Irreconcilable differences?
Commentary
Object:
In the movie Irreconcilable Differences, a ten-year-old girl sues her parents for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. It seems that her ambitious and upwardly mobile parents would rather embrace their careers than embrace their daughter. So the daughter takes them to court, asking the judge to place her with the maid, where at least she will get some attention. This comedy explores family dynamics and conflicting agendas in a positive yet lighthearted way.
The term "irreconcilable differences" predates the movie and even today is used sometimes as a way out of working on the hard issues of relationships. Congregations, although not employing the term, also act at times in ways that would lead one to believe that irreconcilable differences is simply another name for new church starts. But are differences within a faith community irreconcilable? Is there not another way for us? Today's texts might hold a clue to an answer.
Genesis 45:1-15
The passage before us is a beautiful and powerful story of reconciliation. Yet, precisely because it is so powerful, it raises significant issues about why one chooses reconciliation over grudge-bearing in the first place. We all know of (and most probably have been a party to) situations in which individuals refuse to extend forgiveness to their offender. Perhaps the hurt is too new or too deep. Perhaps holding on to anger seems more satisfying or more secure than the thought of allowing the anger to dissipate. Perhaps one's unforgivingness is one's way of ultimately getting even. Whatever the dynamic, harboring ill will continues to be a well-franchised cottage industry. All of which brings us back to the text with the question, "Why was Joseph so willing to forgive?" What factors motivated this reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers?
Let's not forget that Joseph had no need to forgive his brothers in the sense that they held some obligation over him. His was a position of strength and power; he had the upper hand. Usually we imagine that it is the weaker party that comes first to the table of forgiveness, because they lack something that only the stronger party can provide. Let's also remember that Joseph was the one wronged. Again, we usually expect the wrongdoer to take the initiative in reconciliation and not the victim. So what is going on in this text?
I want to suggest that today's lesson offers an anatomy of reconciliation and forgiveness. First, reconciliation occurs only when the pain of estrangement outweighs the pleasure of revenge. Joseph could no longer control himself (v. 1); he wept so loudly that the Egyptians heard it (v. 2). What we see here is Joseph's inability to contain the pain he felt over the separation from his brothers -- a cry of the soul that echoed through the chambers of time. Revenge is a powerful emotion and one that is not easily relinquished. But there comes that moment in the midst of estrangement when revenge loosens its grip on the heart and the pain of separation rushes in to fill the void. That moment may be brief and it may come only rarely, but when it does the opportunity for reconciliation is made possible.
Second, reconciliation occurs only when the pull of love is stronger than the push of indifference. Joseph asked, "Is my father still alive?" (v. 3). The antithesis of love is not hate, but indifference. Reconciliation cannot take place when one does not care -- either for right relationships or for the alienated party. Nothing is so cancerous to the emotions as unconcern. Indifference hardens the arteries of compassion and will eventually lead to heart failure. Love is ultimately stronger than indifference, but love will not enter the system without being invited. First Corinthians reminds us that love is not self-intrusive or pushy. Therefore, if love is to lead to reconciliation -- if its attraction is to overcome the repelling force of indifference -- then one must make room in the heart for love to do its work.
Third, reconciliation occurs only when the misdeed becomes a part of a larger canvas. The narrow and self-centered actions of the brothers take on a different coloration when set within the framework of God's broader and family-centered intentions. To be sure, it is extraordinarily difficult to look beyond the boundaries of individual injury in order to recognize the horizons of God's transformative purposes, but unless one is willing to reframe one's perspective, reconciliation cannot occur.
Finally, reconciliation occurs only when silence gives way to conversation. "And after that his brothers talked with him" (v. 15). One can understand how in the initial shock waves of estrangement, any meaningful conversation can be nigh unto impossible. Yet, it is a law of physics that shock waves lose their potency the further away from the epicenter they move. It is equally a law of reconciliation that the further one moves from the initial hurt the less potent the waves of retribution. Unless -- unless one works at re-emitting the waves of hurt by a constant revisiting of the wound, which in turn creates a pain-induced silence. On the other hand, if one allows the waves of estrangement to work its natural dissipation, then space is created for the reverberative sounds of conversation. And it is when the estranged begin to talk with one another that the deafening silence gives way to the music of reconciliation.
Romans 11:1-2a, 29-32
In this letter to Gentile believers in Jesus, Paul is intent on correcting misimpressions of his teaching and gospel. One of those misimpressions is that Paul preaches a gospel that excludes Jews, as followers of the law, from the salvation offered by God. In chapters 9-11 Paul is attempting to work out the dynamics of this mystery in which the Gentiles are grafted into the vine of God without severing the Jewish root.
Traditional theology has come to the text with a set of assumptions not predicated on this text. That set of assumptions understands that Jesus is not only God's means of inclusion for the Gentiles, but that somehow God's covenant with the Jews has been superseded and replaced by the necessity of a Christ-centered inclusion for the Jews as well. Traditional theology has read the ultimate inclusion of the Jews as a time when they would accept Christ and thereby become a part of the church. It cannot be emphasized enough that Paul says neither of these things, either here or anywhere else in his writings.
At the beginning of chapter 11 the question is asked, either by Paul or by his fictive conversation partner, "Based on all that was said in the previous two chapters, has God rejected his people?" Paul responds in the strongest possible terms, "Absolutely not!" He identifies himself as an Israelite with an unassailable pedigree and states again that God has not rejected his covenant people, the Jews.
There seems to me to be very sound theological grounds upon which we would want to affirm Paul's insistence that God is not a covenant-breaker. If the nature of God is such that he can (and in this instance does) decide to change the rules of covenant, then what assurance do we have that God will not change the rules yet again, only this time leaving the worshipers of Christ as the outsiders needing to adjust their covenantal understandings with God's new reality? To claim that Jesus is clearly prophesied in the Hebrew scripture and therefore that the Jews should have been ready for the Messianic advent is to read those scriptures through the lenses of Christianity and not as they would have been normatively understood. We must approach this text in a way that honors the trustworthiness of the covenant-making God.
That seems to be exactly what Paul is doing. Although what God has done and is doing remains a mystery to him, Paul is unwilling to affirm anything less than the inviolability of God's covenant with God's people, "for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (v. 29).
Paul does not try to explain the "why" of God's actions to use first the Jews and then the Gentiles to make the other jealous. Nor is Paul completely clear on how it will all work out. He is certain, however, about a couple of things. First, he is certain that through Jesus Gentiles have standing before God and that it is unnecessary, even undesirable, for Gentiles to find their way to God through Torah-based Judaism. For the Gentiles, Jesus is the sufficient means for acceptance by God (salvation). Second, Paul is certain that the covenant made between God and the Jewish people is still in effect. Torah-keeping remains a legitimate means by which the Jews can express their covenant connection with God. God may favor one for the sake of the other or favor the other for the sake of the one, but that is God's business and Paul confesses his ignorance in unraveling that mystery (v. 33). Note that nowhere in this passage does Paul indicate explicitly or implicitly that the salvation of the Jews will be dependent upon anything other than their obedience to Torah. To read this otherwise is to read it with a certain Christian assumption and presumption.
It is God's desire to be merciful to all (v. 32) -- we would do well to follow God's lead.
Matthew 15:10-28
In the Jewish religious system of Jesus' day purity concerns were no small matter. Consider, for example, the emphasis on purity by the Qumran community (considered by some to be Essenes) as reflected in the Dead Sea documents. Purity issues also made it into the Talmud, which regulated kashrut (kosher) matters well after the first century AD. It should come as no surprise, then, that the religious leaders of Jesus' time took seriously purity concerns as legitimate expressions of obedience to God. To see this concern as somehow picayunish is to seriously misread the cultural and religious importance of purity.
Beginning with verse 1, three fourths of chapter 15 has to do with purity issues, including today's focus text. The first matter raised by the Pharisees involved ritual cleansing prior to eating a meal. "On what authority," the Pharisees asked Jesus, "do your disciples transgress the tradition of our fathers when it comes to pre-meal purity?" (v. 2). Jesus' first response was to remind his critics that when it came to picking and choosing which traditions to follow and which to ignore, his disciples certainly did not have a corner on the market (vv. 3-6).
Next Jesus expanded the discussion beyond the narrow concern of washing before meals to a general discourse on food purity (vv. 10-20). "More important than what you eat," Jesus said, "is what you do with the energy produced by that food. Keeping kosher is fine, but keeping a non-kosher stomach is inconsequential when compared to keeping a non-kosher heart." The disciples approached Jesus to suggest that he guard his words a bit more carefully -- after all, the Pharisees were already upset over his previous remarks on purity. While he was at it, they asked, could he drop the parable stuff and speak in plain Aramaic for once?
In response, Jesus does exactly that. "You know," he says, "that food going into the mouth enters the stomach and ultimately finds its way into the latrine. Well, what happens when the mouth is not the entry portal for physical waste, but is instead the exit portal for spiritual waste?" An unclean heart leads to more defilement and separation from God than do unclean hands. Therefore, focus on the heart.
Matthew next places into this context an incident that furthers the discussion on purity, though in a less than direct way. A Canaanite woman, unclean and impure by Jewish standards, seeks the intervention of Jesus for her demon-possessed daughter. Despite the woman's loud and incessant pleas, Jesus simply ignores her. This scene creates something of an embarrassment for the disciples and so they encourage Jesus to give her what she wants and send her away.
At this point the interpreter must make a decision on whether Jesus is speaking and acting out of his own sense of propriety or if he is modeling out in a mocking way the attitude of his disciples and Jewish religious leaders. If Jesus is speaking for himself, I am not sure how to resolve the harshness of this story. Therefore, I will take the view that Jesus is mocking contemporary attitudes by responding to the disciples, "Hey, you guys keep harping about purity, so I am just doing what you want me to do. God's grace, as you keep reminding me, is meant only for the folks who are clean, the house of Israel. So I am not going to waste my time with the unclean."
Turning to the woman whose pleas turned to desperation, Jesus said, "My folks consider your folks little better than dogs with no right to sit down at the table of God's bounty." Her response was just the sort of teaching moment for which Jesus was hoping. She said, "I know I am not pure enough to sit at the table, but could I not simply lap up some of God's mercy as it drips off of the table into impurity?"
When such a mirror is held up to one's attitude of rules being more important than people, shame-induced compassion is the only appropriate response.
Application
For a community that is based not only on the concept of reconciliation, but also on a divine act of reconciliation, the Christian community can be the most fractious and unreconciled group in the neighborhood. Petty quarrels that fester like ripe sores, disagreements that dissolve into personality differences rather than issue differences, side-choosing and gossip-mongering, all of these contribute to congregations becoming among the most reconcile-free zones around.
The three texts for today come at this idea of reconciliation from different directions and work together to challenge us to fulfill Paul's admonition to be ministers of reconciliation. The Genesis text is the most obvious of the three in addressing reconciliation, and that theme has been dealt with in the commentary above.
The issue that this text raises, however, is how difficult it is to reconcile with those who are closest to you. This is true for a number of reasons -- among them is that those who are closest to us oftentimes cause the deepest hurt, and that when dealing with family and friends pride has a way of raising its head in a way that it does not with those who are less close to us. Joseph seems not to have near the difficulty of forgiving those who were responsible for his imprisonment as he did in forgiving his brothers. But the hard truth is that unless we can forgive those closest to us then reconciliation will remain an ideal and not a reality.
Romans 11 offers us an equally difficult challenge of reconciliation -- that is reconciliation with divine mystery. We only like the types of mysteries in which the enigma is resolved by the end of the story. Mysteries that leave us hanging with unresolved questions and unclear certainties are not only uncomfortable for us, but lead us to construct our own story endings. If God is unclear about certain matters, then we will make up our own theology and act as though it is the word of God. After all, faith is the assurance of things known, the evidence of things visible, right? We want certitude, finality, clarity, if for no other reason than to assure ourselves that we are right and others are less so.
