Crossing the Line
By Rev Steven R
Mitchell
Mountain View
United Church, Aurora, CO 9/6/2015
Based on Mark
7:24-30
As
we come before Christ’s table this morning, in light of this morning’s text as
well as the recent events focused around professing Christian Kim Davis, county
clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky and her refusal to issue wedding licenses to
same-sex couples based on her alleged Christian based values, I have to ask, “Who is truly invited to this table” and
“what does this table truly represent?” As much as Mrs. Davis’ actions disturb my
sensibilities, I must admit that she brings another voice to the conversation
of “inclusion”. The question of: “where does one draw the line between acting
within the law verses personal convictions?” I think with the Supreme Court’s latest
interpretation on the inalienable right to marry, our national conversation
around moral values has not been so intense since questions on “conscientious
objectors” during WWII and about abortion in the 1960’s; all based in religious conscienceness.
Where
do we draw the line on behaviors and laws that seem to violate our moral
sensibilities? How do we define the acts
of crossing the line? Are acts of civil
disobedience actions that lead towards change for the better or are they simply
obstructions of the law based on prejudices?
I realize that in Mrs. Davis’ particular case, she is an elected
official who has sworn to uphold and abide by the laws of County, State and
Federal, which differs in rights from that of a private citizen, yet as an
individual, questions around moral values still exist.
I remember in my
first parish, there was one person whose understanding around how one does and
who doesn’t interpret scripture differed greatly from my understanding. I
understand that when I read scripture I am reading it through the eyes of past
sermons, from the variety of theological concepts that I studied in seminary,
from my education in the public school system, from my family and local
community value systems, and from my personal life experiences. All of these and more influence how I understand
what I read in the Bible. The person
that I would discuss this with maintained that she never interpreted scripture;
she just read what was there. To her,
the words on the written page were not influenced by any of those areas of
discipline. The meaning of scripture
means what the words say, period! When
Genesis reads, “And God created the
heavens and the earth in seven days”, she understood the word “day” to mean
24 hrs. She never understood that she
had interpreted “day” to mean a value of 24 hrs. We never came to a mutual
understanding on the issue that we all interpret scripture, just as we
interpret events that happen to us day in and day out.
I believe Mrs.
Davis falls into the camp that I was just describing. She doesn’t comprehend that the way she
understands scripture is based on multiple aspects of what she has been taught
and has experienced. It is through our
individual experiences in life that creates the need for conversation, which
can explain why conversation between two people can easily become over heated,
because it is personal.
How one interprets,
is essential in how one answers my original questions of, “Who is truly invited to this table” and “what does this table truly represent?” I first want to address the question, “what does this table truly represent?” We say that this is Christ’s table, but what
is the deeper implication in that statement?
The best way to answer that question is to observe what Jesus did and
didn’t do during his life. We know
through this morning’s text that Jesus did not spend all of his time in Jewish
settlements. In today’s reading we see
that Jesus has gone to the city of Tyre, which is a predominately Gentile city,
where he encounters a Syrophoenician woman.
This is one of the most offensive stories in the New Testament, both to
the first audiences who heard it as well as to modern-day ear.
The encounter
between the Syrophoenician woman and Jesus comes on the heels of Jesus teaching and feeding the Five
thousand, the arrest and beheading of his mentor John the Baptizer,
encountering hostile Pharisees in his home town and his accusation of them, “You
have stopped following the commands of God, and you follow only human
teachings.” Jesus
then goes on to elaborate that it is what is in your heart that either makes
you clean or unclean. Jesus uses the
dietary rituals as the example of restrictiveness and not of God’s doing. After all this, Jesus decides he needs to
find some alone time and journeys up to Tyre and Sidon, which is outside of
Herod’s jurisdiction.
It is in this
setting that we see a side of Jesus not seen previously. Now surrounded by Gentiles, Jesus is faced
with much of his teachings. Most of us
hearing this story would find ourselves offended by the way Jesus uses racist
language and the refusal to help this woman.
The language is racist because the word “dog” implies the lowest form of
existence in the Hebrew mind and he was telling this woman to leave him alone
because she was not worthy of his attention.
Ultimately because of her persistence Jesus decides to heal her
daughter.
To the first
audiences of this story, there are other levels of offenses going on. First off, Jesus is staying in Gentile
territory, secondly, a woman dares to approach Jesus, thirdly, this woman
touches Jesus, all three of these bringing into question “purity” issues. It is in this story that we see two people,
Jesus and a woman, crossing over the lines of cultural prejudices and moral
values, showing that the boundaries of God are larger than what society often
acknowledges. Coming to the table of
Christ implies that there are no boarders, no boundaries, that God see’s this
table as the table of inclusion. This
table represents the abundance of God’s love, it represents the existence of
what is, the physical world that we live in.
So, who then is
invited to the table? When reading scripture,
we see that Jesus is the first in the New Testament stories to use the dietary
laws as a way of explaining inclusion.
By telling the Pharisees that it wasn’t what you put into your mouth
that makes you impure but rather it is what is in your heart, Jesus was expanding
the circle of inclusion. It is in the
story of Jesus and this woman of Tyre that challenges cultural bigotry by
showing that impurity doesn’t come from cultural differences but rather in the
prejudices and bigotry within your heart that makes one impure. Later in the book of Acts, Peter has a vision
of a sheet of all animals dropping down from heaven and God telling him to eat
anything from it that he wants. When
Peter argues about the dietary laws, God basically tells Peter, that all things
are acceptable, again showing it isn’t the stuff from the outside but the stuff
in the heart that makes one pure or impure.
I think that when
we enter into discussions such as immigration, issues around poverty, or around
mental health, we would do well to think
about the encounter that Jesus had with the Syrophoencian woman. It is important to note that it wasn’t her
faith that prompted Jesus to action, but rather her passion for her daughter,
for her need, that crossing over the line that got Jesus to act. It not only changed the lives of this woman
and her child but more importantly it changed the life of Jesus. I think it is in this story that Jesus comes
to the full realization that the gift of God, even the crumbs are there for all to partake. This communion table represents the world of
God and this food is the gift from God to all.
It is my prayer that people such as Mrs Davis, and we are all Mrs. Davis
on some level, will learn the broader meanings of what Jesus was trying to tell
us. Moral purity comes from the heart, not from the outside. Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment