Values assessment
Commentary
The January/February 1995 issue of Men's Health magazine offered a feature titled "What do men want?" The editors had surveyed a broad spectrum of American men with that simple question: "What do you want?" How do you think men responded? Fame? Fortune? A date with Elle McPherson?
A 31-year-old journalist said, "I'd like to have the kind of friendships I had in high school and college." A 44-year-old agricultural researcher responded, "I want to do a really good deed sometime -- like save somebody's life." One man said he wanted "someone to believe in," noting how "every hero I've ever had has been exposed." A 49-year-old photographer said, "I'd like to know what really happens when you die." And a 44-year-old said, simply, "I want my father alive again -- for one day."
The question, "What do you want?" is a reflective of another underlying question: "What do you value?" The constant theme in all three lessons for this day is "values assessment." They address this theme by answering three similar questions.
First Lesson: Who is "worthy"?
Second Lesson: Who is "wise"?
Gospel Lesson: Who is "great"?
Proverbs 31:10-31
These 22 verses present an acrostic ode to "a woman of worth" (literal translation of the phrase in v. 10a). English translations render the key word "worth" as "capable," "perfect," or "good." The root meaning is actually "strong." The word is usually used to describe men and is typically translated "mighty" in those contexts. In this passage, it appears to mean "worthy of honor or praise" (see vv. 28-31).
The text derives from a very patriarchal culture, one that views women in general and wives in particular as the possessions of men. Apparently, in those days as now, men sometimes wanted "trophy wives" that would make them look good to their peers. Granted this, the text nevertheless transcends sexist stereotypes in remarkable ways. The woman does not serve simply as a means of bringing honor to her husband, but is worthy of honor herself.
Most notable are the attributes that make a woman worthy of such honor. Strength is a primary characteristic (vv. 17, 25), as well as business acumen and managerial skill. Nothing is said of physical beauty or fertility. Mention is made of wisdom, kindness, dignity, and concern for the poor.
I don't usually like to pick on celebrities (they're such easy targets!), but in early 1997 a very attractive and talented young woman was widely quoted in newspapers as saying something that just begs to be mentioned here. I'm sure she's sorry she said it, so let's spare her further embarrassment and withhold the name. Here is what she said: "Whenever I watch TV and see those poor, starving kids all over the world, I can't help but think that, you know, I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff." Compare those values to the ones of a "woman of worth."
James 3:13--4:3, 7-8a
"Who is wise and understanding?" James asks. These two words are often used in the Old Testament to describe those whom God approves (for example, Deuteronomy 4:6). But the same words are used by Jesus in Matthew 11:25 to indicate those whom God rejects. Clearly, the difference lies in how the words are defined (and in who does the defining).
God defines wisdom differently than humans (Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 3:19). To begin with, God defines wisdom in terms of behavior. The world often construes wisdom as "thinking," which may even be antithetical to "doing." A verse of the Talmud says that the man "whose wisdom is greater than his deeds is like a tree whose branches are many and roots few" (Aboth 3:22). James would agree with the point, but he would prefer not to call such a person "wise" in the first place.
The attributes of godly wisdom are listed in 3:17, and they are highly compatible with the qualities worthy of praise ascribed to the woman in Proverbs 31. At root, we see a commendation of unselfish behavior, which is how the Bible elsewhere defines "love" (e.g., 1 Corinthians 13).
The words here are addressed specifically to those who believe they are called to be teachers or leaders in the community, a calling that James thinks is not for many (3:1). Knowing this should not prevent us from finding general application for the advice, but it should compel us to do what we ought to do anyway: take the message to heart and preach to ourselves first.
Mark 9:30-37
When Jesus gives a "children's sermon," he doesn't preach to children but through them. The child is the sermon!
We have here the second of Jesus' three passion predictions. The first was the Gospel text for last week (8:27-38); the third (10:32-34) is missing from this year's lectionary. Scholars have long noted that Mark presents these readings in a definite pattern: first, Jesus predicts his passion; next, the disciples do something incongruous that demonstrates they don't get the significance of what he is telling them; then, Jesus teaches them about what "the way of the cross" ought to mean in their lives.
Here, the incongruous behavior of the disciples consists of an argument concerning which of them is the greatest. The teaching consists of a simple object lesson: a child. The point of the child is not innocence, purity, trust, or any other virtue that children might be supposed to exhibit. Rather, children are prime examples of "no-accounts," of people whom this world regards as insignificant. Jesus does not say here that children are the greatest in the kingdom (cf. Matthew 18:4), but implies that those who wait upon children are great. The saying in verse 37 makes the same point as the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. Those who care for "the least" minister to Jesus himself and are great in God's eyes.