Paul provides for us an example of one who can reconcile himself to divine mystery and still trust God's action in Christ. The Jews worship and believe differently than Paul's community; yet they are irrevocably the people of God. Paul's community comes at faith in God apart from Torah observance, yet they too are the people of God. Paul avoids the temptation to solve God's dilemma for God and reconciles himself to divine mystery, leaving it to God to work out the details. Sometimes the most difficult three words for a follower of Christ to utter are "I don't know."
The Matthew text leads us to a consideration of the reconciliation of thoughts and deeds. For some, actions are all-important or to put it another way, rules rule. "Ought" is the operative word. One is judged by conformity to expected behavior, attendance at functions, and participation in the myriad gatherings whose purposes are forgotten but meeting dates aren't. The roll-takers at religious meetings and events tend to rate "doing" over "thought" on the list of priorities.
Conversely, there are those for whom action means little. What is important is having right thoughts, correct theology, and systematic study of the foundational documents. Time spent in activity is less important and in some ways less desirable than the theoretical discussion of what should be done and why.
What the community of faith needs is a reconciliation of these two approaches to faith. Too often we sit within our stained-glass fortresses studying about global issues but never leaving the fortress to act upon what we have learned. At other times we burn ourselves out in acts of service while ignoring the needful recharging that comes through contemplation and community. Jesus reminds us in Matthew that it is the reconciliation of purity laws (deeds) with processions of the heart (thoughts) that leads to wholeness.
Alternative Applications
Romans 11:1-2a, 29-32. Another theme throughout the biblical record is how God uses the negative intentions of people and events to accomplish his purposes. From the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to Assyrian and Babylonian military might, bad news is turned into good news in the hands of God. So it is in this passage where Jewish rejection of Jesus leads to Gentile inclusion through Christ. One approach to this text might be a review of this history of bad news becoming good news.
Matthew 15:10-28. If it is true that what proceeds from the heart either uplifts or defiles, then how does one safeguard that only that which uplifts proceeds from the heart? It is one thing to say, "Watch what comes for the heart"; it is quite another to know how to fill the heart with good things so good things come forth. Instruction on how to gain an unpolluted heart in the first place might be helpful to a congregation wanting to live up to the intentions of this passage.
Preaching the Psalm
Schuyler Rhodes
Psalm 133
Living in unity
"How very good and pleasant it is when the kindred live together in unity." Unity is a wonderful concept. It has an innate appeal that calls virtually everyone to its side. Somehow, down deep, we all know that unity is good. And in some fashion or other, most people seek unity. In families, at work, in communities, and even in our national life, we seek and even desire unity.
However, the question has to come about that which brings unity. What is it that unites? Is it an idea? Is it common experience? Is it a charismatic leader? Is it a religious belief? All these things, in one way or another, have united people in the past. And in these times, many are seeking that which might once again unite us as a people.
Yet even as we read this psalm and breathe in our affirmation of the unity of the "kindred," the hard truth is that unity does not come easily to human beings. Indeed, disunity seems more natural to us as we splinter across the globe with different politics, religions, ideologies, cultures, and races. Anyone who has tried to build community on any level can attest to the countless lists of things that can divide people. From petty ego obsessions to selfish temper tantrums and back again, the list of that which divides is longer than anyone cares to admit. The truth is that people don't simply come together for no reason at all.
What is it, then, that can build unity?
It is, perhaps, a touch arrogant to approach such a heady topic in the few words allotted here, but this much seems true. Unity is not conformity. Unity is best forged in the celebration of diversity around a central core principle. For us, our unity is in Jesus Christ. It is not in ideology or doctrine or styles of worship or cultural affect. No. Our unity is in the love we share in Christ. This love is our unifying principle. It is deeper than our divisions, broader than that which strives to divide us, and it is stronger than the world which seeks to overcome us.
When a community of people can let go of their cherished personal desires and preferences and reach for unity in love, things change. When people can embrace the Christian idea that self-giving love is redemptive, trust and community grow.
