+Z’ev

Commemoration of Ambrose of Milan

Today’s assigned readings:
Amos 5:1-17, Jude 1-16, Matthew 22:1-14

Then he said to his slaves, “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’
Matthew 22:8-9

I blogged a video from Rabbi Steve Greenberg, the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi. Or, as the Wiki says, he “is the first person with Orthodox Rabbinic ordination to announce his homosexuality while claiming adherence to Orthodox Judaism. Given Judaism’s views on homosexuality, this has made Greenberg a focus for criticism and praise, as well as a symbol of the growing voice of the Jewish gay movement.”

And in the video the Rabbi shares about that portion in the Torah which forbids a man to lay with a man as with a woman and calls for the death penalty and how he as a gay man dealt with it: eventually the answer is not “down” but “through”. The Rabbi is called up to the Torah on that day to read that portion. He feels it’s the “traditionalist” way through this and he wonders at the more revisionary way of simply doing away with those things we don’t like (I think here of Jewish Denominations who write “inclusive” or “egalitarian” liturgies and of Christian communities that are unwilling to wrestle with the tough parts of their tradition).

I’m tempted to look at these two verses from Matthew and stop. Jesus says, “The right parties didn’t come so let’s go get the wrong parties! Get everyone!”

Except the Matthew text doesn’t stop there. First off the King orders all his original guests to be killed. Then he finds someone at the party that isn’t dressed right and throw them out. We’re left wondering where the axe will next fall. Very scary: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a Bipolar Monarch who left his meds at home on his Son’s wedding day.”

When I come to this text I ask first if we can know these parts to be Jesus. No, I don’t think so. But they are part of our tradition - as is, for example, the text of Jude counselling the Faithful that heretics “are blemishes on your love-feasts… for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved forever.” (Personally, I think this passage is a Jewish Voice speaking about Paul and the other pro-Gentile voices in the Christian Community.)

What do we do with those parts of our tradition that banish, exclude and even demean and destroy those that believe different things?

My own quest for assurance brought me this way: wanting not only to know that I was right, but also all of “us” (as defined by very narrow lines). I wanted to make sure that “others” were kept far away, or at least out of my way. My own faith is most often too weak to accept challenges, especially from within or, at least, within “us”.

But like Rabbi Steve, I have to admit a singularity based on personal experience. This thing that some call an abomination is also part of me. It’s not the same way it’s described in the text. That dialogue is too important to ever be silenced (on either side). So also these passages from Matthew and Jude: I have ample experience now that not only do shades of belief and disbelief not hinder communion, but enforced similar beliefs can destroy communities - mostly through the condependency in the drive to be 100% pure and right. Your neighbour becomes suspect for his lack of purity and your own faith is called into question by your willingness to judge that of your neighbour.

My experience - and the similar experience of others - does not invalidate the experience of those for whom diversity of belief is an issue for the community. But then neither does their experience invalidate mine: that among the most active and vibrant and growing Christian communities are those that openly welcome all shades of person and faith.

We also see these poles in the story of Ambrose, whom we commemorate today. Ambrose was elected by both Arians and Athanasians at a time when both parties were present in the Church. Although Ambrose has his theological position, he appealed to both sides. Later he tried to convert one side to the other. And even later he refused to punish his people for burning down a synagogue. Ambrose’s position moved along the spectrum.

These two poles have dialogue in today’s Gospel - in fact Jesus is made the spokesman for both. The Tradition includes both, if not then, then certainly between then and now. We grow and learn more. I’m with Rabbi Steve: I don’t think those things should be expunged from Tradition even as we recognise the need to into them our current understanding.

Much love,

Huw