Sermon from 10th September 2006
Racial Justice Sunday
Adrian Parkhouse, one of our Lay Readers, continues our study of Mark’s Gospel. Today’s reading is Mark 7: 24-30: 1.
We are reading Mark’s gospel. Chapter 7 – but only the second week for us: not because we are going at pace, but because we started at verse 1 of chapter 7. Last week Cameron took us through Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees and teachers of the law, a primary point of which was Jesus’ criticism that they had “put aside God’s commands and obey[ed] the teachings of men” (v.8). The contrast between following “tradition” and following faith.
This week I want to concentrate on just one of healing miracles recorded in our reading – that of the daughter of the woman. It is a short story; the sort of story that you can speed through while reading the chapter as a whole; the sort of story that as you read it might make you think, “sounds a bit odd – but it turned out all right in the end, so I’ll carry on”. It’s that sort of story. I should also mention that when you do stop to look at in more detail it is the sort of story for which it helpful to have 3 hands and a working knowledge of the comedic works of Monty Python.
The relevance of Monty Python is obvious, but I ought to explain the need for 3 hands (or special dexterity with one foot perhaps?): the story is told not only by Mark but also by Matthew, and while Matthew’s account is basically the same he adds a little detail omitted by Mark. So one hand in Mark 7 and one in Matt 15 might be helpful. And the third hand might want to be turning over John 4, not because it is the same story but because there are interesting elements in common between the meeting of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar and the events we look at today.
2. Our story starts where Cameron’s left off with a less explicit example of Jesus choosing to flout the man-made rules of tradition. For a religious Jew to choose to go on retreat in the area of Tyre and Sidon was like the chairperson of Gamblers Anonymous choosing to go to Las Vegas for “a few days rest”. If we were unsure before, the recent events on the border between Israel and Lebanon probably mean that we can now identify this area as lying on the Med. coast in that border region. In Jesus’ time it was an area populated by non-Jews.. It was not a place a religious Jew would choose to frequent because it would mean associating with these Gentiles and they were one of the classes whose company was regarded as “unclean”. But Jesus went; and it seems went on retreat – to a house where he wanted to know where he was.
3. But his plans were thwarted. “He could not stay hidden.” In particular one person who found him was the “Syro-Phoenician woman”; a Gentile, born possibly in the north of what is now Lebanon; some translations say she was a Greek; Matt describes her as a “Caananite” – both terms being generalisations to describe a foreigner, both having the potential for insulting insinuation. You might think of words that we might use to describe foreigners which may similar potential? And she was a woman. The circumstances are different from Jesus starting the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, but again he put himself in the position of dealing with someone who was potentially “unclean” to the religious Jew on two counts: her background and her gender.
4. Mark’s account is now very curt. Matthew reveals slightly more of the events. In particular we learn that she began by crying out “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me!” to which Jesus did not respond. Instead his disciples begged him to send her away on the basis of the fuss she was creating. Then we have the exchange much as Mark records it.
What about that exchange? “Let us first feed the children. It is isn’t right to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs”; “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s left-overs” [NIV “First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.”]
How comfortable so you feel about this? What is going on?
5. I want to suggest 3 things are highlighted from these events:
• First [fittingly on a day with 2 baptisms] we see a parent’s, a mother’s, love at work. I reckon that we know of 4 occasions when it seems that Jesus cured a child at the request of a parent – 2 for a mother and 2 for a father. Of course others bought people to Jesus (the centurion and the friends with the bed) – but no surprise that parents feature more often? We know that few of us are – or had - perfect parents, but the bond of love from parent to child is potentially very special, onerous but special.
From Matthew’s version I think we can also see that the relationship gives an opportunity for finding faith. In her first approach (“Son of David…”) there is a sense of the Gentle woman repeating what she has heard others say - a bit like the Pharisees following the traditions and teachings of men – “this is the formula that will get me what I need”; but then in the argument with Jesus, she has to put it her own way, she has to own her own needs, she has to express what her heart is desperate for. There is no rubric to repeat here, no formula; she could retire hurt or tell Jesus how very important this is to her. From her head to her heart: from tradition to faith?
• Second “now for something completely different”. I was touched at how my 8-11 yr old SS class enjoyed a reading of the classic “10-minute argument sketch”. No time to read it here but you know it anyway? [read a bit?].