Saint Matthew, Apostle And Evangelist
For churches that commemorate Saint Matthew on this day, the key text will be Matthew 9:9-13, which relates the call of that disciple and Jesus' subsequent dinner with tax collectors. The chief danger in reading this text is to view Matthew simply as a victim of bigotry, and thus make the Pharisees the bad people in the story. Tax collectors were not only despised, but despicable. Matthew's readers are expected to be just as scandalized by Jesus' association with them as were the Pharisees. An Australian artist named John Perceval has painted a modern version of the story in a work he calls Christ Dining in Young and Jackson's. It depicts the meal in the setting of a neighborhood tavern. Jesus and Matthew are surrounded by a rowdy crowd. One of the table guests is drinking beer out of a pitcher. Off to the side, in the next room, a stripper is dancing on a table. The painting is offensive, as is the story. But Jesus' behavior was offensive in two ways. Not only did it offend the self-righteous, but it also "took the offensive," seeking sinners to heal them rather than encouraging a defensive posture of avoidance.
FIRST LESSON FOCUS
By James A. Nestingen
Proverbs 31:10-31
Fools rush in; angels, having ample time to study wisdom literature, know enough to check the footing. In a culture where relations between men and women have been publicly politicized, subjected to a quickly changing but sharp-edged orthodoxy, Proverbs' description of the ideal wife looks like a pretty slippery slope.
Here's another instance where the 85 percent rule of the previous lesson offers some real help, however. Adding words to Scripture itself stands under the interdict of the Book of Revelation, but supplying an implied interpretative phrase in reading and preaching may show the real sense of the words. So how about this: "in traditional relationships"? There are at least a couple of reasons for trying out this suggestion.
For one thing, in traditional societies that hold the old division of labor between the sexes, the woman of Proverbs 31 would be tough to match. She handles all of the responsibilities that have been commonly associated with a wife's vocation: particularly those involving food and clothing and the care of children and the household. At the same time, she doesn't become the prisoner of such a calling: she buys fields, can handle a vineyard, turns a profit on family surplus, and of great importance to the authors of Proverbs, "... opens her mouth with wisdom ..." teaching with kindness and insight.
Traditional as it may be, such a description moves far beyond brassiere sizes and other sexual stereotyping. In fact, "... charm is deceitful and beauty is vain ..."; strength, practicality, insight, and generosity are far surpassing virtues.
Another reason for supplying the implicit introduction, "in traditional relationships," is the way it opens doors to necessary adjustments. Proverbs itself introduces some flexibility by pushing the commonly accepted envelope. Life demands the same. Some women are very much at home with the old division of labor -- the wife responsible for the home and children, the husband for work further out into the community. Others, by reason of God-given aptitudes and interests, want to take on callings beyond the traditional, if not in place of it. Making the adjustments demanded by God's endowments customizes marital arrangements so that they fit more closely.
So maybe then the description of the ideal wife would allow for modifications in particular, nontraditional cases. "She goes to her law office," "runs the grain elevator," "works as a stockbroker," "manages the gas station," or the like. And then, too, such a description would have to be joined with one of the ideal husband, who cooks dinner, darns the socks, and so forth. Fair's fair, after all.
A 31-year-old journalist said, "I'd like to have the kind of friendships I had in high school and college." A 44-year-old agricultural researcher responded, "I want to do a really good deed sometime -- like save somebody's life." One man said he wanted "someone to believe in," noting how "every hero I've ever had has been exposed." A 49-year-old photographer said, "I'd like to know what really happens when you die." And a 44-year-old said, simply, "I want my father alive again -- for one day."
The question, "What do you want?" is a reflective of another underlying question: "What do you value?" The constant theme in all three lessons for this day is "values assessment." They address this theme by answering three similar questions.
First Lesson: Who is "worthy"?
Second Lesson: Who is "wise"?
Gospel Lesson: Who is "great"?
Proverbs 31:10-31
These 22 verses present an acrostic ode to "a woman of worth" (literal translation of the phrase in v. 10a). English translations render the key word "worth" as "capable," "perfect," or "good." The root meaning is actually "strong." The word is usually used to describe men and is typically translated "mighty" in those contexts. In this passage, it appears to mean "worthy of honor or praise" (see vv. 28-31).
The text derives from a very patriarchal culture, one that views women in general and wives in particular as the possessions of men. Apparently, in those days as now, men sometimes wanted "trophy wives" that would make them look good to their peers. Granted this, the text nevertheless transcends sexist stereotypes in remarkable ways. The woman does not serve simply as a means of bringing honor to her husband, but is worthy of honor herself.
Most notable are the attributes that make a woman worthy of such honor. Strength is a primary characteristic (vv. 17, 25), as well as business acumen and managerial skill. Nothing is said of physical beauty or fertility. Mention is made of wisdom, kindness, dignity, and concern for the poor.
I don't usually like to pick on celebrities (they're such easy targets!), but in early 1997 a very attractive and talented young woman was widely quoted in newspapers as saying something that just begs to be mentioned here. I'm sure she's sorry she said it, so let's spare her further embarrassment and withhold the name. Here is what she said: "Whenever I watch TV and see those poor, starving kids all over the world, I can't help but think that, you know, I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff." Compare those values to the ones of a "woman of worth."
James 3:13--4:3, 7-8a
"Who is wise and understanding?" James asks. These two words are often used in the Old Testament to describe those whom God approves (for example, Deuteronomy 4:6). But the same words are used by Jesus in Matthew 11:25 to indicate those whom God rejects. Clearly, the difference lies in how the words are defined (and in who does the defining).
