Day 994 - Do You Understand?

A reflection for the Men’s Bible Study at Second Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga TN,  August 27, 2015

Text: Mark 7: 1-23

Note: Some of the questions and consideration found at the end of this reflection derive from a "Serendipity Group Bible Study," entitled, Gospel of Mark - Exploring the Life of Jesus, by Richard Peace. Thanks to Richard.

Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Jesus shows rather pointed disregard for ritual laws and hardened hearts. A subtext of the Gospel of Mark is that harden hearts keep one from understanding the Gospel, just as it blinds one to the state of the abused and oppressed. Jesus has regularly taken his disciples to task for this. Here in verses 1-13 of Chapter 7, he turns his attention to the hearts of the Pharisees who have made the Law a stumbling block for God’s people. Verse 14 forms the theme for this lesson, “Do you understand?”

¹Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, ²they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. ³(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; ⁴and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.)

This is the second delegation of Jewish leaders who have come from Jerusalem to examine this troubling man from Galilee.

This passage is one that points to the likely fact that the audience of Mark’s Gospel was not from Jewish Palestine, or possibly even Jewish at all. Mark has inserted a parenthetical explanation of the cleanliness rituals of the Hebrews for the reader.

This hand washing is strictly a ceremonial law. No one at this time knew about a “germs.” Much like Muslim Imams today, when a rabbi established a point of religious law, it was authoritative and binding on all Jews. There were perhaps thousands of religious laws that Jewish Rabbis created over the ages. These "laws" were not (originally) intended to supplant the Law but to provide a "protective layer for proper regard and practice of the Law). Hence they became the cultural tradition for practice of the law. (You may want to refer to Post Day 988 for more thoughts on the role of culture on belief.) These religious traditions, initially well intended to guide the practice of honoring the commandments, they had devolved into a set of practices that were supposed to impart religious cleanliness, or righteousness.

⁵So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” ⁶He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,

 ‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me;

⁷in vain do they worship me,

teaching human precepts as doctrines.’

⁸You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”

Jesus and the Pharisees place great authority on the written law, and Jesus has made a very strong statement by invoking the prophet Isaiah, a prophet both of them regard highly. He is using the words of scripture against the Pharisees. The Greek word hypocrite meant to pretend to be something one is not. Eventually it came to mean someone who thought they were holy because the followed the rules. But Jesus is saying to them through Isaiah, it is what is written in the heart that is important. Heart to the Jew means the seat of personality. Thus Jesus is saying their very self is corrupt.

⁹Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! ¹⁰For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ ¹¹But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God)— ¹²then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, ¹³thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”

Jesus is giving an example of how the Pharisees and Rabbis have nullified the written law by their turned oral tradition. The priests, to ensure they had sufficient money to maintain their priestly duties (and who knows what, or if else) told the people that they are obligated to give their resources to God (via the Priests). If you say, “All good gifts come from the Lord,” then they say that you have made an oath that your gifts must first go the temple, not your parents. Therefore, you are violating the Law to “honor your father and mother” by honoring your vow to the priests. How much more severe an indictment is possible than to say you have nullified the Word of God?

Jesus never lets a teaching moment pass unused. He now turns to the basic principle of what makes a person clean.  He is not attacking the Law. This is an important point about this passage. It deals with the interpretation of the Law, not the Law itself.  Jesus is going to negate the idea that by simply practicing the Law or its tradition makes a person holy. He turns to the crowd and offers a parable of sorts:

¹⁴Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: ¹⁵there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”

Defile means to make ritually unclean. Jews were made unclean by touching animals like pigs or snakes, dead bodies and blood, Gentiles, lepers, certain cooking instruments, having sexual relations with their wife when she was menstruating, etc.

¹⁷When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. ¹⁸He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, ¹⁹since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)  [Note the NRSV omits v 16.]

Jesus is following the teaching of Isaiah and Jeremiah. He is attacking the idea of obeying on religious purity laws being sufficient to impart holiness. Recall that he has done several insulting things that fly in the face of the tradition of the priests, scribes and Pharisees; he has eaten with beggars, not fasted when expected, and not kept the Sabbath as they expect. (See Mark 2:15-28, for example.)