There are many things that can build unity. But for us, it is Christ Jesus. For us, unity grows from the love which accepts all people and calls them to a higher purpose: the purpose of love. And at the end of the day, the psalm has it right. It is indeed pleasant when the sisters and brothers live together in unity.
The term "irreconcilable differences" predates the movie and even today is used sometimes as a way out of working on the hard issues of relationships. Congregations, although not employing the term, also act at times in ways that would lead one to believe that irreconcilable differences is simply another name for new church starts. But are differences within a faith community irreconcilable? Is there not another way for us? Today's texts might hold a clue to an answer.
Genesis 45:1-15
The passage before us is a beautiful and powerful story of reconciliation. Yet, precisely because it is so powerful, it raises significant issues about why one chooses reconciliation over grudge-bearing in the first place. We all know of (and most probably have been a party to) situations in which individuals refuse to extend forgiveness to their offender. Perhaps the hurt is too new or too deep. Perhaps holding on to anger seems more satisfying or more secure than the thought of allowing the anger to dissipate. Perhaps one's unforgivingness is one's way of ultimately getting even. Whatever the dynamic, harboring ill will continues to be a well-franchised cottage industry. All of which brings us back to the text with the question, "Why was Joseph so willing to forgive?" What factors motivated this reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers?
Let's not forget that Joseph had no need to forgive his brothers in the sense that they held some obligation over him. His was a position of strength and power; he had the upper hand. Usually we imagine that it is the weaker party that comes first to the table of forgiveness, because they lack something that only the stronger party can provide. Let's also remember that Joseph was the one wronged. Again, we usually expect the wrongdoer to take the initiative in reconciliation and not the victim. So what is going on in this text?
I want to suggest that today's lesson offers an anatomy of reconciliation and forgiveness. First, reconciliation occurs only when the pain of estrangement outweighs the pleasure of revenge. Joseph could no longer control himself (v. 1); he wept so loudly that the Egyptians heard it (v. 2). What we see here is Joseph's inability to contain the pain he felt over the separation from his brothers -- a cry of the soul that echoed through the chambers of time. Revenge is a powerful emotion and one that is not easily relinquished. But there comes that moment in the midst of estrangement when revenge loosens its grip on the heart and the pain of separation rushes in to fill the void. That moment may be brief and it may come only rarely, but when it does the opportunity for reconciliation is made possible.
Second, reconciliation occurs only when the pull of love is stronger than the push of indifference. Joseph asked, "Is my father still alive?" (v. 3). The antithesis of love is not hate, but indifference. Reconciliation cannot take place when one does not care -- either for right relationships or for the alienated party. Nothing is so cancerous to the emotions as unconcern. Indifference hardens the arteries of compassion and will eventually lead to heart failure. Love is ultimately stronger than indifference, but love will not enter the system without being invited. First Corinthians reminds us that love is not self-intrusive or pushy. Therefore, if love is to lead to reconciliation -- if its attraction is to overcome the repelling force of indifference -- then one must make room in the heart for love to do its work.
Third, reconciliation occurs only when the misdeed becomes a part of a larger canvas. The narrow and self-centered actions of the brothers take on a different coloration when set within the framework of God's broader and family-centered intentions. To be sure, it is extraordinarily difficult to look beyond the boundaries of individual injury in order to recognize the horizons of God's transformative purposes, but unless one is willing to reframe one's perspective, reconciliation cannot occur.
Finally, reconciliation occurs only when silence gives way to conversation. "And after that his brothers talked with him" (v. 15). One can understand how in the initial shock waves of estrangement, any meaningful conversation can be nigh unto impossible. Yet, it is a law of physics that shock waves lose their potency the further away from the epicenter they move. It is equally a law of reconciliation that the further one moves from the initial hurt the less potent the waves of retribution. Unless -- unless one works at re-emitting the waves of hurt by a constant revisiting of the wound, which in turn creates a pain-induced silence. On the other hand, if one allows the waves of estrangement to work its natural dissipation, then space is created for the reverberative sounds of conversation. And it is when the estranged begin to talk with one another that the deafening silence gives way to the music of reconciliation.
