[You must read to the end to see how the questions in the title are answered.]
"Choose
life," Moses urged the people of Israel in his farewell address to them.
He understood his work as their leader and a prophet was ending. He knew that God had said he would see, but
not enter the promised land. The people
were about to enter the fertile land across the Jordan and they would be
tempted to worship the Canaanite fertility gods. "Choosing life" meant holding fast
to the worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one God, who had led
them from Egypt and slavery through the desert for this moment.
Thousands of
years have elapsed since this event took place.
Then there were many years between the event and its written form,
recorded by the Deuteronomist historian--most likely when the Hebrew people
were facing the issue of how to maintain their faith in God--perhaps even
whether to maintain their faith--while captives in Babylon. What did choosing life mean to them than? The
beginning of Psalm 137 addresses their dilemma: "By the rivers of
Babylon--there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion./ On the
willows there we hung up our harps./ For there our captors asked us for songs,
and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying, 'Sing us one of the songs of
Zion!'/ How could we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land?" "Choosing life" meant being
faithful and worshipping God even when there was no temple, even when you had
been taken from the land that represented God's covenant with your people.
Do we have the
sort of choice Moses presented to the people or the psalmist portrayed? If we think in terms of a truth that
transcends historical circumstances, perhaps we do. Moses spoke from a position of perceived
power. He believed that Joshua who was
to succeed him would win the battle for the land God had promised, because God would
be with him. The psalmist spoke from a
position of weakness, a captive in a foreign land. But for both "choosing life" meant
being faithful to God and God's leading--no matter what the circumstances may
be.
How one
"chooses life" in a particular historical--or even
personal--circumstance may not always be clear or easy to discern. Onesimus seems to have violated the law,
because he appears to have fled from Philemon.
Paul was never able to rise above his historical circumstances and
condemn slavery as evil, but he appears in his letter to Philemon to offer the
choice of life more abundant to both Onesimus and Philemon. To "choose life" Philemon and
Onesimus must reconcile, and Philemon must free Onesimus. It is probable that neither of them would have
seen this path for "choosing life" without Paul's intervention. For Onesimus there was danger in returning
and being forced to work as a slave again. For Philemon there might be ridicule
from his peers for not demanding that Onesimus be punished. Paul not only employs clever rhetoric, but he
also shows respect for both men. In
doing this he is helping them "choose life.”
While the
examples from Moses' teaching and Paul's epistle are positive ones, in the
gospel lesson from Luke Jesus insists that becoming his disciple—that is, choosing
the life Jesus is living and the life he is teaching about—becoming his
disciple will have dire consequences, and one must "estimate the
cost" of being a disciple. No cost
can be higher than giving up all one possesses, including good relationships
with one's family. Even giving up one's
own life could be required. Does Jesus
really mean what he says?
St. Francis of
Assisi provides the most famous example of taking this text literally. He took off his fine clothes and walked away
from his place in society and his father' business to live among the poor and
serve them. He "chose life" in
a way most of us could not imagine doing.
For most of us
the challenge to "choose life" does not involve walking away from the
safety of our homes and families. We
"choose life" when we recognize the blessings God has given us in the
midst of all the difficulties we may face.
We "choose life" when we use those blessings to give glory to
God and to aid those in need. As for
those who don't have the safety of a roof over their heads, enough to eat, or a
loving family, Jesus calls us not to condemn, but to aid them through our
generosity. By wisely--and sometimes
even extravagantly--sharing what we have, we choose life, both for ourselves
and for the people we assist.
There no social
or political issue I can think of where we should not ask this question of
ourselves: How can I choose life in this situation? And, then, what will be life-giving for the
others involved? And, finally, what decisions should flow from my answers to the
first two questions? I sometimes wonder
why we as a society have such trouble speaking respectfully to each other when
we address the difficult questions that we face in dealing with social or
political issues. What will be the real
cost in our lives, in our church, in our community, and in our world—the cost which
Jesus says we must estimate (or "count" in an older translation)—when
we fail to "choose life?"
