about this.]
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2011/04/john-121-11.html