The Sánchez Archives THIRTY-FIRST SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME Year A

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

Leaders or Bosses?

MALACHI 1:14-2:2, 8-10
1 THESSALONIANS 2:7-9, 13
MATTHEW 23:1-12

In what begs to be appreciated as a delicious turn of providence, each of the three readings for today’s liturgy puts before the gathered assembly and the voting public (presidential elections will be held in the U.S. this week) the theme of leadership. Both the first reading from Malachi and the Matthean gospel bemoan the fact that the human community is sometimes poorly served by inauthentic and insincere leaders, whereas Paul, in the second reading, describes those qualities of leadership which foster the well-being of the community and promote the spread of the good news. These were the very qualities Paul had exhibited among the Thessalonians during his stay with them and which he encouraged in his letters to the church after his departure from them.

Like good leaders everywhere, Paul and Jesus understood that true leadership is effectively exercised from a posture and through a ministry of service; true leaders are enablers who help others to develop and realize their full potential in meeting life’s challenges.

One such leader was H. Gordon Selfridge, who built and managed one of the world’s largest department stores in London. Selfridge claimed that he had achieved success and the loyal acclaim of his employees by being a leader rather than a boss. In his own comparison of these two types of executives, Selfridge explained: The boss drives other people; the leader coaches them. The boss depends on authority; the leader on good will. The boss inspires fear; the leader inspires enthusiasm. The boss says, “I”; the leader, “We”. The boss fixes the blame for the breakdown; the leader fixes the breakdown. The boss knows how it is done; the leader shows how. The boss says, “Go!”; the leader says, “Shall we proceed?”

In addition to inspiring and enabling others, good leaders also lead and educate others by the example they set. Both Malachi and Matthew criticized those leaders in their respective communities whose lives were not consonant with their words. Leadership disintegrates into “play-acting” (the root meaning of the Greek word for hypocrisy) when what comes out of a person’s mouth is not continually matched and reflected in his/her life-style, values, decisions, choices, etc. To borrow a phrase from Marshall McLuhan’s revolutionary book, Understanding Media (1964), “The medium is the message.” True leaders are first and foremost, in their very selves, the media through which others will come to know and to accept or reject their ideas and authority.

This is particularly true of leaders in the context of a faith community; as British author and rabbi, Lionel Blue once put it, “You catch religion, like you catch measles, from people --as much from what they are as from what they say” (Claudia Sitzer, The Quotable Soul, A Stonesong Press Book, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York: 1994).

Jesus didn’t simply mesmerize the masses with great speeches and fine words; he earned attention, even the attention of his opponents by his integrity. His leadership was not that of a commando or guerrilla warrior but that of a shepherd, elder, brother and friend. People were inclined to follow him because he did not hang back while his followers forged ahead of him bearing the brunt of the fray; he struck the path and led the way, willingly taking upon himself conflict, rejection and suffering in order to spare his followers. His leadership was such that people “caught religion,” i.e. they believed and continue to believe because of who he is and what he continues to say to the world.

Whether or not this year’s political reckoning will uncover any authentic leaders remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it will continue to devolve upon believers to cultivate and exercise those qualities which they have learned and caught from Jesus in order to guide the human family on the path of goodness and truth.

MALACHI 1:14-2:2, 8-10

In the Boston Public Library, there hangs a series of mural paintings by the Italian born American artist, John Singer Sargent (1856-1925 C.E.). The murals, to which Sargent devoted two decades of his life (1890-1910 C.E.), depict the history of the Judaeo-Christian faith. Among the paintings, the most famous is the frieze of the Hebrew prophets. Each of the prophetic figures as portrayed by Sargent communicates both the anguish and the joys of the times in which they lived; each suggests “the complexity of their characters and the alternating moods of despair and hope which were written into their works. They manifest resolute courage, an organized conscience and an indomitable spirit.” (Willard L. Sperry, The Book of Malachi, Abingdon Press, New York: 1956).

In the artist’s rendering of Malachi, the dual tone of the prophet’s message is reflected on the figure in the mural. The face is not tortured but neither is it completely at peace. The anonymous prophet known simply as Malachi (not a proper name but a term which means “my messenger”) preached a message of joy in that he envisioned a time when: (1) all peoples of every nation would participate in a new and universal liturgy (1:10-11); (2) the Lord would be wondrously present (3:1-2); (3) all uncleanness would cease (3:3, 19); and (4) all promises would be fulfilled (3:20). But his message was also anguished, as the prophet railed against the failures of his contemporaries to live in fidelity to their covenant relationship with God.