Do you think the woman argued with Jesus – or at least persuaded him to alter his mind? It seems that way to me – although I have found it very difficult to find any commentator that agrees with me. Not sure why – it is not a unique occurrence in scripture: Abraham jolly nearly saved Sodom from destruction by persuading God to reduce the number of righteous men that would be enough from an opening bid of 50 down to 10. Here the woman seems able to persuade Jesus that it is not too early for him to share the love and grace of God with people other than the Jews – whatever Jesus may have felt about his primary plan. In the case of both examples, it is notable that the pleader is arguing for something that is in line with God’s intentions – to be merciful, to share the gospel of grace with every race, with every individual. So these are not cases of arguing and persuading God against his will; these are cases of deep, deep concern finding resonance with what is ultimately God’s will. A lesson perhaps for prayer?
• And lastly – and significantly today, which is Racial Justice Sunday in the calendar of many churches – the juxtaposition of the Gentile and Jesus and his extension of the gift of healing towards her, reminds us that whatever our background, whatever our race, whatever our tradition, whatever our colour, we have no monopoly of God’s grace. His good news in Jesus that all people may find peace with Him is for all people. No barriers. No one send away.
We may wonder how anyone could think differently? On good days we realise that in modern day London in particular, we are blessed with the experience of many races, many backgrounds, many contributions to the life of the city of the country. But sometimes we forget that our experience is a very privileged one in all sorts of ways. [Conversation with my Hungarian dental nurse] But I have also painted a very rosy summary of the way it is. All around us, possibly in the experience of some here, race, background or colour of skin continue to be a regular cause of discrimination.
On holiday I had time to think about various matters and being in the US to compare things there with here. One thing I thought was that this area was very lucky to have its “Churches in HH” body which enabled the various churches co-operate on many matters. But I noted that some churches in the area were not included in that body – notably the various black-led congregations. I wondered why and realized how little I knew of those churches. Thinking wider I recalled that I had spoken about a year ago – on the same Sunday a few weeks after the July bombs in London. The burden of my prayer then was that I would be able to overcome the fear that had dogged me since those incidents by learning more about Islam and the position of Islamic people in this country. I have made some progress but have stalled and am aware that my opinions – my fears – are still fuelled by ignorance, so that I am able to base my responses on matters that are primarily abut me and mine.
Arguably if there was anything wrong with Jesus’ reaction to the woman it was because his priorities were focused so closely on the mission he knew he had to fulfill. It took an understanding, an insight into the pain and anguish of the woman for him to re-focus on his Father’s wider love. Maybe our focus needs widening too?
Adrian Parkhouse, one of our Lay Readers, continues our study of Mark’s Gospel. Today’s reading is Mark 7: 24-30: 1.
We are reading Mark’s gospel. Chapter 7 – but only the second week for us: not because we are going at pace, but because we started at verse 1 of chapter 7. Last week Cameron took us through Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees and teachers of the law, a primary point of which was Jesus’ criticism that they had “put aside God’s commands and obey[ed] the teachings of men” (v.8). The contrast between following “tradition” and following faith.
This week I want to concentrate on just one of healing miracles recorded in our reading – that of the daughter of the woman. It is a short story; the sort of story that you can speed through while reading the chapter as a whole; the sort of story that as you read it might make you think, “sounds a bit odd – but it turned out all right in the end, so I’ll carry on”. It’s that sort of story. I should also mention that when you do stop to look at in more detail it is the sort of story for which it helpful to have 3 hands and a working knowledge of the comedic works of Monty Python.
The relevance of Monty Python is obvious, but I ought to explain the need for 3 hands (or special dexterity with one foot perhaps?): the story is told not only by Mark but also by Matthew, and while Matthew’s account is basically the same he adds a little detail omitted by Mark. So one hand in Mark 7 and one in Matt 15 might be helpful. And the third hand might want to be turning over John 4, not because it is the same story but because there are interesting elements in common between the meeting of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar and the events we look at today.
2. Our story starts where Cameron’s left off with a less explicit example of Jesus choosing to flout the man-made rules of tradition. For a religious Jew to choose to go on retreat in the area of Tyre and Sidon was like the chairperson of Gamblers Anonymous choosing to go to Las Vegas for “a few days rest”. If we were unsure before, the recent events on the border between Israel and Lebanon probably mean that we can now identify this area as lying on the Med. coast in that border region. In Jesus’ time it was an area populated by non-Jews.. It was not a place a religious Jew would choose to frequent because it would mean associating with these Gentiles and they were one of the classes whose company was regarded as “unclean”. But Jesus went; and it seems went on retreat – to a house where he wanted to know where he was.
