Lectionary Year B, Proper 17
Story: The Guru’s Cat[1],[2]
Once there
was an Ashram in Kathmandu, Nepal, where a guru lived with many disciples. Also
living in this Ashram was a cat. He was a wonderful cat, very friendly and
eager to please. The cat was well fed and well loved by everyone in the Ashram.
There was
only one problem: during the Ashram daily schedule, the cat wanted to
participate. And the cat’s participation began to disrupt the hours of chanting
and meditation for the guru and the disciples. Why so? When the guru and
disciples would chant, the cat would howl. When they would meditate, the cat
would snore quite loudly.
Therefore,
the guru asked that every day, during chanting and meditation, the cat be tied
to a post in another room. The disciples obeyed the guru’s command, and the
discipline of the daily schedule was restored. There was no more disruption
from the cat and everyone’s focus was again strong on chanting and meditation.
A few years
passed, and one auspicious day the guru peacefully left his body. The disciples
continued to tie the cat to the post every day during the period of chanting
and meditation.
One day, the
sweet cat died. The disciples held a meeting and discussed how important it was
to preserve the guru’s teaching. With resolve, they went to the market and
bought another cat so that they could tie it to the post during times of
chanting and meditation and in this way faithfully honor the guru’s teaching.
Comments on Story
It’s
humorous and probably apocryphal. And it illustrates the problem of blindly
observing tradition but forgetting what birthed it. Faithful observance of
tradition becomes more sacred than what the tradition originally pointed to.
And that is
one way of interpreting and understanding today’s gospel text about the washing
of hands. There is nothing wrong with interpreting the text as pointing to the
problem of excessive observance of outward traditions and reliance on them to
appear wholesome and good, while neglecting unaddressed evils inside of individuals
and groups. It is a completely valid concern.
Yet there is
much more to this text than that.
Literary placement
The first point
I’d like to consider is the literary placement of today’s text. The larger
literary context begins around the middle of Mark, chapter 6 and goes midway through
chapter 8. Here is a series of stories that Mark has placed together to convey
a larger point.
The larger
section begins with the Feeding of the 5,000. This takes place in Galilee,
within Jewish lands. There is a slight narrative diversion of Jesus walking on water
that takes him from one part of the lake to another, but still within Jewish
land. At this new location, Gennesaret, Jesus heals a large number of people.
After this comes today’s text where some Pharisees and legal experts confront
Jesus about the washing of hands. From there Jesus removes himself from Jewish
territory and goes to Tyre where he encounters a Gentile woman who challenges
Jesus. Jesus remains in Gentile territory where a deaf and mute man is healed.
This large series of stories ends with the Feeding of the 4,000 which takes
place in Gentile lands.
From the
literary placement of these stories, it appears that Mark is attempting to
convey major boundary crossings that Jesus undertakes. Briefly, these include
ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender boundaries.
Clean/unclean discussion
Boundaries
have their place when used appropriately. But too often they are misplaced and
misused. Boundaries can become imbued with meanings that they were never
intended to acquire.
I grew up in
a religious environment that observed clean and unclean distinctions regarding
food. Beef and chicken are clean; pork is not. Fish has to have scales, and some
types of fish therefore, are questionable. Shellfish and crustaceans are on the
unclean side of the ledger.
Ostensibly these
were “divine health guidance” that God gave to Moses as recorded in Leviticus.
But more recent evidence from science is lacking.[3],[4]
Observance
of these restrictions is a boundary marker for what it means to belong to this
group.
My first few
years in this world were in Japan, and I was probably about four years old when
this next story occurred.
I attended a
public preschool and lunch was provided by the school. One day the lunch
included what were probably something like meatballs. Somewhere I had gotten
the idea that ground meat was pork. That assumption was probably 99% correct
since across the world, meatballs include pork more often than not, but
especially in Asia where the use of pork seems to be far more common. I
objected to eating it because it would violate, what I had at that young age
understood as, a key pillar of my religious faith and community. I was very
proud that I stood up for what I believed to be right and true. My very
identity of who I was and where I belonged was tied up in this particular and
narrow belief.
While that
might seem funny now as a limited, black-and-white thinking of a small child,
the same thought process can and does occur among much older adults and with
more serious consequences. To protect the boundaries of clean vs. unclean,
vegetarianism might be encouraged as another boundary. And to provide even more
protection veganism might be encouraged. If these were only suggestions,
perhaps it would not be so bad. But in boundary-making, especially in religious
cultures, these boundaries acquire moral and ethical properties. All of a
sudden, those who are able to adhere to stricter and stricter boundaries see
themselves as more spiritual and righteous, and perhaps some on the outside
might also see those who are sacrificing appetite for the sake of God to be
more spiritual.
