Sunday, August 29, 2021

Sermon: Boundaries


Lectionary Year B, Proper 17

Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23

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?”  


[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.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, August 01, 2021

Sermon: Solidarity

Lectionary: Year B, Proper 13
Text: Ephesians 4:1-16

Sermon

Introduction

I have no problem confessing that I’m not a huge sport fan. I can probably place most teams with their respective sports. I know enough that on the rare occasions I watch a sporting event, I can generally follow what’s going on. The one exception is road cycling, but I haven’t had much time to pay attention to that either. 

We are now witnessing the second week of the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. I sort of follow the games via the headlines and updates I see scroll by on the New York Times and The Washington Post. Despite my lack of attention to the Olympics, I’m aware that there were at least two things that happened last week that caught people by surprise. 

The first was the unexpected gold medal performance of Seward’s Lydia Jacoby in the 100m breaststroke, bringing to Alaska its very first Olympic gold in a discipline that seemed rather a long shot for a state that historically is known more for winter sports than swimming. In fact, the only Olympic sized pool in all of Alaska is in Anchorage at Bartlett High.[1] 

The Value of a Team

The second was the unexpected withdrawal of gymnast Simone Biles from the Team Competition. Heralded as the world’s greatest female gymnast ever, given the slang title G.O.A.T., and having planned to perform the most difficult vault of all-time, she was expected to personally sweep gold medals and anchor Team USA to another team gold. 

But on Tuesday morning, Biles withdrew from the team competition, explaining that as the competition progressed, she felt she could no longer fight the demons of others’ expectations that were being placed on her.[2] The routines that she had performed to this point had not been the flawless perfection that would normally been expected. Her head was fighting her body. Her teammates understood, because they too, had been there at some point in their sporting careers. They were disappointed but understood that what Biles has chosen to do was the right decision. They would continue to perform their best while Biles, who could have left the arena, chose to remain to cheer the team on, encourage them, get them chalk, and hug them.[3] Biles made the call to pull herself out because she saw that to continue would not only jeopardize her health but also a medal chance for the team.[4] Subsequently, Biles would also withdraw from the individual all-around competition, opening the door for another star, Sunisa Lee, to shine.[5] 

MyKayla Skinner was the fifth member of the gymnastic team, and after failing to qualify for any of the individual apparatus events, a week ago she was headed back home believing her Olympic dreams were finished. But Biles sent a frantic text to Skinner stopping her from boarding the plane, just in case Biles remained unable to compete on the vault. That turned out to be the case and yesterday Skinner vaulted to the silver medal.[6] 

These are elite athletes, performing at their peaks. Does any of it remotely apply to those of us with more mundane and ordinary lives? Lives that are generally not in any kind of spotlight? 

I think that there is more in common to be learned than we might see at first glance. 

“Unity” or “Solidarity”?

The reading for today in Ephesians is frequently one that is appealed to in the quest for church unity. It’s right there in the text, “Make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit,” and, “Until we all reach the unity of faith.” 

I don’t know if any of the rest of you have qualms about the word “unity,” but I do. In my church experiences, “unity” has too often been used to mean “uniformity.” So-called “unity” has been used as the basis for stifling disagreements and dissent. In modern church use, “unity” too often implies a sameness of beliefs, practices, traditions, behaviors, ideologies, and culture. This call and implications of unity seem to have bled over into our broader lives, too. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with desiring unity among our different groups. We shouldn’t have to suffer unnecessary conflict. But the desire and call for unity is wrong when its basis is motivated by such things as the desire to maintain power, to require minorities to conform to majority norms, and to permit the ongoing oppression of the marginalized. 

I would like to suggest a different word that we might use as a substitute for “unity.” That word is “solidarity.”[7] 

In my mind, “unity” implies cold, intellectual conformity and virtue-base (or rule-based) ethics that guide behavior. On the other hand, “solidarity” sounds warmer and more relational. “Solidarity” feels more empathetic and something that can bring people together, even if they differ in significant ways. 

What the U.S. Gymnastics team showed was solidarity after Simone Biles withdrew. They came together to continue to work towards what was possible, at the same time encouraging and supporting one another. Their top star was no longer able to continue, but the others would step up to fill the vacated roles. 

Healthy and Unhealthy Groups

I think that those of us living more “ordinary” lives could learn a few things from them. 

