I want to speak to you this morning on the subject of prejudice, a theme we find in all
of our readings for today and a problem that has always plagued humanity. I think that most people like to believe
they have witnessed prejudice but are not themselves perpetrators of it and by its very nature, that may be a difficult
distinction to make.
Collier's defines a prejudice as a firmly held perception of what constitutes truth that defies any attempts toward
dissuasion. Many of these perceptions are cultural, instilled almost as a rite of passage into a national heritage.
They carry over even in a multicultural setting as long as an allegiance to the culture of origin can be identified.
We are encouraged to be most aware of racial prejudice but recognize that the same deeply entrenched beliefs accompany
our feelings about religion, gender, politics, and most aspects of the natural world.
As a Christian I am expected to have certain understandings of my place in the universe and my responsibilities
to it, which as we all know are going to be radically different from person to person depending on how and where
I was raised, and what alternative thinking I have been exposed to.
The Creeds were initial attempts to give some coherence to such diverse thinking as early as the Third Century,
but even they reflected prejudicial attitudes as they chose between existing and popular views of truth; this one
Yes, that one No. Adherence to that list became the litmus test for authenticity in the Church and for a time made
management of the populace somewhat easier.
History has proven however that Irish Catholics evolved into quite a different species than their Roman counterparts,
and German Lutherans would find very little in common with their Southern Baptist cousins, as would an Episcopalian
raised by a Jewish father and a Presbyterian mother who agreed on the need for "ritual" in their child's
life. Each would have a unique view of what it means to be a Christian.
Perhaps then it is most important who one meets if they are not a Christian, as that would definitely shape one's
own prejudice as to what the faith was all about. As a young man, Gandhi studied in London, where he learned much
about Christianity. He became deeply moved by Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. In fact he found Matthew
5-7 so inspiring that he determined Christianity was the most complete religion in the world. It was only later,
when he lived with a Christian family in East India, that he changed his mind. In that household he discovered
that the Word rarely became flesh - talk about God and faith never developed into a passionate burning reality
in that family's life.
Ghandi wrote: "It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message
of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice."
Would we have been a better example? I'm sure we'd like to think so. The most liberal among us would probably preface
their opinions with the cautionary statement "I personally believe," as if that acknowledges at least
the option of various views, but it too presupposes an understanding of self which is of necessity also undeveloped.
How much do we really know about ourselves? How much do we even want to know about what constitutes the "truth"
in regards to our own personhood? Therefore when I say "I believe" am I really all that aware of who
this "I" even is, let alone the world outside of me?
Jesus seemed to be aware of the need for exposure to foreign ideologies. He made it a practice according to the
scriptures to "get away" from what would have been areas of entrenched Judaism, and usually for some
kind of renewal. Sometimes it was the wilderness and sometimes it was a territory that was predominantly Gentile.
Did you know that in their prejudicial thinking the gospels regarded those two terms as synonymous? In today's
gospel he has gone to "the region of Tyre."
If you took the opportunity to get away from home this summer you probably know how difficult it is to really leave
home behind. It's quite common for people to see something that "reminds them of home," or to take all
those same "home bound atttitudes and expectations" we have with us so that the bed, the service, and
the weather should all comply to our "homey" standards.
In last week's gospel lesson Jesus was at "home" and being criticized for allowing his disciples to veer
from the customary practices and expectations. Perhaps that's why he went away to this foreign place and entered
a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. In this very important story, Jesus too is not totally away
from home, as a victim of prejudice he shows us just how easy it is to succumb to one's own prejudicial views.
The first interaction involves multiple possibilities for contamination, and hence plenty of justification for
holding back. The person seeking Jesus' help is first a Gentile, second a woman, and third a woman with a sick
child who by virtue of her care-giving would carry some of her child's contamination.
To add fuel to the fire for his right to resist, Jesus has intentionally withdrawn, gone on a sabbatical, taken
his day off…and has been rudely interrupted. How many of us would put on our work clothes on a long anticipated
and well deserved day off to help someone we have always been taught in home, school and pulpit was the enemy and
someone to be feared?
