Sermon Notes Genesis 37

Sermon Notes | 29 September 2013 | Genesis 37 | Dan McCoig 1. Leo Tolstoy’s novel Ann Karenina opens: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” If we were to lift Genesis 37-50 from the Bible altogether, it works as a novel. More to the point, it works as a Russian novel because of the way the story unfolds across the generations and involves the misdeeds of each generation interacting with one another and resulting in calamity and grief. The author tells us in 37:2 that what follows is a story about a man’s family, Jacob’s family. And many of the events of Jacob’s family’s life can certainly by described as unhappy. 2. The Joseph stories in Genesis are quite different than the stories about other luminaries in the book of Genesis. For example, the Abraham stories call for radical trust in God. The Jacob stories are stories enamored with conflict and scandal. The Joseph stories attend to the mysterious ways of the providence of God. In the words of one commentator, Walter Brueggemann, “The purposes of God are not wrought here by abrupt action or by intrusions, but by the ways of the world which seem to be natural and continuous. There is no appeal for faith or response, for the main point is that the ways of God are at work, regardless of human attitudes or actions.” The tension in Jacob’s family triggers the action in Genesis 37. Joseph is next to the youngest son of the family, a child -- like his younger brother Benjamin -- of his father’s older years. He and Benjamin are Rachel’s sons whereas their brothers are the sons of his father’s other wives -- Leah and Bilhah and Zilpah. Joseph, this ancient Hebrew name, means “to add.” Joseph is added to Jacob’s family by the mercy of God. To his brothers, however, he is added as an unwelcome afterthought. In our story, Joseph 2 is added as a special gift which reshapes everything. Joseph is added, by the mercy of God, because the family story depends on him as we will see before the end of the story in Genesis 50, for his dream will save the whole family. Without this addition -- Joseph -- there is no future. 3. Our story has a triangular shape. There are three points: Joseph, Jacob, and the brothers. Joseph, like many younger children in families, is too young to assume a role beside his older brothers. Besides, they don’t really want him around. He is confined to domestic chores. It appears that Joseph is doted on a little too much and perhaps is afforded behavioral latitude that wasn’t extended to his brothers. To make matters worse he tattled. Jacob we met last week. The book of Genesis tells us that he made his way in the world rather ruthlessly. He kicked his way out of the womb and to the top of his family. Like Joseph, he too was the favored son of his mother Rebecca whereas his brother Esau was the favored son of his father Isaac. Jacob becomes known time and again for being unscrupulous in his dealings within the family. Jacob’s poor judgment and bad behavior continue in his old age. His devotion to Joseph, to the point of destruction, exceeds his devotion to his other sons. The brothers are observant and sensitive. They see Jacob as loving their little brother Joseph too much and loving them too little. They seethe with murderous hatred. Our story has three movements: Tension among the brothers, violence on behalf of the brothers toward Joseph, and a father’s grief at being led to believe his youngest and dearest son, Joseph, has been killed. 4. To put it mildly, a lot is going on here. Where to begin? How about we consider, for a moment at least, sibling rivalry? 3 First, a definition. Sibling rivalry is a type of competition or animosity among siblings, whether blood related or not. The term sibling rivalry first appears in 1941. It was coined by Dr. David Levy. The behavior, of course, has been around since time immemorial. In the Bible, it begins with Cain and Abel. Evidently, children as young as 12 months can detect parental favoritism. And, according to one journal article: “Siblings generally spend more time together during childhood than they do with parents. The sibling bond is often complicated and is influenced by factors such as parental treatment, birth order, personality, and people and experiences outside the family.” According to child psychologist Sylvia Rimm, “sibling rivalry is particularly intense when children are very close in age and of the same gender, or where one child may be more intellectually gifted than his or her sibling or siblings.” It is significant that “parental treatment” is first in the list of factors that contribute to sibling rivalry. After all, the primary therapeutic intervention to address sibling rivalry is vigilance with regard to parental favoritism. Namely, recognize it and stop it. Jacob, it is fair to say, does not score very well in this area. He was his mother’s favored son. He adopted her parenting style and chose a favored among his own children as well and his favoritism made the relationship between Joseph and his brothers untenable. Also, how about we consider the family? Dr. Silvia Sara Canetto, a professor in psychology on the faculty of Colorado State University, in her article in the Journal of Primary Prevention entitled “What is a Normal Family?” makes this observation: The social and applied human sciences have been built upon the assumption that the “normal” family consists of a first-marriage conjugal couple cohabiting with biological children. It is taken for granted that the wife should be responsible for child and domestic work, and that the husband should be the family's economic provider and ultimate 4 authority. In the professional literature such “traditional” family structure is often described as normal in the sense of most common, as well as normal in the sense of well-functioning. Current psychological, sociological, anthropological and historical studies, however, do not support the assumption that the “traditional” nuclear family is the most “natural,” “common,” and/or “healthy” form of family arrangement. The idealization of the “traditional” nuclear family has had implications for theory, research, mental health practice, and social policy. Scientists and practitioners have been slow to recognize pathology in “traditional” nuclear families. Families other than “traditional” nuclear ones have been rendered invisible or pathologized. It is time for contemporary social and applied human sciences to recognize that the “traditional” nuclear family is a culturally- and historically-specific construct. It is also time for contemporary social and applied human sciences to develop an account of, and a research agenda about, families that take into consideration their variations across time, place, social class, ethnicity, and culture. At least two things occurred to me after having read Canetto’s article. One, the normal family -- first marriage conjugal couple cohabiting with biological children -- is no longer the most common form of family. In fact, in a 2003 study of the 2000 census data only 13% of all families were first marriage conjugal couples cohabiting with biological children. Very influential changes contributed to this shift, e.g. divorce resulting in single- parent families, teenage pregnancy and unwed mothers, same-sex marriages, gender equality, feminism, stay-at-home dads, and adoption practices. Two, “normal” never really automatically resulted in “functioning.” Families are made up of humans and humans manage conflict poorly, are susceptible to alcohol or substance abuse, can and do mistreat and neglect children in their care, and suffer from mental and physical illness that impair judgment and behavior. 5. Jacob’s family was not normal or traditional by any stretch of the imagination. Given the current data and trends, few families are normal or traditional. I would even argue that few ever really were. 5 I had a beloved history teacher in college who was fond of remarking that one gift historians provide to humanity is the reminder that the norm in human history is that there is no norm. It moves, shifts, changes, morphs. We want norms. We like norms. We demand them. Politicians lead us to believe that they best represent them. And, for a season or two, we achieve, perhaps delusionally, what we think are norms. But, alas, there are no norms. 6. Now, I am not a demographer or a psychologist or a family specialist. I am a preacher, a student of the Bible, a theologian. I have to ask, and if I fail to do so I have not honored my vocation, what word God has for us in this story of Jacob’s family. Is the message to love more ordinately so that the beloved thrives? Loving too much and in wrong ways is damaging and destructive. That would have helped Jacob behave better. Is the message that when loved inordinately exercise a little grace and humility so that others can bear to be in your presence? That would have helped Joseph behave a little better. Is the message that when loved less than you think you should be loved respond with a little more magnanimity and a little less resentment. That would have helped Joseph’s brothers behave a little better. We could read Genesis 37 for the cautionary tales that it has to tell. They are certainly there. But to do so is to miss the most important point. Genesis 37 is a story of God’s providence.

Load more