\nIn
\nthe book Debt:
\nThe First 5,000 Years,
\nDavid Graeber writes,\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cIf \n<\/p>\n \nWhat \n<\/p>\n \nHe \n<\/p>\n \nTo \n<\/p>\n \nThat \n<\/p>\n \nTo \n“Collect \n<\/p>\n \nThe \n<\/p>\n \nThe \n<\/p>\n \nThen \n<\/p>\n \nThis \n<\/p>\n \nThe \n<\/p>\n \nAll \n<\/p>\n \nTo \n<\/p>\n \nJoy 1<\/a>David 2<\/a>As \n\t3<\/a>
\none is on sociable terms with someone, it’s hard to completely ignore
\ntheir situation. \u00a0Merchants often reduce prices for the needy. \u00a0This
\nis one of the main reasons why shopkeepers in poor neighborhoods are
\nalmost never of the same ethnic group as their customers; it would be
\nalmost impossible for a merchant who grew up in the neighborhood to
\nmake money, as they would be under constant pressure to give
\nfinancial breaks, or at least easy credit terms, to their
\nimpoverished relatives and school chums.\u201d1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n
\nintrigues me about the \u201cgood news\u201d of the John the Baptist is
\nthat he completely ignores this universal reality. \u00a0He speaks with
\nthe same expectations and demand to everyone, regardless of their
\nrelationships to each other. \u00a0He is calling people back into
\ncommunity, and they aren’t even community! \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nstarts out being sort of nasty, I tried to wiggle out of preaching
\nthis text because I rather dislike the brood of vipers language, but
\nupon examination he is saying radically loving things. \u00a0(I have come,
\nrather despite myself, to really like John the Baptism. \u00a0It turns out
\nmost of my assumptions about him have proven entirely untrue.) \u00a0John
\ncalls on all the people to change their lives, he doesn’t just ask it
\nof the leaders or of the wealthy. \u00a0He makes the same demands on
\neveryone who comes.<\/p>\n
\nthe crowds who have gathered, he demands a morality of sharing. \u00a0No
\none should have two coats while anyone has none. \u00a0This is a standard
\nthat makes a lot of sense, right? \u00a0It isn’t trivial though. \u00a0The
\nperson who has two coats may feel as if they’ve2<\/sup><\/a>
\nearned them, or they really like them, or they are aware of the
\ndiffering fashion needs they respond to!! \u00a0They may feel that they
\naren’t their brother’s keeper, or that there are too many people
\nwithout coats to have the coatless be their responsibility. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nis, they may not experience the other person as an extension of
\nthemselves. \u00a0In functional families, it would not go that way. \u00a0If
\nthere were 4 people and 4 coats, the distribution would not be such
\nthat 2 people and 2 coats and 2 people had no coats. \u00a0In a functional
\nfamily, 4 coats for 4 people would be distributed 1 coat per person.
\nCalling on people to give away extra coats, and extra food, is
\ncalling on them to take each other’s well-being as extensions of
\ntheir own. \u00a0That is something we naturally do for people we love and
\nare in relationship to. \u00a0John calls for the extension of that
\ncommunity. \u00a0(This is the problem I have with trying to dislike John.
\nHe sounds like Jesus.) \u00a0He calls for it to extend without limit. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nthe tax collectors, John also extended a challenge. \u00a0His words are
\ndeceptively simple.<\/p>\n
\nno more than the amount prescribed for you.” \u00a0That would, again,
\nbe something we might expect to happen in a family. \u00a0If the tax
\ncollector came to the house of their cousin, they wouldn’t ask for
\nmore than they were required to ask! \u00a0This is an extension of
\nfairness to the whole community. \u00a0It is treating each person as
\nsomeone you’d care about.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n
\nfinal group that John is said to speak to is the soldiers. \u00a0They are
\nprobably the most interesting group. \u00a0This is not because of what
\nJohn tells them, it is an extension of what he suggest to the tax
\ncollectors: don’t take money you aren’t entitled to. \u00a0What is
\ninteresting is that they were there at all. \u00a0The soldiers were Roman
\nsoldiers. \u00a0Why were they coming out to a radical Jewish prophet in
\nthe wilderness? \u00a0What was it about being part of the power structure
\nof the empire, or maybe even more simply about being human, that led
\nthem to banks of the Jordan River and the preachings of the Wild One
\nseeking a better life? \u00a0What were they expecting? \u00a0Did they find it?
\nDid any of them follow it? \u00a0Did they have a better life afterward? \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nchallenge to the soldiers, while equivalent, may be even harder than
\nthe rest of what John said because he calls on them to treat people
\nlike family and they aren’t from the same group AT ALL. \u00a0They are
\ndifferent ethnically, and linguistically, and religiously. \u00a0The
\nsoldiers were the threat of force maintaining the empire and its
\npower to take wealth from the poor and transfer it to the wealthy.
