Inclusion vs. Language that Divides
The Rev. Mark Sherwindt, Pastor
Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church
Pentecost 14: August 17, 2008
We have heard a rather lengthy reading from the Gospel of Matthew, with one part set apart in brackets suggesting that it is optional. I meet on Tuesdays with a group of clergy colleagues, and we spent some time this past week wondering whether the first half had much to do with the second half. We were all agreed on the way in which all three texts are talking about inclusion, about how God's grace and God's people are working to include all whom God has called, chosen, loved, and saved. What is more, we were all agreed on what an engaging and on-going challenge this is for those whom God has called to be his people.
The First Lesson addresses the challenge that arose when God's people, who had long before witnessed the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple at the hands of the armies of Babylon, were allowed by Cyrus to return to Israel. One of the key questions (and challenges) they faced had to do with how to integrate foreigners who had married and formed families with God's people while they were living in exile. The rules that are set forth in Isaiah 56 are less important than the intention behind them, namely, to map out a way to include the outsider, to make room in Israel for those who were different from lifelong members whose roots in the community of God's people went back generations. This theme is found everywhere in the First Lesson. The call to “maintain justice” and “do what is right” is the sort of equalizer that doesn't require multi-generational roots in Israel. The demands to keep the Sabbath, hold fast the covenant, love the Lord: these, too, are intended to welcome foreigners who want to join themselves to God's people. The challenge in our First Lesson is inclusion.
This issue is also the premise of the Second Lesson. Paul was struggling with the Good News that Jews and Gentiles, insiders and outsiders, the Circumcised and the Uncircumcised, devout practicing Jews and persons of piety who knew nothing about Judaism, folks who were different ethnically, religiously, politically, socially, and in every conceivable way, had, in fact, become one in Christ. People from many backgrounds were brought together in the church, a community that in real history overcame differences, divisions, historic hatreds, even personal rivalries. This miracle was based on a two-fold equality. Believers were both reduced by the blood of Christ to the humbling equality that knows that we are all sinners, and at the same time were lifted up by the Good News that in the body of Christ all of us - men and women, rich and poor, slave and free - have equality of access to the grace of God, the love of Christ, and the gifts of the Spirit. Paul is struggling to find a language that can affirm the mystery of God's unyielding faithfulness that can be trusted to find a way that will result in God's people Israel finding their way into the life God has given His people in Christ. The covenants are irrevocable. God's faithfulness is sure. God's promises are forever. What Paul is saying is that there can be no doubt that somehow and some way, Jews and Christians, God's people of old and God's people by grace, will someday become that “one great fellowship of love” that God intended, promised, and has now created in Christ. [Lutheran Book of Worship, #359, In Christ There is No East or West]
This brings us to our Gospel, where the theme of inclusion is clearly obvious in the reference to a Canaanite woman, an unwanted outsider, whom Jesus dismissed as not even to be regarded as being among the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This unwanted outsider was willing to compare herself to a lowly dog eating the crumbs that fall from the Master's table; and at that, Jesus disregards the many degrees of separation that made her an unwanted, undesirable outsider, and he reaches out with the mercy of God's grace, to restore her daughter to health immediately. This is the first instance in Matthew's Gospel, where Jesus provides a glimpse of the way in which his ministry and kingdom reach beyond customary boundaries, beyond traditional divisions, beyond historic ministries, to include all who need the help of God's grace and the touch of God's love.
So, the theme of inclusion is clear enough, but, as I mentioned, what about the stuff about the food that goes into the person and the sin that comes out? Why is that included in the reading? Then, I heard about the controversy involving Robert Downey, Jr. and Tim Shriver, and I think that I saw a connection, one with which you, too, might agree. Robert Downey, Jr. is an actor in Hollywood, who recently made a movie - a satirical comedy of sorts - with Ben Stiller entitled Tropic Thunder. Tim Shriver is the Chairman of Special Olympics, and the controversy surrounded the use of the “R” word in a sophomoric way that needlessly reduced to nothing all the progress we've made over the past several decades in the arena of reaching out more effectively to persons with challenges related to mental retardation and developmental disabilities. The Special Olympics is one of the signs of that progress. But there's more to it than that.
My experience with Marilyn at home, whose work at the Family Child Learning Center in Tallmadge focuses on the research models and service programs that demonstrate the benefits of Early Intervention, provides all sorts of evidence for the progress we've made. But our experience here with our church family at Zion, which attests to all the blessings that have come with our life-long connections with Pastor and Betty Findlay's boys, Dick and Bruce, these experiences, too, have made it clear that we do not need to throw out words that dredge up misguided, unhelpful, and even harmful images of the 1950s, when persons with disabilities were hidden from view in our homes, or taken out of our everyday world and placed in institutions that were too costly to sustain and were more harmful than helpful for mostly everyone involved.
The “R” word doesn't have the shock value of the “N” word, but this controversy helped me to see how important the first part of this text is for responding to the challenges posed by the second part of the Gospel, and by all three of the texts. The truth is that the more I followed the story, the more textually interesting it became. For instance, Timothy Shriver admitted that he hadn't actually seen the movie he was recommending not be seen and not be shown. You can imagine the firestorm of backlash that let off in the blog-o-sphere! Hypocritical and inconsistent, uninformed know-it-alls, the Nazi-thought-police: and these were the printable reactions. There were comments about what you need to do to be a critic with credibility, what movies were worse, what words are worse. This controversy was all over the map!
In our Gospel, Jesus just cuts through the complexity. He ignores indignant protests, the arrogant oratory, the side-shows, distractions and detours. “Look, we've got 613 laws - some dietary, some social, some religious - all intended to make us holy, to set us apart as God's people. We've got laws that tell when to wash our hands and how, what to eat, how to prepare it, and when. But it's not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of it that reveals what sinners we are! The ethnic slurs, the racial slams, in-group out-group insults: these words rehearse and replay histories that were and are divisive, and by uttering the words, we participate in the division they've inspired and express. What is more, we show that sin's power over us has deep roots within us. It's certainly about more than words and language, but we mustn't underestimate the power of words and language to do more than simply describe this or that.
Philosophers (like Ludwig Wittgenstein) would have a field day with that one. I suspect, however, that we would be better served by listening to James, who makes the point more directly and succinctly for us. In describing the “tongue” James writes, “We put bits into the mouths of horses, and guide their whole bodies. Look at ships, too. Though they are huge structures and driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder. So the tongue is a little member, but boasts of great things. How great is the forest set ablaze by a small fire; and the tongue is a fire!” (James 3:3-6) Again, it is not the food that goes into the mouth that defiles and divides, but the words that come out of the mouth that can set the world ablaze with a fire that defiles, divides, and destroys the world God intended and desires, a world we've caught a glimpse of with the vision of the kingdom and the life of the church.
Far from being incidental or optional to the broader themes of inclusion and unity that run through our three texts, this bracketed part about dietary laws is actually a key to laying hold of the unity in community God's kingdom envisions. When it comes to living as God's people, let's not say words that divide, even if used only in jest, because these words have a power that far exceeds our ability to control the sin they express and continue to inspire. So, when it comes to thinking about inclusion, and acting in ways that move that vision forward, between James and Jesus, between the hymns we've sung and the texts we've read today, we have been given a lot to think about in our desire to celebrate what God has given us here in the church, which is a handle on the kind of community that is made possible when we learn to trust the grace God gives and live the love that is ours … in Jesus' name. Amen