Smoke and Mirrors —Religious Pretending Has No Place Amongst Saints

I have been following this blog —The Sexy Celibate: Making Sense of the Unexpected Single Life.  In this post -Why it Sucks to be Unintentionally Overlooked Part III (In Which Cinderella Wears a Power Suit),* the question was raised, why “Happily ever after” has to always be found in marriage?  This is from the perspective of someone that still longs to be married but the story has yet to turn out that way.  Adding to the pain is the prevalent notion that happiness can not be found in other ways.  Or the pain of being overlooked or undervalued (especially in church) because ones story does not represent the acceptable narrative.

My personal favorite Disney cartoon was Beauty and the Beast. Originally it was because I thought the songs were funny and the scenes in the Beast’s castle really tripped me out when I used and abused psychoactive chemicals.   Unfortunately, I can relate with the Beast; he was hopeless.  He was ugly because he treated people badly.  Belle was praised for her beauty yet ostracized in her community for being "strange".  Yet she was kind.  Of course, she wanted more out of life then she was experiencing and was intrigued by tales of adventure and the notion of "meeting prince Charming".  Instead of ending in marriage could it have ended with the Beast going to rehab and Belle pursuing inventing things with a generous grant from the guy formally known as the Beast?  I don't want to take Disney analogies too far because typically there are false messages included as well.  (I haven't seen it in awhile but an example that comes immediately to mind is that it is inadvisable for nice women to try to "save" total jerks through "dating".¹   I did a Startpage search for, "what is the main message of Beauty and the Beast" and the first answer I read was, "Treat others the way you would want to be treated". That is a good place to start. Of course, easier said then done!  Especially, when one is so depressed they wished they never woke up today.  This calls our usefulness into question which can further our despair.  Otherwise our wounded-ness can lead to bitterness and any number of beastly behaviors. 

Often our experience of church sadly is as a place of smoke and mirrors.  Even in small "Bible studies" people seemingly have to protect themselves and therefore speak so vaguely about things that what they are saying ends up meaning very little.   As Sam Cox so eloquently put it in the comments for the above video, "that great contradiction in all of us - we want to be seen, heard and understood for who we are on the inside and yet that very person is the same person who would misjudge others in the first place.”  The church should be as Ted Roberts puts it, “a  place of practical grace… a place where hope is the dominant theme, and denial, especially religious pretending, is nowhere in sight.”  In the church, amongst Christians, we should feel safe to bring all of our emotions to the light.  Jesus himself was the one whom Isaiah prophesied as, “a man of sorrows acquainted with grief”.  (Isaiah 53:3)   I think of the saying “the church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners”.   I get the gist, although it hits me the wrong way because it perpetuates a false notion of what a saint truly is, Biblically speaking. 

 

---

*(this post has since been removed so it is a little unclear why i am still talking about it)

^{1. [7 Classic Disney Movies That Taught Us Terrible Lessons}

4 Beauty and the Beast: Just Because He's Abusive, Doesn't Mean He's Not a Really Good Guy

] ↩
A funny example of over thinking Disney films— Beauty and the Beast’s Dark Delusion

“Hey Don’t You Know You Offended Those Guys?” (and the Syrophenician Woman)

Being Right Doesn't Always Mean You're Right — Cry of the Indigo Bunting: Finding God in the Everyday :
This sermon was preached on Sunday, September 9th, 2012 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, DeKalb, Illinois.  The text was Mark 7:24-37 . ..

I read this sermon, about a week before Christmas, on Jesus encountering this Syrophenician Woman, as recorded in Mark's Gospel.  Although, Mark does focus on Jesus’ humanity, highlighting him as the ultimate servant, I am not convinced the conclusion drawn in this sermon is the reason Mark included this story.  By “conclusion” I mean the “big idea” of the passage, not the application of that idea.  Is it true that the “big idea” in this passage is that Jesus was wrong by what he said to the Syrophenician woman, regarding his primary mission?

But Jesus said unto her, "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." Mark 7:27 (KJV)

According to this article Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and Little Dogs, one reason Jesus' comment is not as unkind as it first seems is because the words in Greek indicate a “little pet dog” which would have been cared for, as opposed to a mangy uncared for dog. 

A three year old mixed breed Border Collie.

A feral street dog photographed on the main road of the city of Gianyar, Bali, Indonesia.

That may well be, or this may be a bit of a cop-out (I don’t speak Greek), but either way I am not so quick to presume Jesus was wrong.  I have thought about this for weeks.  Neither Mark nor Matthew, who also recorded this encounter (Matthew 15:27), indicate that Jesus was wrong.  Interesting enough, just prior to this story in Matthew’s account, Jesus quotes Isaiah, calling the Pharisees hypocrites, “honoring God with their lips but their hearts are from him.”  It is “what comes out of a man which defiles him.”  Jesus’ disciples come up to Jesus and basically say, “Hey don’t you know you offended those guys?”  It was of no concern to Jesus (outwardly).  “What God has not planted will be rooted up.”    Furthermore, Matthew not only indicates that the disciples were present during this encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, he also further highlights that Jesus told them the primary purpose for his proverbial statement. (15:24)  As this "little dogs" article points out, Jesus was consistent about being sent to the “lost sheep of Israel” first.  (“Lost sheep” could be construed as less then flattering as well)

Nevertheless, it seems to be a fallacy to assume because a statement is “not nice” it is not “Christ-like”.  This presupposes that being “Christ-like” is equivalent to being nice according to ones own understanding.  Of course love is “patient and kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4) but it doesn’t necessarily “make nice” according to the way those that don’t have the mind of Christ “make nice”.  For it “rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth".  And the truth hurts sometimes.  Those of us that don’t have the mind of Christ on a matter, would rather compromise the truth in order to “make nice”.  Christ Jesus never did this.

There are many examples where Christ seemed impatient and his comments could be construed as unkind.  Examples such as calling very religious men a “brood of Vipers”. (e.g. Luke 3:7)  Or saying to his good friend Peter, “Get behind me Satan”. (e.g. Mark 8:33)  Peter surely didn’t mean to talk for Satan, perhaps he thought he was showing concern for Jesus’ well being.  Notwithstanding, it was Satan who told Jesus he could have the world without going to the cross.

When one takes the story of how Jesus responded to offending the Pharisees and the story of how he supposedly offended the Syrophoenician woman, coupled together it highlights the contrasting ways God is approached or blessings ascertained.  Just as in the parable (Luke 18:9-13), the religious way says, “we are not like these other men, we wash our hands and bowels before we eat”, and the sinner that admits their low condition and simply asks for mercy, “let me have a crumb that falls off the table”.  “For everyone that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

How do you suppose Jesus would have responded if instead of saying, “truth Lord”, she took offense at his saying?