Romans 11:1-2a, 29-32
In this letter to Gentile believers in Jesus, Paul is intent on correcting misimpressions of his teaching and gospel. One of those misimpressions is that Paul preaches a gospel that excludes Jews, as followers of the law, from the salvation offered by God. In chapters 9-11 Paul is attempting to work out the dynamics of this mystery in which the Gentiles are grafted into the vine of God without severing the Jewish root.
Traditional theology has come to the text with a set of assumptions not predicated on this text. That set of assumptions understands that Jesus is not only God's means of inclusion for the Gentiles, but that somehow God's covenant with the Jews has been superseded and replaced by the necessity of a Christ-centered inclusion for the Jews as well. Traditional theology has read the ultimate inclusion of the Jews as a time when they would accept Christ and thereby become a part of the church. It cannot be emphasized enough that Paul says neither of these things, either here or anywhere else in his writings.
At the beginning of chapter 11 the question is asked, either by Paul or by his fictive conversation partner, "Based on all that was said in the previous two chapters, has God rejected his people?" Paul responds in the strongest possible terms, "Absolutely not!" He identifies himself as an Israelite with an unassailable pedigree and states again that God has not rejected his covenant people, the Jews.
There seems to me to be very sound theological grounds upon which we would want to affirm Paul's insistence that God is not a covenant-breaker. If the nature of God is such that he can (and in this instance does) decide to change the rules of covenant, then what assurance do we have that God will not change the rules yet again, only this time leaving the worshipers of Christ as the outsiders needing to adjust their covenantal understandings with God's new reality? To claim that Jesus is clearly prophesied in the Hebrew scripture and therefore that the Jews should have been ready for the Messianic advent is to read those scriptures through the lenses of Christianity and not as they would have been normatively understood. We must approach this text in a way that honors the trustworthiness of the covenant-making God.
That seems to be exactly what Paul is doing. Although what God has done and is doing remains a mystery to him, Paul is unwilling to affirm anything less than the inviolability of God's covenant with God's people, "for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (v. 29).
Paul does not try to explain the "why" of God's actions to use first the Jews and then the Gentiles to make the other jealous. Nor is Paul completely clear on how it will all work out. He is certain, however, about a couple of things. First, he is certain that through Jesus Gentiles have standing before God and that it is unnecessary, even undesirable, for Gentiles to find their way to God through Torah-based Judaism. For the Gentiles, Jesus is the sufficient means for acceptance by God (salvation). Second, Paul is certain that the covenant made between God and the Jewish people is still in effect. Torah-keeping remains a legitimate means by which the Jews can express their covenant connection with God. God may favor one for the sake of the other or favor the other for the sake of the one, but that is God's business and Paul confesses his ignorance in unraveling that mystery (v. 33). Note that nowhere in this passage does Paul indicate explicitly or implicitly that the salvation of the Jews will be dependent upon anything other than their obedience to Torah. To read this otherwise is to read it with a certain Christian assumption and presumption.
It is God's desire to be merciful to all (v. 32) -- we would do well to follow God's lead.
Matthew 15:10-28
In the Jewish religious system of Jesus' day purity concerns were no small matter. Consider, for example, the emphasis on purity by the Qumran community (considered by some to be Essenes) as reflected in the Dead Sea documents. Purity issues also made it into the Talmud, which regulated kashrut (kosher) matters well after the first century AD. It should come as no surprise, then, that the religious leaders of Jesus' time took seriously purity concerns as legitimate expressions of obedience to God. To see this concern as somehow picayunish is to seriously misread the cultural and religious importance of purity.
Beginning with verse 1, three fourths of chapter 15 has to do with purity issues, including today's focus text. The first matter raised by the Pharisees involved ritual cleansing prior to eating a meal. "On what authority," the Pharisees asked Jesus, "do your disciples transgress the tradition of our fathers when it comes to pre-meal purity?" (v. 2). Jesus' first response was to remind his critics that when it came to picking and choosing which traditions to follow and which to ignore, his disciples certainly did not have a corner on the market (vv. 3-6).