The Greek is very graphic, basically saying these ritual laws, that do not go to the heart but the stomach, are excrement left in the latrine. Mark’s editorial insert has profound implications that Paul picked up in his discussion with the Corinthians over eating food for the idols.

²⁰And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. ²¹For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, ²²adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. ²³All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

This previous declaration combined with these verses spoken to a probable Gentile audience tells them that they are free from ceremonial law and other customs of the Jews and only bound by their heart's fealty to the law. This is an important point that Jesus will demonstrate this by his own personal action in the next verses (vv24-37) we will cover next week, his meeting with the Syrophenician (Gentile) woman. (We have discussed this passage and may want to consider the alternative scripture, James 2:1-17.)

Some questions to ask, or think about if you are not comfortable discussing the answers:

•          Jesus states that fulfilling human tradition can interfere with obedience to God. Have you ever felt the traditions of the Presbyterian Church, or the church of your youth, got in the way of your effort to obey God and seek to enlarge your righteousness? What did you give up, faith or tradition, or anything?
•        When are you most hypocritical in your life and how do you try to avoid it?
•         If you could change some things about your denominations rules that seem to be about traditions of men, what would they be?
•        Have you ever faced a conflict between your religious obligation and your loved ones? What happened?
•        Of all the things listed in vv 21-23 that make one unclean, which do you struggle with the most?

Comment

This text has a number of facets. Jesus is clearly focusing on the fences the Pharisees have built around the Law that were originally intended to defend it but have become stumbling blocks to God’s people.

In Mark’s Gospel, this passage ends his mission in Galilee and marks a move to Gentile territory. He has established that the traditions of Judaism itself are not a necessary gate for a person to reach righteousness.

The Gospel writers, Paul, and James, as well as our own denominations have come to different interpretations about the importance of tradition. James, in the passage we may examine next week (James 1:25 and 2:1-17), and Matthew (Chapter 5) stake out a conservative position (James - that the ethical ground of behavior is the law of liberty and Matthew - that Jesus is the sole interpreter of the law.)

Paul’s liberal approach, on the other hand completely repudiates the Law for moral or ethical justification of Christian life, see Romans 2, 1 Corinthians 8-10, Galatians 3-5 for examples. (It is ironic that our more fundamental dear friends rely so heavily on Paul.)

Christians continue to struggle with this issue of law and tradition, for example, posting the ten commandments in public places as the only ethical guide for living, only using certain hymnals or bible translations, having a “Book of Order” or “Book of Worship” that is interpreted to prescribe certain ways of worshipping, expecting a person to wear certain types of clothes to worship, establishing who can serve or partake communion, defining what decorations or accouterments are allowed in the sanctuary. The list goes on as we tie ourselves up in knots over “proper order” under the law.

Consider how we order and conduct our worship in a typical congregation, and then read the Directory of Worship in the Presbyterian Book of Order. Often we grasp this line in the preface: “It (Directory of Worship) sets standards and presents norms for the conduct of worship in the life of congregations” and overlook the caution, “A Directory for Worship is not a service book with fixed orders of worship, a collection of prayers and rituals, or a program guide… it describes the theology that underlies Reformed worship and outlines appropriate forms for that worship.” We also overlook the first chapter of that Directory that says our very act of living Christ-like lives is an act of worship.

But on the other hand, “tradition” can have a positive role that preserves the basic message of scripture. When tradition is not used as a rigid end in itself but is open to just refinement, it provide an inertia to emotional forces of change and balanced accommodation of new knowledge always faced by the Reformed church.

Amen.

Day 988 - The Dilemma of Faith

This is a summary of the kickoff session discussing discuss science and theology at Hope House, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga campus, August 19, 2015.

This seminary series is led by Henry Paris but its content and direction are led and chosen by the students who participate. We have a broad spectrum of people from graduates to underclass people, and on occasion an external visitor. Our goal in these weekly discussions is to refine our ideas about how reconcile our sense of God with the world we experience often by scientific inquiry.

       In first session of the new academic year, we explored some basic ideas both connected to  theology and science. The first question we considered was, “What is theology?” 

       Theology is a uniquely Judeo-Christian idea, its Greek translation is the “study of God.” That immediately pushes us towards the question, “What do we believe?” Our ideas about faith and experience shape the answer.