\nJohn doesn’t call on them to stop being soldiers, he just calls on
\nthem to be GOOD soldiers, and to let go of their greed, and to see
\nthe humanity of the people they were (theoretically not) occupying. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nJohn goes back into a statement that I find cringe worthy. \u00a0He speaks
\nof Jesus and says, \u201cHis winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his
\nthreshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the
\nchaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.“ \u00a0This is called good
\nnews! \u00a0And it is. \u00a0Christianity has done some terrible things. \u00a0One
\nof them is assuming that there are good people and bad people and God
\nloves and forgives the good people while sending the bad people to
\nhell. \u00a0Unfortunately, that’s the first thing I hear in this passage.
\nBut I don’t think it is an appropriate reading of the passage.
\nInstead, I think it is consistent with the rest of the passage. \u00a0As
\nRev. Dr. Barbara Thorington Green says, the line between the wheat
\nand the chaff is not between people, it is within each of us. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nis a passage of hope. \u00a0God’s work includes taking away the greedy,
\nlifeless, selfish parts of ourselves so that we can be freed for
\nconnection, love, and wholeness. \u00a0The burning of the chaff is the
\npermanent removal of the things that hold us back from love, and the
\nmaking of space for love. \u00a0This is a process of sanctification.<\/p>\n
\nparadigm of the wheat and chaff is easily translatable into an
\nextension of Isaiah’s beautiful vision. \u00a0In that vision, God offers
\nwell-springs of joy for us to draw from; strength and might of the
\nDivine to trust in; and freedom from fear. \u00a0It is a vision of joy and
\nbeauty. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nweek I’ve been thinking about what it means to rejoice in the midst
\nof the quiet waiting of Advent. \u00a0I’ve also been thinking about what
\nit means to call for joy when there is so much pain around us. \u00a0I’m
\nnot just talking about mass shootings and Islamophobia in our
\nsociety. \u00a0I’m also profoundly aware of the many in our midst who are
\ngrieving. \u00a0For some among us the wounds are fresh or unhealed. \u00a0For
\nothers the holiday season itself is a source of pain. \u00a0And we live in
\na broken world. \u00a0Many of us, me included, have too many coats. \u00a0And
\nfar too many people have none. \u00a0The relationships that lead us to
\nsharing and wholeness are often not present in our lives. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\ngo back to David Gaeber, he proposes that
\n\u201csharing is not simply about morality, but also about pleasure.
\nSolitary pleasures will always exist, but for most human beings, the
\nmost pleasurable activities almost always involve sharing something:
\nmusic, food, liquor, drugs, gossip, drama, beds. \u00a0There is a certain
\namount of communism of the senses at the root of most things we
\nconsider fun.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a>
\n He says that we tend to share best with those we consider equals.
\nI’m not sure that John was proposing charity at all \u2013 in the sense
\nthat charity is a gift of undeserved love to a stranger. \u00a0Instead, I
\nthink John was proposing making people family. \u00a0When that happens,
\nthe sharing follows naturally. \u00a0(This is why anyone who has ever
\nresearched it has said that socio-economically diverse neighborhoods
\nare best for everyone in a society.)<\/p>\n
\ncomes, at least in large part, by sharing the goodness of life with
\neach other. \u00a0Isn’t that interesting? \u00a0So much of what society tells
\nus is simply wrong. \u00a0It isn’t about acquisition or outdoing each
\nother. \u00a0It is about the wonder of experience together. \u00a0There is
\nplenty of sorrow and sadness to go around these days, but there are
\nways to pick ourselves up to. \u00a0Thanks be to God! \u00a0Amen\n<\/p>\n
\n\tGraeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years<\/i>
\n\t(Brooklyn and London: Melville House, 2011), p. 102.<\/p>\n
\n\tof this week the Washington Post style guide has approved of using
\n\t\u201cthey\/them\u201d in the singular. \u00a0This is helpful both for the
\n\ttransgender community and for speaking without having to name a
\n\tgender for a person. \u00a0On that basis, despite some old teaching that
\n\trankles, I’m going to follow their lead. \u00a0\n\t<\/p>\n
\n\t I will note, however, that this is historically complicated. \u00a0The
\n\tsystem in Rome as I understand it did not involve having a pay scale
\n\tfor tax collectors. \u00a0Instead, they were permitted to acquire both
\n\tthe taxes they’d pass on and their own income as they determined
\n\tnecessary. \u00a0Therefore I’m not quite sure how this would work in
\n\tpractice, but let’s leave it be and hope I’m just missing something.<\/p>\n