Sunday, August 10, 2008

Gathering Others

Isaiah 56:1, 6-8

Matthew 15:21-28

I'm not really sure what drew me to Lars and the Real Girl, but after seeing the film last night it has immediately become one of my favorites. It wasn't the clever dialogue or the cinematography that did it. The direction didn't particularly stand out for me, nor did the performance of any one actor. Rather it was the unusual story itself and the intimation it gave me into what the Kingdom of God might look like in a small northern town where the bitter winters have over the years forged an uncommon community spirit.

Lars Lindstrom is a pathologically shy young man who spends his days either at work or in a small apartment attached to the garage of his brother's house. On Sundays he has the opportunity to attend the local church where he tries as best as any awkward introvert can to become an active part of the community. His only comfort in life, it seems, is a powder blue blanket his mother knit for him while he was still in her womb. Lars never got to know his mother, however, since she died while giving birth to her son. He was then left to be raised by a grieving and emotionally unavailable father. As a result of these unfortunate circumstances, Lars's greatest discomfort in life is the touch of a human being – any human being. A friend's hand on his shoulder can send him into the deepest agony.

Knowing this, it is easy to understand why Lars tries to address his loneliness via the internet, ordering for himself a "fully functional" and life-like doll named Bianca, whom he immediately introduces to his brother and sister-in-law, and soon to the entire town, as his girlfriend. It is not long before Lars is seen accompanying Bianca in public, pushing her in a wheelchair (to which she has been confined from birth, he explains) and chatting with her about his childhood memories and his most intimate dreams. By all accounts it appears to be a budding romance, and going quite well, if it weren't for just one little problem. You know… the doll thing.

But here is where the Kingdom of God enters the picture. Were this one of those "realistic" films, we would at this point be treated to a kind of medical who-done-it where doctors chase down the patient's affliction and dismantle it piece by piece. Or we might see the derelict loner descend into a kind of delusional pathology that eventually manifests itself in mass murder. In any case, Lars would more than likely be portrayed as an abhorrent "other" upon whom all of our irrational fears and regrettable animosities could so easily be placed.

Thankfully this does not happen.

The genius of this picture lies in the fact that the story is less about Lars than it is about his community, a town that has over the last twenty-seven years adopted him as its own. Lars is fortunate enough to live among an extended family that decides – beyond reason and despite fear – to stick it out with him, come what may. The community lovingly enters into his "delusion" and eventually arrives at a refreshing and not so frightening reality of its own. At one point, the local pastor even comments that Lars's companion "has become one of us. She is our teacher. She loves this town, and most of all she loves Lars."

Would that the same were true for so many these days whom the church has deemed unacceptable, disagreeable, or "delusional." After seeing this film, I could not help but wonder what rich personal realities have gone unexplored on account of the seemingly customary exclusion of the "dangerous others" who petition us for our care and attention. To our great detriment, the church has too often been content simply to uphold the status quo, to remain – like the disciples in the tempest-tossed boat on the Sea of Galilee (Matt. 14:22-33) – trembling and in fear of what strange ghost beckons us to venture beyond our comfort zone.

What a lesson in contrasts, then, as we read Jesus' dialogue with the Canaanite woman in this week's lectionary passage. I can imagine the trepidation with which many pastors might approach this text realizing that, for those parishioners who have been playing along at home, the story throws an unwelcome wrench into the conventional image of the loving, accommodating, compassionate Jesus we all know and love. It certainly upsets Paul's frequent contention that in Christ there is no longer slave nor free, Jew nor Greek, male and female. On the contrary, Jesus here seems begrudgingly to offer his blessing to a woman who so fervently and faithfully seeks his attention. Can it be true? Does Jesus actually tell this poor and pleading creature of God that she should take her proper place in line behind the deserving children of Israel, back among the lowly dogs?