There is no justifiable way to soften the use of the term "dog." Many a preacher and commentator has
tried to say that Jesus was really referring to this woman and her people as some kind of "playful pups"
that just hadn't been trained yet. But "dog" was a commonly used derogatory description of all non-Jewish
residents in Israel, or any portion of land that had once been Israel. They were interlopers and deserved treatment
as such. It is probably fair, though prejudicial to say that many Jews in Israel today would harbor similar opinions
about their Palestinian neighbors.
The comment is not unexpected; but the action which follows is quite extraordinary and it is no doubt what made
people recognize the unique an undeniably holy aspects of this rabbi from Galilee. To allow compassion to overcome
prejudice is miraculous indeed!
The book of Proverbs is mostly instructions given by a scholar or perhaps a father, to a student or a son. It is
a collection of lessons on how to lead a moral life, with proper respect for God. It acknowledges that life involves
choices; and that it is important that one be informed, trained and persuaded to make the right ones.
Sometimes that requires that one take an independent step away from what "everyone else like you, and who
you want to be liked by" thinks.
Jesus then goes even further, as he always does, into another Gentile territory. This time it's Sidon in the region
of the Decapolis, the Roman cities on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee, and not only does he heal a Gentile
man - but he does so by touching him - and by exchanging spittle thought to contain the very essence of one's person-hood.
In other words he makes full contact with one that according to the law was unclean.
In Mark, Jesus is not a boundary guarding figure but a boundary crossing figure, and his problems come not from
people who were broken or unclean or misled, but from people who were offered wholeness and health and a new Way…who
then refused to follow in the steps he called them to.
All of the Gospel writers, despite the prejudicial views of their time, upheld the role of women in the life of
Jesus. They gave testament to the persistence of women in his ministry. It is not surprising to us, but it was
revolutionary then that it was the women who stayed at the Cross. John alone throws in the "beloved disciple"
as a testament to his own belief that Jesus had chosen the "beloved disciple's" leadership over that
of Simon Peter.
Sadly it was the women of that time period who were so used to pain and suffering, through childbearing and abuse
and who remain so in many places throughout the world today. Yet even then it was recognized that there is something
in the female psyche that demands to see a thing through, a belief that catharsis only comes if death has taken
it's full toll. Perhaps it is that women hope, beyond men, that some miracle might yet occur before the end? Or
that men find it easier to give up, to turn away, to get on with life, to be "realistic."
Such attitudes have always made women foreigners in patriarchal cultures. And foreigners are always the first victims
of prejudice. A large part of Anti-Semitism stems, I am sure, from the fact that Jews were dispersed, strangers
in other people's lands, just as Gypsies were hated for the same reasons.
God notices and knows the suffering of women, of all foreigners, and the story of Judah and Tamar says, in no uncertain
terms, that racial or religious status stands as no justification or excuse for ill treating women, or indeed anyone.
The women who stood looking at Jesus dying, I have no doubt were there because Jesus had, during his lifetime,
particularly noticed them.
So, when Jesus touches a leper, drives out unclean spirits, goes to Gentile territory and visits at a grave site
with pigs no less, is touched by a woman with a flow of blood, or lays hands on the corpse of a child, he is crossing
social and religious boundaries that marginalize and exclude those who actually need help the most.
The kingdom of God that Jesus proclaims in his actions reverses the usual (politically correct) flow of things.
In so doing it overcomes prejudice with compassion proving that part of being chosen is giving up being choosy.
How can we hold faith in Christ and behave in a way which discriminates against people? The answer is: quite easily!
It happens all the time. This is why we need this kind of wisdom instruction to bring the obvious connections to
the surface, because for many they are not obvious at all. The solution is not to set up a complex array of rules
for life as a kind of check, but to learn to engage in the process of making connections, so that our behavior
becomes an outcome of our faith. As such, it is neither independent nor something we tag on as "required"
or part of being "good."
Discrimination of all kinds and intense pandering to the wealthy have always been a part of what is normal in the
business of religion. "Dirty" takes many forms, so is it not prejudicial to think that we can overcome
this humanistic flaw?
Perhaps the words of a Salvadoran woman, a political prisoner who had seen terrible atrocities repeatedly committed
against her village to a Peace Corps worker from Chicago who asked "How do you still have hope in a situation
like this?" would serve us well as Christ's servants in the world today.
She said "For you in your country, hope is a luxury. Here, hope is all we have and we will not let it go."
May we never lose our hope…only our blindness to truth!
|