18th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Readings of the day: Exodus 16:2-4, 12-15; Psalm 78:3-4, 23-24, 25, 54; Ephesians 4:17, 20-24; John 6:24-35
This homily was given at St. Joseph's College, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Readings of the day: Exodus 16:2-4, 12-15; Psalm 78:3-4, 23-24, 25, 54; Ephesians 4:17, 20-24; John 6:24-35
This homily was given at St. Joseph's College, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
What is a sign, and how might
a sign point toward the quality of our relationship with somebody?
When we think of signs, we
might start with the simplest examples: Traffic lights, for instance.
Regardless of where we are in the world, or the language spoken there, the
colours of traffic lights and their order are consistent: Red, yellow, green, from
top to bottom or left to right. Another simple example of signs might be when
we are in an airport in a foreign country with a different language. We need
simple picture signs to point us toward the baggage claim, through customs, to
our connecting gate, to the bathroom, and so forth.
Yet it is difficult to form a
relationship with a sign at the airport or a traffic light. That is, unless I
were to consider my impatient grumbling of a few days ago as I sat in front of
an interminable red light, with the crossing arms down, lights on and bells
sounding (speaking of signs) as three LRT trains passed in front of me. It is
difficult to consider this to be an example of a relationship with a sign,
unless maybe one of disdain! But this is not usually what we mean by
relationship.
When we enter into relationship
with somebody, more complex signs allow us to gauge the health of the
relationship. When my mom and dad, after forty-two years of marriage, embrace
lovingly in what we call public displays of affection, totally focused on each
other and the moment, those PDAs are a clear sign that their relationship is
healthy. When my brother Basilian priests gather together with joy in one
another to pray, eat, or to recreate in community, we see a clear sign that
relationships among us and with God are healthy.
One especially important, and
undeniably complex, sign of healthy relationship, is the giving and sharing of
food. Our Scriptures offer us many instances of the giving, receiving, and
sharing of food, and our readings today from Exodus and John’s Gospel are no
exception. The ability to give, receive, and share food is an essential measure
of the health of relationships in Scripture. The sharing of food is at the
centre of our celebration of Eucharist here and our Christian living by works
of kindness, mercy, and justice that flow from this celebration. There may be
no greater sign of the health of relationships, of love and trust among people
and between us and God, than the frequency and quality of our fellowship around
food.
Food is essential to love,
bonding, and building trust from the first moments between a mother and her newborn
child and maybe even before then, while the child is in the womb. Moms and
dads: Your children’s dislike of broccoli and love for the Sunday brunch here
at St. Joseph’s College probably goes way back! As an uncle, I think of the
first time I met my nephew Liam, when he was about two months old, at
Christmastime. While the amazing smell of Christmas dinner wafted through the
house, my sister Deanna, Liam’s mom, handed Liam and a bottle to me so that I
could feed him. How delighted and relaxed Liam was! A few years passed and,
once again, my family was together at Christmastime. Liam had developed a taste
for corn tortilla chips (a boy after my own heart). My then-toddler nephew, who
is now almost seven years old, made a game of repeatedly circling the living
room, charming and soaking in the love from everybody, and then, with great
anticipation, opening his mouth wide in front of me so I could fill it with a
chip. Deanna made the astute observation to me that the way to Liam’s heart was
through food. This was nephew-uncle bonding time at its finest!
If only the people of Israel
in Exodus or the crowds following Jesus in John’s Gospel had been as
appreciative of what God fed them as Liam was of tortilla chips! Instead, when
God feeds the people of Israel with a dewy, “flaky substance” in the desert,
they look at it sideways and ask “What is it”? They call it “manna.” This
strange name the Israelites give God’s food to them is one of the fairly
frequent instances in most if not all languages in which a word used one way—in
this case “man” or “manna” introduce a question, as in
“What?” in Hebrew—may be used in another way, as in the name for something.
Here, the Israelites’ question on encountering the food God gives them becomes
their name for it: Manna? What is it?
At least by this point in
their exodus from Egypt, the people of Israel have progressed beyond complaining
about being hungry, longing to sit “by the fleshpots” and to eat their “fill of
bread” they had enjoyed in Egypt. But they still do not understand the sign
value of the manna in the desert: What did the manna signify about God’s
relationship with his people?
God could have abandoned the
people of Israel when they “complained against Moses and Aaron” and God, or scolded
them, as God did at other times when they complained. But God does not abandon
his people or scold them. Instead, God tests them: “Alright, Israel, your
constant complaining is driving me crazy! But if I give you food, even a
strange kind of food you will not know I gave to you or what it is until you
try it, will you recognize me as the God who delivered you out of slavery, who
has sustained you for forty years in the desert, and who will lead you back to
your homeland? Will you at last learn
to trust me”?
And Israel still does not
quite pass God’s test. They do not quite understand the sign behind the manna
from heaven: That this nourishing if strange food is yet another sign of God’s
promise to be with them always, to sustain them, and to save them, whether from
slavery or their own ignorance and complaining, no matter what. God’s promise,
called a covenant, is greater than
the bread that only points to God’s promise of salvation. And so, even if the
people of Israel fail the test; fail to understand the covenantal sign of the
manna in the desert, God and God’s salvation, and not the people’s failure,
will have the last word.
The same is true of Jesus’
encounter with the crowds in John’s Gospel, who continue to look for him after
the sign of the multiplication of the loaves and fish. The crowds look for
Jesus “not because [they] saw signs, but because [they] ate their fill of the
loaves.” Again, they fail to understand the covenant value of Jesus’ sign of
the multiplication of loaves; how this fits into God’s ongoing promise to us of
sustenance toward eternal life. They fail to understand that God has upped the
sign ante, so to speak: Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves shows that Jesus,
in our human form, is the same God who saved the people of Israel from slavery
in Egypt, formed a covenant relationship with them and guided them through the
desert under Moses and Aaron to their homeland. Again, the sign points us to
something, or better yet somebody, beyond the sign itself: God; relationship
with God; God’s continued offer of salvation. No longer should it be any
question of “manna”?—“What is
it”?—but of our relationship with God, who
is behind these earthly signs leading us to salvation, “the food that
endures for eternal life.”
The question, then, becomes how
well we understand the signs God gives us today to point us toward relationship
with God; toward the unbreakable covenant God has made with us to save us.
Maybe if God were to try to give us tortilla chips instead of manna or loaves
and fish, we might understand the promise of salvation God has tried since the
first moments of creation to communicate to us. My nephew Liam would certainly understand
that God wants to save us if God were to send us tortilla chips!
No comments:
Post a Comment