Malachi’s prophetic oracles are usually assigned a post-exilic date, in the decades after the rebuilding and rededication of the temple in 515 B.C.E. His work reflects the sad reality that the spiritual and liturgical renewal of the people had not kept pace with their reconstructive and architectural achievements. The religious abuses which Malachi attempted to correct were precisely the same crimes that Nehemiah and Ezra sought to eradicate. As Carroll Stuhlmueller (“Malachi”, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1968) pointed out, all this indifference, unrest and injustice was contained within the small territory of Judah, 20 by 25 miles square among a population numbering about 20,000.

Today’s first reading is an excerpted text from two longer sections of the prophet’s work. In the first pericope (1:6-2:9) the prophet’s oracle was directed at the levitical priesthood; in the second (2:10-16), he offered a protest against mixed marriages and divorce. Most of today’s reading, however, is comprised of the prophet’s concerns regarding the commitment of the clergy.

Malachi took the priests to task because they should have been leading the people by word and example but had failed to do so. Rather than adhere to the law which specified that only unblemished gifts were to be given in sacrifice (Deuteronomy 15:21), the priests were accepting inferior (torn, lame, sick: 3:13) offerings. Moreover, the priests, who were venerated as guardians of the Torah, were failing to properly instruct the people in the ways of the Lord. And although, they should have represented the even-handed nature of God in their decisions, the priests were showing partiality (v. 8).

In view of these sins, Malachi denounced the priestly leaders of his people for making void the covenant of Levi. This covenant was the model for the priest who was to be knowledgeable in the law, to instruct the community, to be faithful to the covenant and to lead the faithful in authentic and sincere worship. In the verses omitted from this reading, Levi was described as being upright, honest and filled with awe before the Lord of hosts, whose covenant with him was one of life and peace. With true doctrine in his mouth, people in search of the Lord’s truth and justice could rely on the leadership of the levitical priest for guidance and wise counsel (2:4-7).

But in the absence of such leadership, Malachi and the other prophets labored to keep their contemporaries in touch with the ways and will of God. The abuses against which Malachi preached may never be completely corrected; therefore his words, harsh as they may seem, have a perennial significance.

1 THESSALONIANS 2:7-9, 13

In order to fully understand the significance of today’s second reading, wherein Paul describes the quality and style of his ministry among the Thessalonians, those preparing the liturgy would do well to appreciate Paul’s words in their proper context. In the verses immediately preceding this excerpted reading (1 Thessalonians 2:1-6) Paul appears to be defending himself against those who hoped to discredit his authority and his message. As Paul Wrightman (Paul’ Early Letters, Alba House, New York: 1983)

explains, “To understand his defense, we need to know that there were plenty of wandering preachers and teachers in his time, ‘false prophets’, who peddled a bizarre concoction of lies, sexual immorality and trickery. His opposition was trying to destroy his credibility by claiming that he was just another of these wandering hucksters.”

In the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a manual of church teaching and regulations which first appeared ca. 100 C.E., there is further evidence that false teachers plagued the early Christian community. According to this ancient document, “. . . every missioner who comes to you should be welcomed as the Lord. . . a missioner at his departure should accept nothing but as much provisions as will last him to his next night’s lodging. If he asks for money, he is not a genuine missioner. . . if he wants to settle down among you, and is a skilled worker, let him find employment and earn his bread. . . if he knows no trade, use your discretion to make sure he does not live in idleness simply on the strength of being a Christian. Unless he agrees to this, he is only trying to exploit Christ” (Didache XI, XII.)

Aware of the attempts to sully his reputation, but also sensitive to the situation of the early Christians who were being preyed upon by false preachers and teachers, Paul reminded the converts at Thessalonica that his ministry on their behalf had been exercised with only their well being in mind. He did not wield his apostolic authority harshly, but lovingly, “as gentle as any nursing mother fondling her little ones” (vs. 7). He shared not only his knowledge of Christ and God’s plan of salvation but also his very self (vs. 8). Paul’s motivation is obvious. In each of his foundations, those he brought to Christ were dear to him (vs. 8) and he doted upon them, praising and chastising them as needed, like any loving parent would.

Paul further reminded the Thessalonians that he had not been a financial burden to them (vs. 9). As was his custom, Paul had joined the local guild of tentmakers and leatherworkers in order to support himself while preaching the good news (see Acts 18:3).

