27th Sunday in Ordinary Time

It is noteworthy that the foundational and archetypal human relationship, as presented in our first reading today, is one of man-wife and not parent-child, or sibling-sibling. For the vast majority of us, the foundational relationship of our lives is mother-child. It is through this relationship that we learn to navigate the “otherness” of the world and realize that the rest of the world is not simply an extension of myself. The mother-child relationship then introduces us into other familial relationships such a younger brother-older-brother. These are the foundational relationships of our early childhood. But as we grow up, God calls us to take the risk of relationship outside of bloodlines. Relationship outside of bloodlines is always a lot more risky, because unlike someone who shares our blood, we have no claim over a person who is not related to us. There is nothing to underwrite the relationship. Such a relationship hangs by a delicate thread, the thread of some mutual attraction, the thread of some mutual affinity, some recognition of self in the other. It is risky precisely because that recognition may only be one-sided, it may not be reciprocated by the other person. The art of relationship outside of blood lines is to take that thread to use it to create other threads of connection, until those threads can be weaved and entwined into a rope of stronger binding between the couple.

But this relationship between two strangers will always be tenuous, it is never something that can be taken for granted and must always be nourished. It does not have the finality of a blood relationship. Once someone is your mother/father/brother/sister, this relationship cannot be undone, that person will always have a claim over your love and attention, no matter how much you may try to resist it. Not so the marriage bond, which can be undone, through divorce, an institution as old as marriage itself. For if the bond is voluntarily entered into it follows perforce that it can be voluntarily undone.

Given the tenuous nature of this bond, it is somewhat odd that God should have chosen it to be the archetypal foundation of human relationship. The marriage relationship is presented in our first reading today as the relationship that saves man from isolation and aloneness by bringing him into companionship. We might spend a while thinking about what the Word of God is trying to communicate to us here. A lifelong commitment to one’s sexual partner has not been the norm in human cultures. Most cultures have either permitted divorce, thus endorsing serial monogamy, or allowed for polygamy. Christianity was rather unique in not allowing polygamy and on top of that insisting that one’s sexual partner must be one’s partner for life. We all know how difficult this really is and how many people do not manage to live up to this ideal. We might ask ourselves, then, why would God want to take something so tenuous, so difficult, so contingent and make it into the archetypal symbol of human relationship?

In many ways the life-long marriage bond is what proves the very possibility of deep and lasting relationship outside of blood bonds. It is symbolic of our human capacity and yearning for relationship that is built on difference and not sameness. Many archetypal love stories (Romeo and Juliet for example) speak to the power of the love between two people of different families to bridge the gap of hatred that divides peoples and families. God’s vision for humanity is to bring the whole of humanity into one family. When we look at all the wars afflicting our planet at the moment and the tendency to reach for the gun rather than for dialogue in order to settle competing claims for land and resources, we can rather despair of the possibility of all getting along as one happy family of the human race. Many of the wars that we are witnessing at the moment stem from a far too narrow conception of human relationship. It is one that selfishly regards one’s own people, one’s own blood as the only people who have a claim over one’s love and one’s responsibility to take care of.

God’s vision for humanity presented in the first reading of “leaving and cleaving” invites a person to think of their vocation as creating a life where their primary energies are directed towards taking care of someone who is not of their own blood. Jesus then comes along and endorses this vision and extends its reach by saying that this vision is not just valid for as long as the couple themselves wish to stay together, but it is a vision that enjoins on them a life-long commitment, for the two “become one flesh.” In other words, Jesus invites us to realize that God has endowed the sexual act with a bonding mechanism that makes two very different people into one. This is a spiritual bond that we undo at our peril, which is why Jesus cautions us by saying that “what God has joined, no person should put asunder.”

However, we all know that divorce is an all-too common affair in our world today. Many people seem not to bat an eyelid at putting asunder what God has joined. In fact, in some societies, divorce has become so common place that the sacred character of the sacrament of marriage is seriously undermined. Surely God could have foreseen this? Why would God choose an institution shot through with human frailty and fragility to be the signature piece-de-resistance in God’s plan for humanity? We can only marvel at how much God has entrusted to human hands. When Jesus observes that it was only because of the hardness of human hearts that Moses allowed divorce, I think that he is trying to get us to see is that divorce should only be the last-resort concession to a situation of intractable human sinfulness. Sometimes because of such situations of intractable human sinfulness or hastily made immature decisions, divorce is the only answer to an individual having a second chance at a life of fulfilment. I don’t think that God would want people to stay trapped in unhealthy marriages. Sometimes too much water has flowed under the bridge for a marriage to be salvageable and it is time to cut one’s losses and start over. The corollary of God choosing to entrust flawed humanity with the symbol of God’s love is that sometimes the risk that God has taken will not pay off, and flawed humanity will prevail.

Nevertheless, acknowledging that sometimes flawed humanity will prevail should not lead us to a defeatist attitude. We should be profoundly saddened that we live in a society where divorce has become so common place. It surely points to the fact that humanity has lost sight of God’s plan for humanity by placing a premium on the value of individual pleasure and satisfaction. Our duty as Christians should be to still hold ideal and hold married couples accountable to this ideal. The fact that the ideal is not lived up to in some cases takes nothing away from the faith we profess that this is indeed God’s plan for humanity. The many couples that do manage to live up to this ideal should be celebrated and encouraged to continue shining their lights bright. The fact that God has not given up on us as a human race should inspire us to continue preaching and teaching a message of fidelity and lifelong commitment in marriage. If we are able to do this, maybe we do stand a chance as a human race of transcending the selfishness, greed and narrow-mindedness that currently has us trapped as a human race in cycles of war and hatred.

Questions for reflection

1. What can I do in my own life to promote and rehabilitate the notion that marriage is for life?
2. How can I diplomatically combat attitudes of consumerism that have promoted a casual approach to sex and marriage in our society?
3. How do I feel when I realize the weight of the responsibility God has given us in entrusting us with such a great task of realizing God’s dream for humanity?