Next Jesus expanded the discussion beyond the narrow concern of washing before meals to a general discourse on food purity (vv. 10-20). "More important than what you eat," Jesus said, "is what you do with the energy produced by that food. Keeping kosher is fine, but keeping a non-kosher stomach is inconsequential when compared to keeping a non-kosher heart." The disciples approached Jesus to suggest that he guard his words a bit more carefully -- after all, the Pharisees were already upset over his previous remarks on purity. While he was at it, they asked, could he drop the parable stuff and speak in plain Aramaic for once?
In response, Jesus does exactly that. "You know," he says, "that food going into the mouth enters the stomach and ultimately finds its way into the latrine. Well, what happens when the mouth is not the entry portal for physical waste, but is instead the exit portal for spiritual waste?" An unclean heart leads to more defilement and separation from God than do unclean hands. Therefore, focus on the heart.
Matthew next places into this context an incident that furthers the discussion on purity, though in a less than direct way. A Canaanite woman, unclean and impure by Jewish standards, seeks the intervention of Jesus for her demon-possessed daughter. Despite the woman's loud and incessant pleas, Jesus simply ignores her. This scene creates something of an embarrassment for the disciples and so they encourage Jesus to give her what she wants and send her away.
At this point the interpreter must make a decision on whether Jesus is speaking and acting out of his own sense of propriety or if he is modeling out in a mocking way the attitude of his disciples and Jewish religious leaders. If Jesus is speaking for himself, I am not sure how to resolve the harshness of this story. Therefore, I will take the view that Jesus is mocking contemporary attitudes by responding to the disciples, "Hey, you guys keep harping about purity, so I am just doing what you want me to do. God's grace, as you keep reminding me, is meant only for the folks who are clean, the house of Israel. So I am not going to waste my time with the unclean."
Turning to the woman whose pleas turned to desperation, Jesus said, "My folks consider your folks little better than dogs with no right to sit down at the table of God's bounty." Her response was just the sort of teaching moment for which Jesus was hoping. She said, "I know I am not pure enough to sit at the table, but could I not simply lap up some of God's mercy as it drips off of the table into impurity?"
When such a mirror is held up to one's attitude of rules being more important than people, shame-induced compassion is the only appropriate response.
Application
For a community that is based not only on the concept of reconciliation, but also on a divine act of reconciliation, the Christian community can be the most fractious and unreconciled group in the neighborhood. Petty quarrels that fester like ripe sores, disagreements that dissolve into personality differences rather than issue differences, side-choosing and gossip-mongering, all of these contribute to congregations becoming among the most reconcile-free zones around.
The three texts for today come at this idea of reconciliation from different directions and work together to challenge us to fulfill Paul's admonition to be ministers of reconciliation. The Genesis text is the most obvious of the three in addressing reconciliation, and that theme has been dealt with in the commentary above.
The issue that this text raises, however, is how difficult it is to reconcile with those who are closest to you. This is true for a number of reasons -- among them is that those who are closest to us oftentimes cause the deepest hurt, and that when dealing with family and friends pride has a way of raising its head in a way that it does not with those who are less close to us. Joseph seems not to have near the difficulty of forgiving those who were responsible for his imprisonment as he did in forgiving his brothers. But the hard truth is that unless we can forgive those closest to us then reconciliation will remain an ideal and not a reality.
Romans 11 offers us an equally difficult challenge of reconciliation -- that is reconciliation with divine mystery. We only like the types of mysteries in which the enigma is resolved by the end of the story. Mysteries that leave us hanging with unresolved questions and unclear certainties are not only uncomfortable for us, but lead us to construct our own story endings. If God is unclear about certain matters, then we will make up our own theology and act as though it is the word of God. After all, faith is the assurance of things known, the evidence of things visible, right? We want certitude, finality, clarity, if for no other reason than to assure ourselves that we are right and others are less so.