One way that scholars have tried to explain this passage is to attribute it to an early Jewish-Christian community intent on preserving its Judaic heritage, especially with respect to the mission of the messiah. There are other passages in Matthew – probably from this same tradition – in which the Gentiles fare rather poorly: the apostles are not to enter their territory as they evangelize (Matt. 10:5-6), nor are these outsiders to be regarded as any kind moral guide (Matt. 5:47). Mark includes a similar pericope in his gospel, though without the damning verse 24 that seems to settle the score so decisively: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The Canaanite woman's response to Jesus' rejection seems to echo Peter's cry as he succumbs to his fears, walking the waves on the Sea of Galilee – "Lord, help me." Instead of extending a helping hand, however, Jesus' reply to this woman is to suggest that her ethnic heritage entitles her only to crumbs from the children's table – leftovers.

We can take some solace in the fact that the oral tradition upon which this text is based – in both Mark and Matthew – was in the distinct minority in the early decades of the church. Where would Paul's mission to the Gentiles have been had this perspective enjoyed a larger following? This is a Jesus that we do not know, and certainly not a messiah who is as well-versed as he seems otherwise to have been in the prophetic voices of the Hebrew tradition. The words of Isaiah come particularly to mind:

Thus says the Lord: Maintain justice, and do what is right, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. …And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord… these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them besides those already gathered (Isaiah 56:1:7-8).

Had Jesus somehow forgotten about this tradition? Was he ignoring it? Or – and this is a shocker – are there simply places in scripture where we have to say, "No, this is wrong. This is not the Jesus of tradition!"? We know what a slippery slope this can be, but what are our alternatives?

The only interpretation that has given me some comfort this past week has been metaphorical. Indeed, I think this text has much to say to us today as the body of Christ who, in the dubious tradition of our savior, continue to exclude the undesirables who come knocking at our door, pleading for our help and acceptance, only to be sent away like stray dogs. In the Matthean passage, it does appear that Jesus is guilty of a shameful act, but more deplorable still are the acts of those of us who can enjoy the view from the other side of the resurrection -- with the gospel witnesses to our advantage, and with the rich theology of Paul on our side -- who continue to insist on the church as an exclusive body, as the "children of Israel" with whom "dogs" need not associate.

When I imagine the persistence of the Canaanite woman in our present context, I cannot help but think of the thousands of gay and lesbian Christians who have in recent years set aside their fears and their ecclesially-induced self-loathing to demand from the body of Christ not only a hearing but a blessing and acceptance. I have to admire those whose convictions are so strong, and so central to their lives, that they are not at all willing to choose between their faith and their God-given sexual orientation. Frankly, were I in their situation I would have summarily bid the church adieu upon its very first condemnation of my person. Thankfully, there are those with greater faith and courage than I. Like the Canaanite woman rebuffed by Jesus – not once but three times – these men and women have kept the conversation alive and moving ever forward toward a hopeful reconciliation. Just this summer, for example, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) removed the institutional barriers to the ordination of gays and lesbians, this in addition to similar – and prior – decisions in the U.C.C. and Episcopal denominations. But of course this is only a small step toward the goal. How long will it be before the worldwide body of Christ can exclaim to its gay and lesbian faithful, "Great is your faith… be it done for you as you desire!"

In the film, the love-starved Lars suspects that because of the hand he has been dealt in life he will have to endure a dismal existence devoid of the one thing he both craves and fears – human touch. Nearly three decades of being emotionally excluded by his father, and then by his brother, have left him with little choice but to find solace in a world of his own making. This retreat might have been complete had it not been for the realization on the part of his Christian community that they had a central role to play in suffering along with one of their own in order to keep him from slipping away from the fold.

It is not often that a contemporary film can offer such depth and insight into a lectionary text, but this is the Jesus I know – a messiah not willing to offer crumbs to dogs while a chosen few enjoy the bounty of the Kingdom. This is the Jesus I know – a community that refuses to relinquish even one of the faithful to the irrational fears the world so often encourages. And it is here that I will gladly (and uncharacteristically) tip my theological cap to the apostle Paul who knew perhaps better than anyone the radically inclusive nature of Jesus' ministry: to maintain justice, to do what is right, and most importantly, to gather others – besides those already gathered – to God's holy mountain (Is. 56:1,8; cf. Micah 6:8).