God defines wisdom differently than humans (Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 3:19). To begin with, God defines wisdom in terms of behavior. The world often construes wisdom as "thinking," which may even be antithetical to "doing." A verse of the Talmud says that the man "whose wisdom is greater than his deeds is like a tree whose branches are many and roots few" (Aboth 3:22). James would agree with the point, but he would prefer not to call such a person "wise" in the first place.
The attributes of godly wisdom are listed in 3:17, and they are highly compatible with the qualities worthy of praise ascribed to the woman in Proverbs 31. At root, we see a commendation of unselfish behavior, which is how the Bible elsewhere defines "love" (e.g., 1 Corinthians 13).
The words here are addressed specifically to those who believe they are called to be teachers or leaders in the community, a calling that James thinks is not for many (3:1). Knowing this should not prevent us from finding general application for the advice, but it should compel us to do what we ought to do anyway: take the message to heart and preach to ourselves first.
Mark 9:30-37
When Jesus gives a "children's sermon," he doesn't preach to children but through them. The child is the sermon!
We have here the second of Jesus' three passion predictions. The first was the Gospel text for last week (8:27-38); the third (10:32-34) is missing from this year's lectionary. Scholars have long noted that Mark presents these readings in a definite pattern: first, Jesus predicts his passion; next, the disciples do something incongruous that demonstrates they don't get the significance of what he is telling them; then, Jesus teaches them about what "the way of the cross" ought to mean in their lives.
Here, the incongruous behavior of the disciples consists of an argument concerning which of them is the greatest. The teaching consists of a simple object lesson: a child. The point of the child is not innocence, purity, trust, or any other virtue that children might be supposed to exhibit. Rather, children are prime examples of "no-accounts," of people whom this world regards as insignificant. Jesus does not say here that children are the greatest in the kingdom (cf. Matthew 18:4), but implies that those who wait upon children are great. The saying in verse 37 makes the same point as the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. Those who care for "the least" minister to Jesus himself and are great in God's eyes.
Saint Matthew, Apostle And Evangelist
For churches that commemorate Saint Matthew on this day, the key text will be Matthew 9:9-13, which relates the call of that disciple and Jesus' subsequent dinner with tax collectors. The chief danger in reading this text is to view Matthew simply as a victim of bigotry, and thus make the Pharisees the bad people in the story. Tax collectors were not only despised, but despicable. Matthew's readers are expected to be just as scandalized by Jesus' association with them as were the Pharisees. An Australian artist named John Perceval has painted a modern version of the story in a work he calls Christ Dining in Young and Jackson's. It depicts the meal in the setting of a neighborhood tavern. Jesus and Matthew are surrounded by a rowdy crowd. One of the table guests is drinking beer out of a pitcher. Off to the side, in the next room, a stripper is dancing on a table. The painting is offensive, as is the story. But Jesus' behavior was offensive in two ways. Not only did it offend the self-righteous, but it also "took the offensive," seeking sinners to heal them rather than encouraging a defensive posture of avoidance.
FIRST LESSON FOCUS
By James A. Nestingen
Proverbs 31:10-31
Fools rush in; angels, having ample time to study wisdom literature, know enough to check the footing. In a culture where relations between men and women have been publicly politicized, subjected to a quickly changing but sharp-edged orthodoxy, Proverbs' description of the ideal wife looks like a pretty slippery slope.
Here's another instance where the 85 percent rule of the previous lesson offers some real help, however. Adding words to Scripture itself stands under the interdict of the Book of Revelation, but supplying an implied interpretative phrase in reading and preaching may show the real sense of the words. So how about this: "in traditional relationships"? There are at least a couple of reasons for trying out this suggestion.
For one thing, in traditional societies that hold the old division of labor between the sexes, the woman of Proverbs 31 would be tough to match. She handles all of the responsibilities that have been commonly associated with a wife's vocation: particularly those involving food and clothing and the care of children and the household. At the same time, she doesn't become the prisoner of such a calling: she buys fields, can handle a vineyard, turns a profit on family surplus, and of great importance to the authors of Proverbs, "... opens her mouth with wisdom ..." teaching with kindness and insight.
Traditional as it may be, such a description moves far beyond brassiere sizes and other sexual stereotyping. In fact, "... charm is deceitful and beauty is vain ..."; strength, practicality, insight, and generosity are far surpassing virtues.
Another reason for supplying the implicit introduction, "in traditional relationships," is the way it opens doors to necessary adjustments. Proverbs itself introduces some flexibility by pushing the commonly accepted envelope. Life demands the same. Some women are very much at home with the old division of labor -- the wife responsible for the home and children, the husband for work further out into the community. Others, by reason of God-given aptitudes and interests, want to take on callings beyond the traditional, if not in place of it. Making the adjustments demanded by God's endowments customizes marital arrangements so that they fit more closely.
So maybe then the description of the ideal wife would allow for modifications in particular, nontraditional cases. "She goes to her law office," "runs the grain elevator," "works as a stockbroker," "manages the gas station," or the like. And then, too, such a description would have to be joined with one of the ideal husband, who cooks dinner, darns the socks, and so forth. Fair's fair, after all.