A Potential Single Failure Point

What struck me first was how a single individual may carry the weight of the entire group. It might be in the workplace, a community organization, the family, or a church. It’s that one individual that knows how everything works and knows the idiosyncrasies and nuances to get things done. 

That single individual is a single point of failure. The stress of the entire group is bearing on that point. Maybe you’ve been there, or maybe you’re there right now. You’ve been holding things together, but don’t know how long you can continue to maintain it. You desperately need help or even want out, but you can’t see anyone else able to fill your role. 

Maybe you’re part of an organization in which such a guru-type expert is holding things together. You’ve always relied and leaned on that person to facilitate things going smoothly. You can’t imagine what might happen if they suddenly left. 

Although today’s text is about the church, I think it can apply more broadly. The text reads that Christ gave gifts to his people. And these were different gifts distributed throughout the community. No single person receives all the gifts, and everyone has some gift. 

It is not healthy for a single individual to carry the burdens of the entire group. It is not healthy for the group to rely on a single individual to deliver results. 

If you feel like the burdens are getting far too heavy to carry and you want to say, “I can’t do it anymore,” can you say that and step away? 

Group Solidarity

That’s where the second aspect of today’s reading come in. Is your group, your organization, your church a safe place for someone to say, “I can’t handle everything that is being asked of me; I need to take a break?” Will the rest of the group show solidarity with the one hurting and injured? Will there be empathy and understanding? 

The text calls for God’s people to be people of humility, gentleness, patience, love, and peace. The text calls for God’s people to grow together into maturity. There are no superstars. All have a place in the community, and all have equal value. The body cannot function if needed parts are missing or parts refuse to perform the roles they are meant to do. 

“The whole body grows from [Christ], as it is joined and held together by all the supporting ligaments. The body makes itself grow in that it builds itself up with love as each one does its part.” (Eph. 4:16) 

The text just read contains some intriguing implications. First, all the supporting, connective elements are critical. Are you a facilitator in helping connect one part of the church with another, or one church community with another? You’re doing God’s work! It’s as equally important as more public-facing jobs. 

Second, the body grows itself. So often we hear about how to grow the church. According to this text, the focus should not be on growth. 

Third, the focus is for each person to exercise their God-given gifts and fulfill their gifted roles through exercising love. When each part works as God designed and gifted, growth happens naturally. 

Some might observe and object that this might be fine for the church, but the groups and organizations of the world don’t work that way. It often seems so, because the ones with the superstars seem to be most successful. 

Success Through Solidarity, Christ’s Way

Yet if we redefined success as long-term health, satisfaction, and well-being of every person associated with an organization, how many of the previously noted groups be considered successful? 

If the Way of Christ in reordering society and its values are really true, shouldn’t Christ’s followers be working on implementing them in the spheres that they are a part of? I am reminded of some of Jesus’ parables where the kingdom starts out small, but slowly and quietly becomes large. The new society of Christ wasn’t meant to remain within the walls of the church. It is supposed to offer the world the values and practices that allow human beings to truly flourish. And it is supposed to be so compelling that people will naturally be drawn toward it. I think that this is one practical way of understanding what it might look when a faith community “become mature adults—to be fully grown, measured by the standard of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:13b) 

Yet too often we are more like “infants” who are “tossed and blow around by every wind that comes from teaching with deceitful scheming and the tricks people play.” (Eph 4:14) How often do we look to the business and political world for practices and methods that we hope can help sustain and grow the church? I’m not accusing all of it as bad. God’s wisdom can certainly be found outside the church walls. But too often the church wants a quick route to success and latches on to whatever is trending and popular without taking the time to thoughtfully and carefully assess whether or not they are in alignment with Christ’s methods and values. 

“You are one body and one spirit, just as God also called you in one hope. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, who is over all, through all, and in all.” (Eph. 4:4-6) 

This is a reminder and an admonition to maintain solidarity with one another. Although we are many, we are one. Although we may disagree and have conflicts, the one God is Father or all, over all, through all, and in all of us. When one part is injured, we all feel the pain. When we comfort one, we are all comforted. When we are in solidarity with the most vulnerable, the most hurting, the most marginalized, the most oppressed – that is when I believe we are most like Christ and when we are closest to the maturity of faith desired by Christ for us.


Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)