Related Links

More Light Presbyterians

The Epistle: A Web Magazine for Christian Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender People

The Gay Christian Network

Inclusive Church

Whosoever: An Online Magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Christians

Photos and Art

1. Still shot from Lars and the Real Girl, directed by Craig Gillespie, written by Nancy Oliver, 2007.

2. "The Canaanite Woman," from the 15th-Century illuminated manuscript Les Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, folio 164r, Musee Condee, Chantilly, France.

3. Georgi Mabee, York, England. See more of this young photographer's very fine work.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

One way I read the Matthew text on Jesus and the Canaanite woman is that this is another teaching moment that Jesus is cramming into his remaining days...teaching of the disciples and whoever else is hanging around. I see Jesus demonstrating how to listen and change by being persuaded by need and faith to bless and help...and really see and hear the misery and desire, esp. from traditional "enemies." And, one feminist reading perceives the woman as an "exchange object" (Cheney), a device by the Gospel writer to show the mainly male followers that to "go over to the other side" to those who are not like us is integral to Jesus' ministry, and therefore ours. The question engendered by this reading is, "how are we women to see ourselves in the Gospel, if we are not often named, if we are often stock figures or exchange objects in a teaching opportunity for men"?

Daniel G. Deffenbaugh said...

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this difficult passage. There is certainly much more going on here than I cover in my relatively brief reflection. There is fear of both the ethnic and the gendered other that can be addressed, and I went an entirely different direction by considering sexual orientation! I would be interested to know the full name of the author you refer to -- is it Emily Cheney? This text will continue to baffle me for a very long time, so I'd like to have as many relevant references in my library as possible.

I think you are correct in saying that "going over to the other side" is a central concern of this passage. The question for us in our present context, I think, is what constitutes the "other side," and how will we know if we have gone -- or if we can go -- too far? I also appreciate your compelling question at the conclusion of your comment.

Dan D.

Rev. Leslie said...

Hey there, thanks for the link to the film - I can't wait to see it now!

I think that (while some of us ministry staff might get fired for saying so) Jesus was BOTH real person and real God and that for God to have the true human experience, Jesus had to be human through and through. Including making mistakes and changing minds. Taking off on his parents may in Jersualem at age 12 may have been a Divine errand, but it also went against the Commandment to "Honour mother and father." Also, the human Jesus knew in Gethsemane that he was on a path that God willed, yet still prayed to be spared that path. And here, Jesus is forced to reconsider his mission and to extend its boundaries beyond his own culture/place/time by the need of the Canaanite woman.

Of course this was always in the Divine plan. But how else could God fully experience human bigotry except by being fully present to a culturally/socially conditioned human being?

Even if this is wrong headed of me(as it may well be!), there is precedent in the Bible for God changing God's mind, i.e. the Flood. Maybe God started out with one idea and being confronted with the need of this outsider, made the plan bigger...this, of course, is precisely the theological territory that potentially puts one's job in the church at risk...:)

Daniel G. Deffenbaugh said...

Rev. Leslie,

I'm sure your job is more secure than you imagine -- it sounds like you are a faithfully inquisitive pastor. I'm with you, though: I think the Greek philosophers did us a disservice with all their influence on the traditional attributes of God as impassible, immutable, etc., etc. This never seemed to square with the God of the Hebrew Scriptures who seemed often to reconsider courses of action. After all, it is this God who decides to do "a new thing." For this reason I have always been attracted to the process theologians (I love the title of one of Charles Hartshorne's books: "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes").

In regard to this passage, however, I am more drawn to the possibility that this strand of literature (Matt. 15:21-28), as well as a few others in this gospel, represents a minority Jewish-Christian perspective in the early church, one that both Mark and Matthew felt comfortable enough to include in their texts. However, I'm sure I could have great fun reflecting on the theological possibilities inherent in what you suggest here.

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, and I hope you enjoy the movie!

Dan D.

Deb said...

Very interesting, post, Dan. I have always thought that this story reflected a teaching style by Jesus to get the questioner thinking for him/herself: ie: by defending why Jesus should heal her, the Canaanite woman (and those around her) better understand the truth of the Gospel message.