Paul provides for us an example of one who can reconcile himself to divine mystery and still trust God's action in Christ. The Jews worship and believe differently than Paul's community; yet they are irrevocably the people of God. Paul's community comes at faith in God apart from Torah observance, yet they too are the people of God. Paul avoids the temptation to solve God's dilemma for God and reconciles himself to divine mystery, leaving it to God to work out the details. Sometimes the most difficult three words for a follower of Christ to utter are "I don't know."
The Matthew text leads us to a consideration of the reconciliation of thoughts and deeds. For some, actions are all-important or to put it another way, rules rule. "Ought" is the operative word. One is judged by conformity to expected behavior, attendance at functions, and participation in the myriad gatherings whose purposes are forgotten but meeting dates aren't. The roll-takers at religious meetings and events tend to rate "doing" over "thought" on the list of priorities.
Conversely, there are those for whom action means little. What is important is having right thoughts, correct theology, and systematic study of the foundational documents. Time spent in activity is less important and in some ways less desirable than the theoretical discussion of what should be done and why.
What the community of faith needs is a reconciliation of these two approaches to faith. Too often we sit within our stained-glass fortresses studying about global issues but never leaving the fortress to act upon what we have learned. At other times we burn ourselves out in acts of service while ignoring the needful recharging that comes through contemplation and community. Jesus reminds us in Matthew that it is the reconciliation of purity laws (deeds) with processions of the heart (thoughts) that leads to wholeness.
Alternative Applications
Romans 11:1-2a, 29-32. Another theme throughout the biblical record is how God uses the negative intentions of people and events to accomplish his purposes. From the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to Assyrian and Babylonian military might, bad news is turned into good news in the hands of God. So it is in this passage where Jewish rejection of Jesus leads to Gentile inclusion through Christ. One approach to this text might be a review of this history of bad news becoming good news.
Matthew 15:10-28. If it is true that what proceeds from the heart either uplifts or defiles, then how does one safeguard that only that which uplifts proceeds from the heart? It is one thing to say, "Watch what comes for the heart"; it is quite another to know how to fill the heart with good things so good things come forth. Instruction on how to gain an unpolluted heart in the first place might be helpful to a congregation wanting to live up to the intentions of this passage.
Preaching the Psalm
Schuyler Rhodes
Psalm 133
Living in unity
"How very good and pleasant it is when the kindred live together in unity." Unity is a wonderful concept. It has an innate appeal that calls virtually everyone to its side. Somehow, down deep, we all know that unity is good. And in some fashion or other, most people seek unity. In families, at work, in communities, and even in our national life, we seek and even desire unity.
However, the question has to come about that which brings unity. What is it that unites? Is it an idea? Is it common experience? Is it a charismatic leader? Is it a religious belief? All these things, in one way or another, have united people in the past. And in these times, many are seeking that which might once again unite us as a people.
Yet even as we read this psalm and breathe in our affirmation of the unity of the "kindred," the hard truth is that unity does not come easily to human beings. Indeed, disunity seems more natural to us as we splinter across the globe with different politics, religions, ideologies, cultures, and races. Anyone who has tried to build community on any level can attest to the countless lists of things that can divide people. From petty ego obsessions to selfish temper tantrums and back again, the list of that which divides is longer than anyone cares to admit. The truth is that people don't simply come together for no reason at all.
What is it, then, that can build unity?
It is, perhaps, a touch arrogant to approach such a heady topic in the few words allotted here, but this much seems true. Unity is not conformity. Unity is best forged in the celebration of diversity around a central core principle. For us, our unity is in Jesus Christ. It is not in ideology or doctrine or styles of worship or cultural affect. No. Our unity is in the love we share in Christ. This love is our unifying principle. It is deeper than our divisions, broader than that which strives to divide us, and it is stronger than the world which seeks to overcome us.
When a community of people can let go of their cherished personal desires and preferences and reach for unity in love, things change. When people can embrace the Christian idea that self-giving love is redemptive, trust and community grow.
There are many things that can build unity. But for us, it is Christ Jesus. For us, unity grows from the love which accepts all people and calls them to a higher purpose: the purpose of love. And at the end of the day, the psalm has it right. It is indeed pleasant when the sisters and brothers live together in unity.