Faith

What is faith? Another way to ask the question is to wonder, “ What we believe and why do we believe it?” This question of faith is often posed only from a theological perspective.

Most people, including many scientists, consider science to be a rational system based on certainty and experiential observation with no room for faith. There is some irony to this opinion.

Scientists are taught from the beginning of education that the mathematical framework, especially the geometry of classical Newtonian physics, rests on some subset of axioms, or unprovable statements.  Most students promptly ignore or forget the implication of building a science on axioms. However, if we adopt other axioms to describe spatial geometry, quite different mathematics evolve.

An axiom in Euclidian geometry related to the idea of “perpendicular” is the statement “parallel lines never intersect.” Einstein for example capitalized on this. (Of course any one who has walked two parallel longitudes on a sphere or hyperbolic saddle discovers the problem.)

Using Euclidian geometry is an act of faith in its axioms. Therefore, the question of the faith pervades both science and theology at the basic level.

Experience

This leads us to think about the idea of experience. Experience is actually connected to faith.

Genetic and cognitive science show that a significant part of our behavior is genetically predisposed or imprinted as a Kantian roadmap. But the issue of who were are “intellectually” and “mechanistically” is not yet well defined by science. The question “Is there s special sense of self?’” remains refractory to science.

Much evidence points to the role of the experiences of our earliest childhood in the formation of our individual worldview. These are the experiences that shape our language and thoughts before we attain the level of intentional cognitive reasoning. I suggest that our logic is already established by the environment exposed upon us by our parents and culture shapes our logic before we are able to understand what is happening. (Or perhaps, it defines how we understand what is happening to us?)  Experience interacts with whatever innate intellectual framework our DNA gives us.

Some examples:

If I release an iron ball from my grip, what happens?

If I touch a piece of iron growing peachy orange, what happens?

After the sun sets in the evening, what happens to it the next morning?

Randy Pausch, the Computer science faculty member working on virtual reality at Carnegie-Melon University who was dying of cancer, gave his final lecture or last lecture in 2007. He suggests everything we know, our attitude and motivation is created in our childhood experience, our first three to five years, before we even have an independent sense of what the world is.

We will return to this idea of faith and experience when we discuss religious denominations and religious authority. But first, let’s think about ethics and morality.

What are “ethics” and “morality.”

A simple analysis maintains that ethics is the external, or socially defined system of rules for good conduct. Ethics derive from a social consensus and depend on what others think.

Morals in the other had are internally derived based on the sense each person has of “right and wrong.” Morals are not absolute, if one’s belief about an issue changes, one’s rule of right and wrong changes with it (or we have to deal with the difficulty problem of cognitive dissonance.)

The Problem with Ethics and Morals

Though many would say that ethics is the socially accepted sense of right and wrong and morality is in our internal sense of right and wrong; we can see from the previous consideration about how cultural experience shapes our sense of belief about the world that cultural ethics are in fact shaped by our morality. It is quite difficult to separate ethics and morality.

Many people who are uncomfortable with change do not like to acknowledge it, but morality is shaped by cultural values and as cultural values change, the perception of what is ethical behavior slowly changes. Morality is certainly shaped by our individual sense of what is right and wrong (justice?) but ultimately the morality that is often thought of it as an extra-cultural definition of right and wrong is determined by cultural values.

What shapes ethics? The social consensus derived from the individual experience of observing the beneficial or deleterious effect of acts of human behavior on others.

Reformed Protestantism – Be careful what you ask for

This leads us to an interesting dilemma about what Christians believe. If our experience, and therefore cultural environment shapes our sense of reality then we must ask what is the nature of religious Protestant denominations related to a sense of theology?

What is the core basis of Christian theology?  Almost every person who carries the label “Christian” will affirm that the scriptures, or writings that we call the New and Old Testament, or the Gospels and Epistles and the Hebrew Bible shape our sense of morality. This collected history is the relationship between Humanity and its Creator, and are the moral basis of faith.