The General Assembly did not lift the ban on gay ordination. They proposed new wording for the Book of Order, which must first be ratified by a majority vote of presbyteries within the next year to become effective.

The proposed language would delete the wording that church officers must live "within the covenant o marriage between and man and a woman or chastity in singleness" to wording that those called to ordained service in the church "pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ . . ."

Steven said...

Dan, once again, a thoughtful reflection. I'm repeating what we all know - that this is a difficult as hell passage. But thank you. The part that is particularly biting when I read it again is the racial slur. It's a difficult thing to imagine - well, it's easy to imagine but it sits like a million ton weight in my stomach - to imagine Jesus using other, more contemporary slurs and saying the same thing. It sits just as hard if not harder to know the church actively participates in such exclusion.

Daniel G. Deffenbaugh said...

Deb and Steve,

I appreciate your comments very much. Deb, I have seen this decision on the part of the General Assembly described in various ways. Some journalists (e.g., in The L.A. Times) refer to an overturning of "a long-standing ban"; others make reference to an "institutional barrier" to gay and lesbian ordination. Requiring that someone ordained in the Presbyterian Church (USA) be committed to a husband or wife in marriage (defined as a covenant between a man and a woman), or that he or she remain single and chaste, seems to amount to a pretty strict prohibition for non-heterosexuals who are seeking both a personal commitment to a same-sex partner AND ordination. Still, in deference to your comment, I have changed the language in my blog to read "removed the institutional barriers to gay and lesbian ordination." Thank you for the clarification. I only hope that the presbyteries will move past semantics and ahead into the future of the church. Given the response from one hate group at the GA, I don't think it will be an easy row to hoe.

Steve, you need to send me your new e-mail address. I've been wondering about your new position in Kearney. I hope all is going well.

Dan D.

Anonymous said...

Mr. D,
A nice serendipity to read your post today. Interesting to watch Jesus sinking in the distraction of this "Canaanite woman" (insult to injury - no name and a racial slur). Is this the same guy who also just admonished his followers to watch their mouths. I can picture the time an older sibling got a bar of soap snack...LOL

While I resonate with your take on an oral tradition that sought to keep clear the "chosen ones" from the "others," I am not convinced that this mentality has not only survived, but still dominates the core of 'mainline' (intentional junkie imagery useage only) Christianity. What's in and what's out (Gambling, Guns, Gays...) is a fun parlor game distracting from the deeper truth of just who's in and who's out. After all we would all agree that these somebody's kids speaking hear...

Did Jesus sense that allowing himself to save at least some face (I would have died to hear a genuine apology as well) by healing this mother's child would sink his sacred trust just as quickly as we would/could if we dared honor a marriage license for Lars or any of the countless GLBT folks we look over as we cling to the fallacy that the ranks are ripe for a new orthodoxy...

You are right, I wonder if I would have (or will have) half the guts to call out the church's injustice in the face of it's systemic marginalizing of the others. Stay or walk away... "Should I stay or should I go now. I if I go ther will be trouble. If I stay it will be double..." - The Clash

Deb said...

I will be watching the presbyteries' votes with interest, as well. As a fellow Midwesterner (just south of the border in Kansas) I suspect the votes will reflect the narrow margin with which the GA passed the proposed new wording (something like 52-48%, but I can't remember exactly.)

My problem with this whole flap is that I think many people don't view it as a question of whether gays should be ordained, but whether gays should be allowed in church at all. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be an issue in many small, rural churches, because likely a gay couple and/or known gay individual might not feel welcome enough to stick around long.

We're seeing splits in the pcusa over this issue. Interestingly enough, some of the groups that split off go to governing bodies that also are against ordination of women.

I have a hard time interpreting the story of the Canaanite woman in a way that casts Jesus as a bigot. I still believe it's a challenge by Jesus to make us really think about why we would believe anyone is outside of God's grace.

Celia Milton, Civil Celebrant said...

Thank you for this wonderful post. I am in the process of writing my sermon for Sunday, and I am going to use part of your post (with credit of course!) as my "contemporary reading".