I think this
may be a large degree what Jesus was objecting to in our gospel text for today.
Jesus isn’t condemning traditions or their practice, but what they have come to
mean. They have become boundary markers excluding all but those most dedicated
to a particular brand of religion and spirituality.
Cultural context
I’ve been
discussing today’s subject matter solely in terms of a religious and spiritual context
so far. We moderns, particularly in the Western context, live in a world where most
of us have separations between religion, civics, social, and personal spheres
of life. But that was not the case in the ancient world.
Ritual
purity was not just a religious question but affected a person’s belonging
within society itself and their participation in any of its spheres. A ritually
unclean person was certainly excluded from the religious community, but from
participation in civic life, social life, and family life.
For the
Pharisees to question Jesus’ disciples (and by doing so were really questioning
Jesus’ own practices) about purity rituals was in effect publicly questioning
whether Jesus was really a proper Jew. They were defending the honor of all
Jews and what it meant to be a Jew. Jesus was, in their view, acting shamefully.[5]
Think about
what it means for you to identify as American and for others to see you as
American. What goes through your mind and emotions when what you see someone disregard
or violate what you believe to be American values, traditions and practices?
That is the kind of visceral reaction that these Pharisees most likely felt toward
Jesus when they saw him disregarding Jewish rituals they considered vital. It
is important to understand that Jesus’ conflicts within his Jewish tradition
was not merely religious and intellectual, but that they reached into the core
of what it meant to be an authentic Jew.
Drawing New Boundaries
Jesus rises
up to the challenge pushed on him by the Pharisees and the legal experts. He
confronts accusations of violating tradition by appealing to a different
tradition – the prophetic tradition. He quotes from Isaiah to turn the
accusation back onto his accusers. The prophetic tradition is stronger than the
tradition of the elders. In portions of the text that were not part of today’s
reading, Jesus presses his advantage by citing another example where the legal
experts placed tradition over justice. Jesus shows that he is a true Jew by
utilizing and arguing through a stronger Jewish tradition.
And then
Jesus invites the crowd gathered around, who are witnessing this honor contest,
to participate by rendering a verdict on his closing argument:
“Nothing outside of a person can enter and contaminate a
person in God’s sight; rather, the things that come out of a person contaminate
the person.” (7:15 CEB)
Although the
crowd’s response is not provided in the text, the lack of any further
questioning by Jesus’ challengers and the disciples’ immediate questions indicate
that the crowd affirmed Jesus’ position on the debate.
Jesus draws
new boundaries. The boundaries aren’t drawn at external observances or their
lack. Rather it is the things that come out of a person. The disciples didn’t
quite understand so they ask Jesus and additional explanation is provided to
them.
“It’s from the inside, from the human heart, that evil
thoughts come: sexual sins, thefts, murders, adultery, greed, evil actions,
deceit, unrestrained immorality, envy, insults, arrogance, and foolishness. All
these evil things come from the inside and contaminate a person in God’s
sight.” (7:21-23 CEB)
In the
kingdom, the new society and community, that Jesus is establishing, it is not
external purification rituals that determine a person’s belonging. The
boundaries are, rather, established by the attitudes and actions one has toward
another. In this text some examples of the negative kind are given by Jesus. These
are each antithesis of love, the positive boundary of Jesus’ new community.
I think that
from time to time it can be helpful to see what love is not. When we look at
this list of evils, we might be tempted to think that we don’t commit any of
them. Perhaps not in their most overt and egregious ways. Every one of the
evils listed could have a socially acceptable form. I think all of us would do
well to perhaps take some time to think about it and see if we are excusing
some evils in our lives because they are socially acceptable.
As we look
at ourselves and our communities, perhaps today’s text is asking us to ask,
“What boundaries have we erected that hinders or prevent loving relationships
to occur among all members of our community?” And secondly, “What boundaries might
be necessary to maintain a healthy and loving community?”
[2]
I originally came across a one-paragraph summary of this story at Distractions,
Pentecost 14 (B) – August 29, 2021 – The Episcopal Church (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermon/distractions-pentecost-14-b-august-29-2021/)
[3]
The
Levitical Dietary Laws in the Light of Modern Science (gordon.edu) (http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/03-leviticus/text/articles/key-levdietary61a-asa.pdf)
[4]
Food Regulation in Biblical Law: A Paper Submitted in Satisfaction of the
Written Work Requirement of Harvard Law School, Wendy Ann Wilkenfeld (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846735/wwilkenfeld.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
[5]
Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, E. Randolph Richards and
Richard James, p. 228-230.
No comments:
Post a Comment