Sermon On the Plain Part 1: Blessed are the Telegenic??

Text:    Luke 6:17-26

For the past three years, these commentaries have followed the Revised Common Lectionary. This year, because the commentary will be concentrating specifically on the Gospel of Luke, in its entirety and without regard to the Christian Liturgical year, Luke’s version of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount can be fully explored.  Both the Year of Matthew (Year A, 2008) and the current Year of Luke (Year C, 2010) shortened the season of Epiphany, thereby eliminating from the lectionary readings both Matthew’s and Luke’s liturgical setting for the heart of Jesus’s life and teaching.   (See No Time for Justice )
All that remains are a couple of carefully cherry-picked verses during Lent.  The reason for this is that back in the 7th Century, at the Council of Whitby, Roman Easter got tied to the Northern European Spring Equinox instead of the Jewish celebration of Passover (with which the Eastern rite coordinates its Orthodox Easter).

The Jesus Seminar’s Five Gospels discusses in depth the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of what is known as the Beatitudes (pp. 290-293).  Without quoting extensively from that essay, it is important to point out that the JS Scholars are of the opinion that Luke’s version is closer to the words of the historical Jesus than is Matthew’s version.  The reason is that Luke more closely follows what appears in the reconstituted Q gospel and the corroborating form in the sayings gospel of Thomas than Matthew does.  Matthew edited his version to reflect concerns of Matthew’s early Jewish-Christian community.

It is also important to realize that Jesus probably did not sit down on a mountaintop, or on “a level place” and deliver the sermon in any form in which it appears, whether in Q, Thomas, Matthew, or Luke.  The sayings were part of an oral tradition that circulated among the people who had known Jesus, and who may have been part of a “kingdom movement” that developed after Jesus’s death.  Matthew organized the sayings into his great Sermon on the Mount.  Luke reduced Matthew’s Sermon to a relatively brief discourse, delivered to his disciples after he had called them, and during a lull in teaching and healing.  Luke then scattered much of Matthew’s collection throughout the rest of his gospel.

The first three Beatitudes quoted by Luke are the sayings that most likely do go back to the historical Jesus.  They are:

        “Congratulations you poor!  God’s domain belongs to you.
        Congratulations, you hungry!  You will have a feast.
        Congratulations, you who weep now!  You will laugh.”

Luke follows these three with a fourth that says “Congratulations to you when people hate you . . . because of the son of Adam!  Rejoice on that day . . . Just remember, your compensation is great in heaven.  Recall that their ancestors treated the prophets the same way.”  The JS scholars are of the opinion that this one may go back to Jesus, but it more likely reflects the conditions of Luke’s community after persecution of the Christian movement had begun.

Finally, Luke includes a series of condemnations: “Damn you rich!  You already have your consolation.  Damn you who are well-fed now! You will know hunger.  Damn you who laugh now!  You will learn to weep and grieve.  Damn you when everybody speaks well of you!  Recall that their ancestors treated the phony prophets the same way.”  Luke may have found these in the Q source, but it is just as likely he made them up as a literary counter to the blessings listed in the beginning.  The JS Scholars are convinced that Jesus’s life and words were non-violent, non-apocalyptic, and non-judgmental.  Therefore, these sayings from 6:24-26 were probably not Jesus’s words.

Matthew’s softened version is the most familiar.  Matthew waffles the blessings to the poor “in spirit,” and to those “who hunger and thirst for justice.”  He effectively dodges the injustice bullet by adding a few extra blessings to the exclusive list from Q, perhaps on behalf of the members of his community who were gentle (meek); merciful, with “undefiled hearts,” and “who work for peace.”  But Luke meets distributive injustice head on.  Careful readers will remember that Luke’s Jesus announced in his home synagogue on the Sabbath day that the scripture he read had been fulfilled (4:14-19): “[God] has anointed me to bring good news to the poor . . . announce pardon for prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s amnesty.”  Luke’s sermon on the plain confirms all of it.

Luke’s Jesus congratulates the poor and says that God’s domain (realm, kingdom) belongs to them.  Then he condemns the rich in no uncertain terms.  This portion of his “sermon on the plain” reflects Mary’s song – which of course Luke created (1:46-55):  “[God] has pulled down the mighty from their thrones and exalted the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”  Mary’s song in turn echos the song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1-10), celebrating the dedication of her son Samuel to serve the Lord as a prophet: “Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry are fat with spoil. . . . [God] raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap . . . .”

Thousands of sermons have been delivered over the past two millennia on these passages.  The fourth principle of Catholic social teaching on the obligations of Christians in today’s society is, “We are called to emulate God by showing a special preference for those who are poor and weak.” But Jesus was not calling for a “special preference.”  In God’s realm of distributive justice-compassion, the rain falls on the just and the unjust.  In his letter to the Romans (2:6-11), Paul talks about the judgment of God that shows no distinction among people regarding the consequences of justice or injustice.  “There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil . . . glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good.  For God shows no partiality.”  Interpreting this phrase in the light of what scholarship suggests, if we are to participate with the risen Christ in the establishment of God’s realm of distributive justice-compassion, then what is required is not “partiality,” but radical inclusiveness.

The outpouring of assistance to the desperately poor citizens of Haiti after the worst earthquake in memory has been criticized on a number of appalling points.  One that is popular and self-serving is to ask why are U.S. citizens still displaced from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina?  Shouldn’t we help them first?  A public forum published daily in the Martinsburg Journal included  these two comments: “. . . We’ll give and take from foreign countries and we don’t even take care of our own people”; and “I don’t recall if the Haitian people helped the United States when we had September 11.  I think this charity thing is getting way out of hand . . .”

But the most unsettling argument is the one discussed on National Public Radio on January 20.  “Reporters who are MDs find the Lines Blurred in Haiti.”  Journalists are not supposed to become personally involved in the stories they cover.  Journalists who also happen to be trained medical professionals who have gone to Haiti to cover the story have been caught actually helping people instead of just taking pictures and writing words – as though the reporter was supposed to allow the person s/he was interviewing to bleed to death, cameras rolling.  Instead, several individual Haitians have been helped, if not saved, by the intervention of medical personnel who were supposed to be reporting the story, not creating it.  Perhaps they should have turned off the cameras.  But the criticism is much more serious.

        “What disturbs me about the media doctors is that they are basically pulling telegenic people out of the queue and giving them exceptional resources,” says Dr. Steven Miles, a medical professor and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota.

If that is the case, it is not only merely “disturbing.”  It is exploitation at its most cynical – aiding victims in order to win the ratings game.  Surely American journalism has not devolved to that level?

The NPR report continues:

        Miles says viewers are unaware of the distortions caused by the intervention of the doctor-reporters. “We don’t see the impact of that in terms of soaking up staff time, in terms of the people who are working on the ground, and also the diversion of resources to these patients who are selected for television portrayal,” Miles says.

“Soaking up staff time” along with the blood is somehow unethical for Dr. Miles. 

But beyond that, Miles says the stories that focus so much on heroic Americans undermines the support of the U.S. viewing public for helping Haitians help themselves build a functioning civil society and public health system. He says by far the greatest number of people aiding Haitians are their fellow citizens.

This is cynicism at its worst.  Unfortunately, this is not the first time that victims have been expected to get themselves out of their own predicament.  In a blog post from February 13, 2004, Daniel Pipes reported:

        Gen. John Abizaid, the head of Central Command and the man running the U.S. effort in Iraq, . . . declar[ed] that "We have to take risk to a certain extent, by taking our hands off the controls…. It’s their country, it’s their future. Our job is to help them help themselves." In a direct application of this approach, an Associated Press report explains, "Abizaid responded sharply when a battalion commander of the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment described his frustration at getting the Iraqis to adopt a way to dispose of trash. ‘It's their problem, not your problem, Abizaid told the officer.’”

Of course, the Iraqis would not have had these problems if the U.S. had not overthrown their government, thereby destroying the economy, and eliminating infrastructure and public services.  As for present-day Haiti, how can a people even begin to think about building a functioning society when their arms and/or legs are missing, and they haven’t eaten for 10 days?

        If reporters who are also physicians want so badly to step out of their journalistic role to help, [Dr. Miles] argues, they should volunteer instead with relief agencies in Haiti — and set aside an hour a day to grant interviews to their network employer.

A scene from the master of social commentary, Charles Dickens, illustrates the problem with Dr. Miles’ attitude:

        “At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
        “Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge. . . . “And the Union workhouses? . . . Are they still in operation? . . .The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?”
        “Both very busy, sir.”
        “Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
        “Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
        “Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
        “You wish to be anonymous?”
        “I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. . . . I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."
        “Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
        “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population . . .”

God forbid we should “bring good news to the poor, announce pardon for prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, set free the oppressed, and proclaim the year of the Lord’s amnesty.”  Luke’s Jesus is well justified to throw up his hands in frustration. “Damn you rich!  You already have your consolation” along with all the other false prophets who assume that salvation depends on who is telegenic.

BLOG ARCHIVE