3. But his plans were thwarted. “He could not stay hidden.” In particular one person who found him was the “Syro-Phoenician woman”; a Gentile, born possibly in the north of what is now Lebanon; some translations say she was a Greek; Matt describes her as a “Caananite” – both terms being generalisations to describe a foreigner, both having the potential for insulting insinuation. You might think of words that we might use to describe foreigners which may similar potential? And she was a woman. The circumstances are different from Jesus starting the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, but again he put himself in the position of dealing with someone who was potentially “unclean” to the religious Jew on two counts: her background and her gender.
4. Mark’s account is now very curt. Matthew reveals slightly more of the events. In particular we learn that she began by crying out “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me!” to which Jesus did not respond. Instead his disciples begged him to send her away on the basis of the fuss she was creating. Then we have the exchange much as Mark records it.
What about that exchange? “Let us first feed the children. It is isn’t right to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs”; “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s left-overs” [NIV “First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.”]
How comfortable so you feel about this? What is going on?
5. I want to suggest 3 things are highlighted from these events:
• First [fittingly on a day with 2 baptisms] we see a parent’s, a mother’s, love at work. I reckon that we know of 4 occasions when it seems that Jesus cured a child at the request of a parent – 2 for a mother and 2 for a father. Of course others bought people to Jesus (the centurion and the friends with the bed) – but no surprise that parents feature more often? We know that few of us are – or had - perfect parents, but the bond of love from parent to child is potentially very special, onerous but special.
From Matthew’s version I think we can also see that the relationship gives an opportunity for finding faith. In her first approach (“Son of David…”) there is a sense of the Gentle woman repeating what she has heard others say - a bit like the Pharisees following the traditions and teachings of men – “this is the formula that will get me what I need”; but then in the argument with Jesus, she has to put it her own way, she has to own her own needs, she has to express what her heart is desperate for. There is no rubric to repeat here, no formula; she could retire hurt or tell Jesus how very important this is to her. From her head to her heart: from tradition to faith?
• Second “now for something completely different”. I was touched at how my 8-11 yr old SS class enjoyed a reading of the classic “10-minute argument sketch”. No time to read it here but you know it anyway? [read a bit?].
Do you think the woman argued with Jesus – or at least persuaded him to alter his mind? It seems that way to me – although I have found it very difficult to find any commentator that agrees with me. Not sure why – it is not a unique occurrence in scripture: Abraham jolly nearly saved Sodom from destruction by persuading God to reduce the number of righteous men that would be enough from an opening bid of 50 down to 10. Here the woman seems able to persuade Jesus that it is not too early for him to share the love and grace of God with people other than the Jews – whatever Jesus may have felt about his primary plan. In the case of both examples, it is notable that the pleader is arguing for something that is in line with God’s intentions – to be merciful, to share the gospel of grace with every race, with every individual. So these are not cases of arguing and persuading God against his will; these are cases of deep, deep concern finding resonance with what is ultimately God’s will. A lesson perhaps for prayer?
• And lastly – and significantly today, which is Racial Justice Sunday in the calendar of many churches – the juxtaposition of the Gentile and Jesus and his extension of the gift of healing towards her, reminds us that whatever our background, whatever our race, whatever our tradition, whatever our colour, we have no monopoly of God’s grace. His good news in Jesus that all people may find peace with Him is for all people. No barriers. No one send away.
We may wonder how anyone could think differently? On good days we realise that in modern day London in particular, we are blessed with the experience of many races, many backgrounds, many contributions to the life of the city of the country. But sometimes we forget that our experience is a very privileged one in all sorts of ways. [Conversation with my Hungarian dental nurse] But I have also painted a very rosy summary of the way it is. All around us, possibly in the experience of some here, race, background or colour of skin continue to be a regular cause of discrimination.
On holiday I had time to think about various matters and being in the US to compare things there with here. One thing I thought was that this area was very lucky to have its “Churches in HH” body which enabled the various churches co-operate on many matters. But I noted that some churches in the area were not included in that body – notably the various black-led congregations. I wondered why and realized how little I knew of those churches. Thinking wider I recalled that I had spoken about a year ago – on the same Sunday a few weeks after the July bombs in London. The burden of my prayer then was that I would be able to overcome the fear that had dogged me since those incidents by learning more about Islam and the position of Islamic people in this country. I have made some progress but have stalled and am aware that my opinions – my fears – are still fuelled by ignorance, so that I am able to base my responses on matters that are primarily abut me and mine.
Arguably if there was anything wrong with Jesus’ reaction to the woman it was because his priorities were focused so closely on the mission he knew he had to fulfill. It took an understanding, an insight into the pain and anguish of the woman for him to re-focus on his Father’s wider love. Maybe our focus needs widening too?
posted by Parish Administrator at 2:24 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home