Having substantiated the authenticity of his ministry and the quality of his leadership, Paul prayed his second prayer of thanksgiving for the Thessalonian believers (see 1:2-3). In accepting the gospel as he had preached it, the Thessalonians had welcomed the word of God and by their welcoming, they were allowing that living word to work within them (vs. 13). By using the technical term paralabontes (which means receive), Paul underscored the fact that the Thessalonians had been the recipients of the traditional teaching of the church that he himself had received and handed on to them (1 Corinthians 15:1-3).

Although, two millennia have passed since Paul corresponded with the Thessalonian church, it is the same gospel which is being preached; those who welcome it receive the word of God, who continues to live and work the wonders of salvation in each believer.

MATTHEW 23:1-12

Who were the scribes and Pharisees. . . and did they really deserve all the bad press they have received throughout all these centuries? One of the major religious parties of Jesus’ day, the Pharisees, according to C. Milo Connick (Jesus, the Man, the Mission, and the Message, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs: 1974), “owed their existence to two unpleasant fact of life, Hellenism and Romanism. The manner in which people reacted to the cultural penetration that was Greek, and the political support that was Roman, determined to which party they gave their support.” Spiritual descendants of the Hasidim or Pious Ones the Pharisees supported the Maccabean revolt against the Hellenizing forces of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. When Rome came to power, the Pharisees, who claimed Ezra as their founding father, practiced a policy of passive resistance toward the empire while concentrating their efforts on a punctilious observance of the Torah or law.

In addition to the Hebrew scriptures, the Pharisees added a second authority, the oral law, also called the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3). This detailed body of legislation (613 prescriptions) was comprised of the binding opinions and verdicts of the rabbis concerning the Pentateuch. Their fastidiousness in keeping the law, their fasts, ritual washings, tithing and strict dietary observance set them apart from the majority of Hebrew society, hence the name Pharisee which means “one who is separate.” The scribes, who were often paired with the Pharisees in the Christian scriptures, were learned experts in the law who argued, interpreted and applied the precepts of the law to every aspect of daily living.

Contrary to what is reflected of them in the gospels, the scribes and Pharisees enjoyed great prestige among their contemporaries who respected and admired them even if they could not emulate their way of life. Although there was obvious opposition between these legal experts and Jesus, it would be erroneous to attribute the scathing indictment which comprises Matthew 23 solely to Jesus.

Most scholars agree that Matthew and his community greatly expanded upon and reworked their Marcan source (Mark 12:30-40), the result of which reflected not only the conflict between Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees but also the breach between the church and synagogue which occurred in the mid-80s C.E.

In an attempt to recover and preserve the heritage of their faith after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Jewish leaders assembled in Jamnia. There it was determined that their survival under Roman rule would be best secured by an open disavowal of those Jews who believed in Jesus; this disavowal became official in what has been called the Edict of Jamnia. If, as many believe, Matthew’s gospel represented the church’s attempt to respond to Jamnia by identifying itself as rooted in and yet distinct from Judaism, then the harsh invective of Matthew may be evaluated within that context. Jews accused Christians of heresy; Christians bristled with sarcasm at what they perceived to be the Jewish refusal of the messiah. Barbs like these flew back and forth across the ever widening separation between the church and synagogue.

What may accurately be attributed to Jesus and his earthly ministry was the insight that Pharisaic and scribal authority was faulty in that there was a gap between what they said and what they did. They were bosses but not leaders. Jesus accused the Pharisees and scribes of: (1) failing to teach and to lead by example (vs. 3); (2) imposing unnecessary legal burdens on others (vs. 4); (3) preferring ostentation and public adulation to humility and truth (vss. 5-12).

Rather than heave a sigh of relief because these criticisms appear to be directed at others, Anglican bishop, Edwin Hoskyns (1851-1925) suggested that Christians accept the fact that “We are the Pharisees!” In support of Hoskyns, Reginald Fuller (Preaching the New Lectionary, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville: 1976) suggests, “We must allow such denunciations to be addressed as warnings to us, especially those of us who exercise a leadership role in the church. . . we are in constant danger of not living up to our own teaching.”

This gospel’s harshness compels its readers to look daily into the mirror and, when necessary, recognize the eyes of a Pharisee, blinded by a wooden beam yet eager to point out the splinter in the eyes of another (Matthew 7:3-5).

[NOTE TO USERS: This archive is available for use without charge, but it remains the property of the author and under copyright with Celebrations Publications. Users are permitted to print individual Sunday commentaries for pastoral use, but are prohibited from downloading or copying files or printing any portion of this for sale or distribution.]