 This body of literature is probably the most important part of our discussion today because of the way its interpretation led to the Reformation. If the Bible described the preferred way we should interact with both God and our neighbors, what does it say? Hebrews have a codified set of rules called The Law. Though they are often confused as “laws” the Bible clearly should they are modes of behavior that are intrinsic to a righteous person. In other words, behavior reflects the “Law,” rather than the “Law” prescribes behavior. The fundamental “prescriptions” if there are any, are stated by Jesus in his discussion of compassion for neighbor. Essentially Jesus says that the two principal “laws” are (in my words) (1) Love the Creator as the Creator loves you, (2) Love your neighbor the way The Creator loves you. A corollary is “All of  humanity is your neighbor.” (See Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28, Luke 10: 25-37)

By the way, if you read these three versions of the same event, you see that recollection or scripture is accepted as the highest form of morality, it certainly cannot be considered infallible because there are different version of the same event.

In the early church, after the immediacy of the presence of Jesus has past, people turned to explaining what the “Jesus event” meant. This led to the organized church. I will not deal with the details because they are long and complex, but what happened is there was much bloodletting and arguing about what “words” most accurately described Christianity. You can go to these two books for details, Volume 1  and Volume 2 of Gonzales.

The eventual end was the establishment of the Catholic Church which claims to be ruled by a Pope who is in the linear sequence of Apostolic succession.  What this means is that the leader of the Christian Church is directly connected to the lineage of the earliest Christian disciples and by that succession carried the authority to be the sole and final arbiter of Christian Morality and Ethics. Essentially, the Catholic Church is founded on the principle of absolute authority.

Martin Luther, on the basis of his experience showing to him that the leadership of the Church in fact was corrupt and far afield of the core teaching of the Gospel and Hebrew Bible, declared that there is no sole arbiter of Scripture, the Pope is fallible. This is the primary basis of the Protestant Reformation, “There is no human authority with the power to assert something is moral or not.  It depends on the discernment of the person guided by the Scripture and  influenced by the Holy Spirit in quiet contemplation of the problem.

This is a powerful cut-off from the belief in human infallible authority. We are cast adrift in the sea of humanity and the world, forced to make life-changing decisions about what is a moral act or not.  This is the basis of the Reformed credo, “Reformed and always reforming.”

Because our sense of right and wrong is imprinted on us by our early childhood experience living in a specific social structure, each cultural unity established its ethical framework that we call “denominations.” (You can go back to Volume 2 of Gonzales to read about how different cultural interpretation can be.)

Henry Richard Neibhur described the consequence of the Reformation this way. We are now sailing on a ship in a stormy sea (of life) forever faced with new ideas and challenges of what just action consists. We are fated to sail from port to port in an endless journey seeking stable refuge because life, and especially Science, will always present us with an ethical dilemma.

The Consequence of Reformed Theology (Summary)

The greatest two commandments establish a way of living that can only be described as one full of grace and the absence of judgment.

Christians fall back on judgment of others, as many of you voiced in our meeting, because of fear, and the inability to accommodate doubt in their framework of faith. Their fear or uncertainty is so great they have let go of the two great commandments.

Recall I used the analogy of the two people given a large farm to contrast those who judge and those who revel in the grace of an unmerited gift.

Each has been blessed with the donation of a large piece of adjoining property perhaps 100 acres. There is a fence around both pieces of property and the owners are told to use this gift as each will. One owner builds a house, puts all the furniture and precious belongings in it and builds another fence around the house in fear on the unknown content of the land and environs leaving a nice front and backyard. The owner remains on the front porch in the rocking chair comfortable with his safe home. The other simply walks out into the land and explores all the boundaries of this property to see how far does it go what is out there in the land that might be of use.

 Why does one person spend all his time exploring its boundaries and what might be on the other side while the other sits comfortably on the front porch in a false sense of safety and security not worrying about what might be beyond the inner fence?

I cannot say one approach is in error compared to the other.  I can only say that these two approaches to life represent the extreme ideals of living. One group looks around the world and understands that God is there and seeks to spread Grace in the form of their own abilities where ever they can go, the others, probably no less penitent but not having the courage to deal with the unknown cold and cruel and dangerous world. The only right and wrong in this situation is when one neighbor becomes a stumbling block to another. It’s a reality that every institutional denomination faces. The healthy ones face it and decide how to proceed, the others become superfluous with the march of time. Ultimately, action falls on you to forgive those for what you see as error and work according to your faith to keep them in your fellowship.

In that sense, we are all scientists and theologians.

Grace and Peace.