Bible Text: Mark 2:23-3:6 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15 | Preacher: Rev. Jenn Geddes
I recently attended the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation Conference at Trinity Western University in Langley. While at the conference I was reminded of how much I enjoy learning, how much I enjoy listening to lectures just for the sake of gaining new knowledge. I was also reminded that I am not a scientist. Here I was with Jean Bullard, and many physicists, engineers, psychologists, professors, and researchers. Prior to attending this conference I had never heard of Planck’s Constant or the Higgs Boson but by the end of the weekend I was able to sit through a lecture entitled, “Quantum Field Theory, Personhood and the Trinity”, and nearly understand the majority of the lecture. It was an enriching experience and I thank the congregation for allowing me to use some study leave time and funds to attend. I look forward to sharing more of what I learned with you. It is unfortunate that many feel there is a conflict between science and faith when in fact, I feel that by attending this conference in which I was inundated with explorations in climate change, earth sciences, quantum mechanics, and physics that science expands our understanding of God. Science establishes a deeper sense of wonder – even when I was confused because I had no idea what cognitive science of religion really was. It reminded me of the statement in the Nicene Creed, “we believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” There is so much in this universe that we do not see, from galaxies to cells, yet God made it all and the more we see, the more we see into the creative power of God.
UBC president, Santa Ono addressed the conference on the Saturday morning and reminded us that part of Israel’s great “Shema” commandment is that it states, “Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, MIND and strength.” Learning, exploration within the mind, is a part of being God’s people. But what happens when in our search for truth we discover differences? What happens when one opinion clearly opposes another? It appears to me that the dialogue between Science and Faith, a dialogue, in my opinion that should be complimentary, has meant that many people feel they have to choose between Science or Faith. I would argue that the perceived dichotomy between science and faith is similar to the perceived dichotomy between law and practice in Jesus’ time. This is no more evident than in our Gospel reading from Mark or in our psalm.
The story in Mark has Jesus and his disciples making their way through fields and as they walk along they are plucking the heads of the grain and consuming them. Now when I first read this passage I thought, the Pharisees are somewhat in the right, after all Jesus and the disciples seem to be stealing grain. They are walking through a field and helping themselves to the harvest. But it turns out that Deuteronomy 23:25 says, “If you go into your neighbour’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand….and eat your fill.” So clearly the law states that they do have a right to help themselves. The Pharisees have an issue with the fact that Jesus and the disciples are “going through” the fields on the Sabbath. The Pharisees are upset because they are walking and eating on a holy day.
Jesus defends their actions in a way that might be familiar to us as I have used a similar tactic when defending something about a doctrine with another Christian. The Pharisees use a portion of the Deuteronomy passage that we heard, “observe the Sabbath and keep it holy” to criticize Jesus’ behaviour. But Jesus takes a different passage from Scripture and demonstrates how elastic Scripture can be. Jesus uses a story from 1 Samuel 21 in which David eats and shares the bread of presence, a sacred bread, with his hungry soldiers. Perhaps you have had this experience too, person A makes a claim using Scripture that Person B can oppose by also using a different passage from Scripture. This does not make Scripture irrelevant but rather exposes the beauty of the Bible. The Bible speaks not only to historical contexts but can be used to assist us in our current context. For me, and this should not come as a surprise to any of you, what is important is that we do our best to understand both the historical and the current context before we use Scripture to argue or defend anything.
Clearly Jesus’ use of Scripture to defend his disciples’ actions does not shock or appease the Pharisees. Rather they wait to see what Jesus’ next move will be and of course Jesus does not disappoint them. As Biblical Scholar Matt Skinner states, “The issue [at the synagogue where he heals a man’s withered hand] is not whether Jesus has the power to heal the man’s hand, it is whether doing so on the Sabbath demonstrates a wilful disregard for the law of God—a law that was believed to give good order to life and to provide conditions for encountering God’s blessings and holiness.” What is intriguing is that Jesus’ remark about what is lawful on the Sabbath does not change the Pharisee’s position and this grieves Jesus- he is saddened by their hardness of heart. Their strict adherence to these laws does not allow them to see the human need around them. Before we get all self-righteous about how we are not like the Pharisees I have to admit that I often see our doctrine acting as if it was law, or if I may be so bold, our Presbyterian polity can make us blind to the needs around us. As I say this, I acknowledge that right now, this week, our national church is meeting for its annual General Assembly and at this meeting there are tense arguments around inclusion of the LGBT community going on. But notice how in Deuteronomy the Sabbath law is meant to be extended to everyone in the household, from masters to daughters to slaves, everyone is entitled to find rest in God.
Stepping away from doctrine is one of the reasons why I will often say as part of the invitation to communion, “this is not the Presbyterian Church in Canada’s table, this is the Lord’s Table.” Because it is not I or even the National Doctrine committee who has a right to say who can and cannot come to this table which the Lord has prepared. There was a time when only official members in good standing of the congregation would be allowed to take communion – but that kind of strict law only prevents people from getting to know God. So, remember that this is not the Presbyterian Church in Canada’s table – but the Lord’s Table when we participate in the sacrament of communion.
The Pharisees have a mechanical approach to faith that means they are lost in the law. Dr. Arnold Sikkema, a physicist from Trinity Western University, gave the final lecture at the CSCA conference. It pointed out that electrons change their paths when they interact with each other – what makes an electron is to be in relationship with its environment – just as the trinity works in relationship and we are meant to be in relationship with one another. But what struck me was when Dr. Sikkema said, “God did not create things and then establish a law, rather God created lawful things. Thing and law are entangled.” Meaning that all things follow a law – but the law is not what defines us – it is not the law that gives us identity and purpose- rather it is that we are fearfully and wonderfully made by God. Amen