The "tagline" for our particular church is, "Come as you are, leave as you'd like to be", and for the wider denomination, "Never put a period where God put a comma; God is still speaking."

We traffick in acceptance, and what a richer theological experience this creates. When we venture forward in hospitality, we always learn more about our own theology.

Thank you so much,

Celia Milton, www.celiamilton.com

Kevin said...

I'm not sure if it helps anyone with preaching necessarily, but I find it fascinating that Jesus' response "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" is *not* directed at the woman, but rather at the disciples, in response to their desire to send her away.

Also, I find the Lars and the Girl example to be of little help in the push to remove institutional barriers. If that is the metaphor to use, then the next question for some will be: "would you allow Lars to be your pastor?" Or, more bluntly, "yes the community welcomes Lars and his girl, but you don't see them offering him any positions of leadership, now do you?"

Again, I'm simply doing a bit of devil's advocate here, I do not mean this to stand as my opinion or a personal attack against anyone.

Joke of the Day:
Q: What is a metaphor?
A: Cows.
Hint: Say it out loud, slowly.

Jeff said...

Dan-
Thanks for your fresh look at what remains a difficult passage. It is disturbing that faith communities still isolate and neglect the other. Check out this website "allianceofbaptists.org" (particularly the links to mission, covenant, and statements. I belong to a movement of progressive Christians - baptists - that have decided to call, ordain, and include fully in its work and ministry GLBT persons. Best wishes in your life and work.

lcvalin said...

I am excommunicated Lutheran doctor.
I attempted to bring teenage unmarried sexually active member/patient to church discipline process. I was told by church and government I could not violate medical confidentiality. Just noticed my Roman Catholic medical working neighbor taking his dog for a walk on this fine Sunday morning. I am somewhat alienated from him on medical basis and also to less degree denominational basis. I think of Jesus in a type of flirtation similar to Samaritan woman at well. The tension is increased by at least minimal resistance. If you hang around Jews especially orthodox, you will realize they consider Christianity to be Gentile Dog religion today.
I think of Elijah and his dependence and hers on him of Gentile woman in famine. She also had problem with her child. Jesus got in trouble for repeating story in his home congregation. I think of Jezebel who eventually became dog meat. See Romans 9 passage for today. It is interesting that you turned focus to pro-gay apologetic. Canaanite dogs were Baal worshiping
male homosexuals.I think of Elijah and his dependence and hers on him of Gentile woman in famine. She also had problem with her child. 1 Kings 17. Jesus got in trouble for repeating story in his home congregation. I think of Jezebel who eventually became dog meat. See Romans 9 passage for today.
17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Torah Commentary Reformed states, "Dog. Here used as a pejorative, to describe a male prostitute. The simile is found in a Phoenician inscription also. Dogs were not considered domesticated in biblical times and were considered wild beasts."

Anitra said...

Hi Daniel!

I think you are right to claim the community theme in this passage - and who claims community and who rejects community and how expanding those claims can change us.

I think the Canaanite Mother is claiming Jesus as a member of her community, a claim that Jesus comes to see as legitimate.

I think the challenge of this uncomfortable passage is reconciling Jesus' initial rough refusal with our understanding of his dual nature of fully human and fully God. The question to be answered is: "What is God doing calling this woman such a low name?

The answer I worked out - at least for this last Sunday - is in the impossibly co-existent dual nature of "fully human" which is to say a limited and bounded being that gets tired and cranky and concerned about just how many hours there are in a day and "fully God" who isn't limited nor bounded nor dies and pretty much has all day - all eternity to heal and to also allow the human to make mistakes and to learn. Jesus does learn here. Jesus does change. And the daughter is healed. And God makes gracious room for Jesus to be human and to learn.

I also think that one of the take-aways for us is to be keeping our own eyes open to where we are drawing up boundaries of community where God - who is in God's trinitarian essence a community - is more interested in breaking down the walls rather than building them up.

btw - For the best explanation of what is going on with the PC(USA) and Ordination issues - please visit
http://www.pcusa.org/constitutionalservices/ad-op/note22.htm

lars shalom said...

fantastic