Friends
Peace be with you.
Last summer, Shortly before I came here, I took a short sabbatical to study the life of Jacques Marquette. I was specifically looking to see if there were any controversies surrounding his life that could cause people anxiety in using his name for a school, for instance. At two points in his life, he was given a slave by a tribe of Native Americans in thanksgiving for services he rendered them. In both cases, we don’t hear anything more about the slave from Marquette himself, despite his rather detailed diaries. It is presumed he allowed the men to return to their own tribes in a way that, if discovered, would not seem to be insulting to the original gifter. It prompted me to read a couple of books and several articles on slavery as it existed and developed in pre and immediate post revolutionary North America. Without going into extreme detail, part of what I found troubling was that, initially, social Darwinism said that any non-white individual was only 3/5ths of a person so, like African-Americans, it was thought Native Americans should be made slaves. Native American tribes had slaves but they were largely spoils of battles between warring tribes and their status as a slave was temporary. This was a different attitude than their European counterparts who viewed slaves as property in perpetuity. One easy way to see the difference was that, in a Native American tribe, the children of a slave became full members of the tribe to whom the slave was serving whereas children of slaves owned by european settlers were still considered slaves. But there was a problem in making Native Americans slaves, namely when traders or settlers would need to trade with or be at peace with a local Native American tribe while having some of their members as slaves. The members of the tribes became hostile toward the Europeans if they saw some of their members being held as slaves and may even attack and enslave in retaliation the white settlers. So, it was decided that Europeans should not enslave Native Americans simply to avoid the hassle and threats posed by the local Native American population, not for a better reason.
I look at situations like the slave trade and wonder how we didn’t learn the lessons from scripture that seem rather obvious, especially in the first reading and gospel for today. In the first reading, a Gentile king of Persia named Cyrus is being lauded by the one true God as his anointed. Now, in the mind of the Old Testament author, this had to sound ridiculous because only Jews were God’s anointed and only Jews were called by name or given a title. But, Cyrus will be the king who frees the Jews from being slaves in Babylon, not a Jewish king or leader. Most likely, Cyrus wouldn’t have been all that excited to hear Isaiah the prophet say these words both because he had his own god named Bel-Marduk and because he would have seen himself as a god. Nonetheless, the Prophet has to make it clear that, not only is Bel-Marduk nothing but, despite the gratitude of the Jewish people who are now free from being slaves and able to return to their homeland, Cyrus is not a god but he does have a special, and important role to play because of God. In the gospel, Caesar would have been seen, likewise, as a god. One of the oft-repeated phrases in secular literature at that time is that Caesar is Lord, which is why the Christian attitude that Jesus Christ is Lord was so subversive. Part of what the Pharisees are trying to determine is what people are worth and whether Caesar has the same exalted status as Cyrus did in the Old Testament. It’s a trap because it appears that, whatever Jesus says, will either upset the Romans or the Jews. Instead, Jesus challenges everyone by asking whose image they were created in. The coins have Caesar’s image. All human beings are stamped with God’s image and are, therefore, equal. God can give Cyrus and Caesar special skills to lead but they, ultimately, come from God and don’t make their worth any greater or lesser than anyone else.
This is World Mission Sunday, a Sunday set aside by the church to remember those people serving in impoverished parts of the world. And, while I encourage you all to contribute to our second collection after communion for this purpose, I also think it’s good for us to reflect on our own attitudes toward people who don’t look like us. Do we value them less if they’re poor, of a different religion, race, or political party? If so, aren’t we ignoring whose image they bear? How can we honor the image and likeness of God in those who don’t look like us?
