Luke 13:10-17, Proper 16C RCL

Considerations arising from Luke 13:10-17, Proper 16C Revised Common Lectionary

King James VI of Scotland and I of England
Defender of the Faith

With Deacon Eager preaching this Sunday, I have the liberty to take a bit more relaxed approach to the Gospel for today. The lesson concerns Jesus’ decision to heal a woman on the Sabbath, and the outrage which ensued. It is the last story in a didactic passage which deals with common misunderstandings about what the Good News of God’s dealings with us in law and grace really means; and it precedes Luke’s accounts of our Lord’s parables of the kingdom. And so it is reasonable to assume that the point of the account is to clarify how the law of Sabbath is supposed to demonstrate the love and mercy of God usward. St. Augustine says that the ruler of the synagogue demonstrates his misunderstanding of the Sabbath by failing to understand God’s spiritual mercy in his insistence on the letter of the law. Ambrose maintains that if the letter of the law could be relaxed to rescue an animal from bondage on the Sabbath, certainly it was permissible to rescue men and women from the bondage of sin and sickness! Cyril of Alexandria comments on how the motives of the ruler of the synagogue were consumed by jealousy towards Jesus, and his attitude caused him to completely misunderstand the nature of God’s mercy as it relates to the expectations of righteousness which are inherent in the law. His attitudes blinded him to the signs of the times, and to the proper understanding of Scripture. Haven’t we all experienced this to be true in our own lives at one time or another? (Patristic citations are taken from Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume III, p224 ff.) John Calvin, perhaps the greatest of the Protestant commentators, follows Cyril in saying that “the malignity” of the religious authorities blinded them to the true nature of God’s law and grace. (cf . Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists… Vol.II pp. 154 ff.) There seems to be general agreement among Fathers and Reformers that it is the spirit of the Sabbath that is the important part of the observance, and that when the letter trumps in a judgmental and critical way, the attitude of the enforcer has often blinded him or her to the real meaning of God’s revelation.

We live in an age when Sabbath observance has largely ceased to exist, in either spirit or letter. The nature of modern commerce and shopping patterns prevents many Christians from weekly attendance upon the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, and upon the regular exposition of God’s word. The vast and rapid expansion of youth sport since the adoption of title IX in the early seventies has led to a chronic shortage of sports facilities in most American communities, and the resultant expansion of programs to Sunday puts many Christian parents in the unenviable position of choosing between adequate catechesis for their children and the opportunity to develop character and social skills through sport. And the question remains, “What is it lawful to do on the Sabbath?” “What does God expect of us if we are to keep the spirit of the day?” While reading this week, I came across a pair of royal proclamations issued in the seventeenth century by two successive English kings which are as current today as they were then. “The Book of Sports” was issued by King James I of England (and VI of Scotland) in 1618. It was an age in which most Christians of all parties were what we would today call sabbatarians, but on a royal trip through Lancashire in 1617, his Majesty had noted a particular dourness and surliness among his subjects on Sundays. He rightly noted that there were those in the kingdom, particularly Roman Catholics, who cited the joyless Sundays of the Protestants as evidence that there was a sinister negativity in the new faith of the English Royals. He also noted that the Puritans, members of his own state church at that time, used the Sabbath observances to control their neighbors, and giving control to someone who wanted it is seldom good policy if you wish to rule effectively. The upshot of it all was twofold. First, people who were unhappy with the excesses of repressive fundamentalism seldom practice the faith of the realm sincerely and willingly. Secondly, people who work hard all week, and are forced to either be in church or remain idle on their one day off, are likely to become sickly and physically weak due to inactivity, and are thereby unfit to fight the king’s wars when called upon to do so. Incidentally, says the king, people who are forced to inactivity when they would be active are prone to sit at home or in the pub and drink and gamble, neither of which are good for the kingdom as a whole. Therefore:

“Our pleasure likewise is, That after the end of Divine Service, Our good people be not disturbed, letted (hindered), or discouraged from any lawful recreation, Such as dancing, either men or women, Archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any other such harmlesse Recreation, nor from having May-Games (a particular venue for sports in that time), Whitson Ales (traditional times for celebrations and games), and Morris-dances, and setting up of May-poles (the center for community sports) & other sports therewith used, so as the same be had in due & convenient time, without impediment or neglect of Divine Service….” the document goes on to forbid Bear and Bull baiting due to its extreme cruelty, theatricals, because of their generally licentious nature, and bowling, which was a major occasion for high stakes gambling. There is then a clarification to make it absolutely clear that everyone is expected to attend Divine Service before the games start. And oh by the way, don’t carry offensive weapons in church. “Given at our Mannour of Greenwich the foure and twentieth day of May, in the sixteenth yeere of Our Raigne of England, France and Ireland, and of Scotland the one and fiftieth.”

By 1633, the forces of control had found ways to interpret and subvert King James’ edict in a way which shut down the games for all intents and purposes, and so the edict was reissued with an endorsement by King Charles I of blessed memory. “Wee farther Command Our Justices of the assize in there several Circuts, to see that no man doe trouble or molest any of Our loyall and duetifull people, in or for their lawful Recreations, having first done their duetie to God, and continuing in obedience to Us and Our Lawes. And of this Wee command…Given at Our Palace of Westminster the eighteenth day of October, in the ninth yeere of Our Reigne. God save the King.”

And so we might say that in the Anglican tradition, Sabbath observance is concerned with the spirit of the day. It is sometimes hard for us to think in such a way, because like the ruler of the synagogue in Jesus’ day, our own anger at being marginalized by culture at large tends to make us judgmental of a culture which no longer does things our way, or we simply say “times have changed” and adopt the ways of the world. Two of our “Defenders of the Faith” said it so well so many years ago, and we can scarce improve on their edicts. We ought to come to church on Sunday, and after that, there is no harm in a bit of clean fun or good exercise. The important thing is that we honour God by attending regularly upon word and sacrament, thereby expressing to our loving heavenly Father our appreciation for all he has done for us, and demonstrating that he is first in our lives. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. AMEN.