by Peter L. DeGroote
I am again puzzling over how the church got into the business of judging some people as inferior, unworthy, as not fully human. I have puzzled over this before—it seems to come in 5-year cycles.
This process of judging got started in the early church, contrary to Jesus’ teachings about not judging. Getting a little closer to our own time, the following is a list of groups that much of the church has viewed as inferior, unworthy, sinful, or not fully human during the past couple of centuries.
- Those not of white European origin.
- People in interracial marriages and their children.
- Jews
- Women, more recently add Feminists
- Gays and lesbians.
- Those who disagree with the churches judgment.
- (You might add more but the above makes the point.)
Energy in support of the list remains, although waning for some. I once had a KKK member visit the parsonage in order to tell me they were defending traditional Christianity; an argument that continues to be used against women and Jews as well. An appeal to tradition glosses over a multitude of sins. Gay and lesbian behavior is the most recent addition to the list.
Over the years these groups have been the most common targets of what we now call hate crimes. The judgment of the church has given permission for those hate crimes. I am weary of religious leaders who demean and defame whole groups of people in their speaking and writing and then deny any responsibility for the violence their words have triggered. More, I am offended by those who have recently claimed that in their condemnation of gay and lesbian people they speak for God—it is so easy to be a Christian without being a follower of Jesus.
Jesus told us to pray for and try to reconcile with our enemies. Consequently, the church has seldom called these groups of people their enemies, but that is precisely what they have been. As enemies, their rights, roles and privileges both inside the Church and in society have been proscribed, to say the least. In short, the Church has been an oppressor. I am reminded that reaching out to those oppressed by a religious establishment that judged them unworthy was at the core of Jesus’ ministry.
By definition, oppression creates enmity. That enmity is produced by and produces fear, anger, hostility and resentment within both the oppressed and the oppressor. These feelings are capable of spilling over into rage and violence.
These things have happened in our church homes. We need to face the fact that these judgments ultimately produce hatred. Hate is a like a virus. We cannot attack only a portion of a virus, thinking we will just retain our favorite little strain. Viruses mutate; so does hatred. It comes to attack us in other ways. We have to decide. Do we want to deal with love or with hate? There is no middle road; those two roads diverge in very different directions.
I remain puzzled over this tendency of both the institutional church and local churches to depart from Jesus’ teachings by dehumanizing, demonizing, and making enemies. Following are three hypotheses in the form of a question to start your thinking or a group discussion.
- Is it in the nature of institutions to assure its members that they are superior to others?
- Does the church’s preoccupation with personal salvation require that it judge others in order to provide examples of those who do not qualify?
- Do groups (and societies) need scapegoats to blame when things go wrong?
Get a group together let the rest of us know what you think.
Reconciling Ministries Network mobilizes United Methodists of all sexual orientations and gender identities to transform our Church and world into the full expression of Christ’s inclusive love.
Flip-Flopping
by Laura Young
We hear a lot about flip-flopping during political campaigns and the term jumped out at me during yesterday’s sermon.
First of all, let me say that I’m a big fan of Marcus Borg and have been fortunate enough to hear him lecture on quite a few occasions. He often provides handouts to accompany his lectures and tells his audiences to “borrow [his material] shamelessly”. I’m about to “borrow shamelessly” the core message from yesterday’s sermon and throw in a Dr. Phil quote as well – free of charge.
The lectionary text was Matthew 15: 21-28. This is the story of the Canaanite woman who comes to Jesus asking him to heal her daughter from demon possession. Part of their exchange includes Jesus saying to her, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” Remember that one? We studied the story from a perspective that was brand new to me. Jesus first showing some cultural and religious prejudice (Yikes!) and then allowing his mind to be changed!? (Hmmm) Could Jesus be accused of flip-flopping? Is this a bad thing? The sermon unpacked all the cultural and religious traditions out of which Jesus had initially responded, but I can’t reproduce that part. (I missed half of it because I was making modern day comparisons in my head.) Yes, we have stories of politicians flip-flopping for all the wrong reasons, but what about when a person flip-flops because they now know more and their heart has changed? Dr. Phil has been quoted saying, “we do the best we can with the information we have at the time.” Makes sense to me.
On one hand, this is a very risky biblical story because the “captain of our faith” who emerges from it produces a disorienting effect. Jesus showing cultural and religious prejudice? (We certainly aren’t willing to say that Jesus is prejudice.) On the other hand, anyone willing to take the risk, and leave the story fully intact - not giving in to temptation to rescue Jesus by reading all sorts of redeeming excuses into the story, but allowing the story to have its full disarming effect, can find rare help for overcoming one of the most difficult obstacles we face as people of faith . . . prejudice that seems to be required by our faith.
A disturbing amount of human prejudice is supported by various interpretations of scripture. The abandonment of prejudice, the crossing of traditional boundaries, is the good news of this story and maybe the very reason it was told. It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Jesus, himself, felt challenged, was willing to learn and then made a transition.
But isn’t that what good leaders do? They aren’t prideful or stubborn, sticking to a belief for a lifetime over and above all new insight and information to the contrary. Good leaders are perpetual learners and sometimes that means flip-flopping. I think this story might provide a rare biblical road map for faithful people who are struggling to let go of old traditional prejudices that seem to be required by their faith. It seems to me that Jesus might be giving us a wonderful example of how even a divine human being continues to learn and grow. It seems to me that Christ himself is showing us how to embrace new insight and delight in our “A-ha” moments. When faced with the decision to either continue cultural and religious prejudices or love his neighbor, Jesus crossed the traditional boundary of his time and chose to love his neighbor. I think I’ll call that “divine flip-flopping” and it gets my vote.
Posted in Author: Laura Young, Biblical Commentary, Spirituality | Permalink | Comments (2)
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us | |
|