A friend gave me a
book of devotional readings, and I’ve got one that I need some help with. It’s
to do with the story of Martha and Mary, as told in Luke 10:38-42. If you’re
unfamiliar with it, here’s the deal:
Jesus and his cohort
come into a village where a woman named Martha invites him into the house she
apparently shares with her sister Mary. Mary sits down with the men to listen
(not to speak, of course), while Martha is in a whirlwind of hospitality-related
bustling—hanging up their coats, stirring up the fire, getting a meal ready,
maybe giving the downstairs loo a quick wipe, and other suchlike. But Mary just
sticks with the guys.
Finally, Martha drops
a word in the Lord’s shell-like generally encompassing, “Hey—I’m doing all the
work, here, while my sister just sits there like a slug. Why don’t you tell her
to get up and help?”
And Jesus replies (as
per NKJV): “Martha, Martha—you are worried and troubled about many things. But
one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be
taken away from her.”
Well, I have to say
that I’ve always been a little troubled by this.
Yes, fine—it’s swell
that Mary’s apparently felt called to Jesus, and is soaking up what he’s got to
say (even if she’s apparently not allowed to contribute). I get that.
But if both the women
just pitched up in the living room and hung on every word, everyone would be
sat there in a cold room, with rumbling tummies and mice scampering across
their feet. Because you know it would never occur to one man among them to get
up and throw a log on the fire, much less slice up some bread for the hummus.
No—it would take a
miracle on the lines of the wine at Cana (and even then, there were servers
involved) to make that sort of thing happen.
So I’m really
puzzling about this. There’s no one likes a good intellectual discussion more
than I, but to basically dis the person who’s making the necessities of life
work seems not only counterproductive, but potentially life threatening.
If what he in fact
was telling Martha (and us) was, “Hey, we need both the contemplative and the
active principles in our life,” then I get that. But what he (reportedly) says isn’t “horses for courses, honey”,
it’s, “Your sister chose better than you did, so put a sock in it.” And that gets right up my nose.
So what’s going on
here? What am I missing? Because as it stands, I’m not finding it either
enlightening or encouraging.
2 comments:
There are a few things going on here. And I suppose I will have to address them in no particular order.
Since about the second century, and certainly from the time of Augustine, the Church has recongized that there is more than one sense in which Scripture may be fruitfully read. The traditional list is literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. For example, Genesis is clearly myth and not meant to be taken "literally" in the sense that we ordinarily mean that word. It expresses some profound theological truths -- that God created the universe, that creation is good, etc. -- and uses mythical language to do it. IOW it ought to be read principally in the allegorical sense. In the Gospels, which are either eyewitness accounts or based on eyewitness accounts and were produced by a Church that was already proclaiming a cohesive and consistent message preserving the teaching of its founder, the moral sense comes more to the fore. This sense in the one in which we look for instruction as to how to live a good life. When we speak of "The Good Book" we mean the Bible in the moral sense.
So far, so good. But this story of Mary and Martha, one of the best known stories from Luke. This is the same Mary and Martha whose brother, Lazarus, Jesus raised from the dead in John 11. We also see Martha serving Jesus as Mary anoints him with the costly ointment of pure spikenard in John 12. John also tells us that Jesus loved all three of them. Mary and Martha of Bethany are much beloved figures and recommend to us the virtues of industriousness and prayer. Both are needed. And this is what Jesus means when he says what he says to Martha. Much ink has been spent in commentary on this story over many years; and consensus seems to be that Our Lord is teaching balance. One should not allow one's worries about everyday life and the means thereof to distract from the Word of Life which is Christ Himself; and in Mary's utter abandonment to listen to his words, commentators have seen both an endorsement of communities of contemplatives who withdraw from the world to devote themselves to prayer, and a counsel to the busy to take a few moments in prayer and contemplation.
Jesus does not rebuke Martha. He does not tell her to leave her sister alone. He does not say "Get back in the kicthen and make me a sandwich". He tells her that she is "full of cares and worried about many things" and that all of that, that worrying, is needless. Not making house, not cooking meals. Worrying.
I will say this with all gentleness, why do you assume that Mary says nothing, and moreover, is not permitted to say anything? Second, why do you assume that Jesus's reply to Martha is a rebuke? Why do you assume that the men "it would never occur to one man among them to get up and throw a log on the fire," etc.? It seems to me that there are some other issues in play here. Can you expand on that a little?
Thanks, Gary. I shall ponder this.
Post a Comment