Monday, January 25, 2016

Jesus Called a Woman a Dog?

It is true, Jesus strayed from character and degraded a Canaanite woman (in need) simply because she was not a Jew; however, I think we need to pay more attention to the events that led to this point.  Some people uncomfortably read past this not sure what to think about Jesus’ behavior, but in recapturing this busy scene I think we will see that this was not just another moment of resolute faith on someone’s part, but this is also a crucial moment for the disciples and a playful moment for Jesus.

Starting from the top of Matthew 15, the Pharisees confront Jesus about his disciple’s violation of Jewish purity codes because they did not wash before eating bread.  Jesus uses this moment to expose something in them. They were clearly concerned with purity when it came to their “holy” appearance, but they did not care about observing more important parts of law. He uses the example of loving your father and mother which they say they do, but then notoriously use excuses to neglect their needs (15:1-11).

At this point, the disciples approach Jesus and say, "Hey Jesus, you kind of upset the Pharisees with what you said", but Jesus only reply is that they were not the holy religious leaders they claimed to be.  Peter then asks Jesus to explain the parable to them, but Jesus says this was not exactly a mysterious story so how is it you don’t get it?  Yet, Jesus obliges them and says, as plainly as possible, what goes in your mouth does not matter, but it is the things you say and do that are direct reflections of what kind of person you really are on the inside.

It was only after this that they then came across the Syrophoenician (Canaanite) woman whose daughter was possessed. Notice that even in a time when there were cultural observances prohibiting a Canaanite woman from talking to a Jewish man, she obviously had heard enough about Jesus’ character that she was willing to risk it and plead for her daughter.  To our surprise Jesus first ignores her, but if we pay attention I think he is testing his disciples.  In fact the bigger shock should be that even after Jesus's explanation that what is in their heart is what defiles them, they say, "Jesus send her away so we don’t have to hear her incessant crying!"  Wow, way to step-up fellas…

Now, in the following lines it turns comedic so try imposing a sarcastic tone with what Jesus says.  Clearly ‘“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’  But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”  And He answered and said, ‘It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”’ But then she seems to catch on to the playfulness and quips back with, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus dropping pretenses says, “O woman, your faith is great!”(15:21-28).[1]  

It seems to me Jesus was possibly flaunting stereotypes and self-righteous behavior to exploit the defiling thoughts of contempt his followers had for the Canaanites, or women, or even both.  Nevertheless, because this is text and we cannot hear the author’s inflections or naturally pick up on good-natured teasing in first-century lit., we must watch-out for these moments. Life is happening in these stories and it is anything but void of changing temperaments, demeanor and relationships. 




[1] Note that Mark has almost this exact same story, minus the disciples, but he seems to be doing something similar in a more subtle fashion 

Saturday, January 9, 2016

Biblical Justice is Restorative Justice (Prt 2)

In my last post I made the point that law in the Bible was always a flexible feature because it was meant to stand in support of a people who were continually changing. Therefore, when there was a violation of a law it was a violation against a person more than an arbitrary breaking of rules. The function of justice was then to make it right.[1] 

Restorative Justice
This gives way to the needed alternative to retributive justice as it only seeks to assign guilt, inflict pain one “deserves” (which is measured by the process) and define the offense based solely on the law broken.[2]  The alternative is restorative justice which centers on the victim’s needs and asks the offender to face what they caused.  This comes by asking:

1.      Who has been hurt?
2.      What are their needs?
3.      Whose obligations are these?
4.      What are the causes?
5.      Who has a stake in the situation (primary is victim, but secondary can include family and community)?
6.      What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to address causes and put things right?[3]

I also recall Zehr pointing out that this model has to be flexible enough to know that it is not always good idea to reunite victim and offender especially when the victim is not comfortable with it, or if the offender is completely uncooperative.   

            However, this raises the question what is it that is inherently wrong with the prison system as punishment? When the crime is violent in nature, confinement is often necessary. Yet, Zehr also points out, the prison system and the distorted worldview of domination that exists on its inside only reinforces the mindset that put them there in the first place and it never holds them accountable to see the people and harm they caused.  Moreover, anybody who has spent significant time in prison will tell you they can come to exist within the prison system as-well-as they do on the outside and sometimes better which makes the punishment of little threat.[4]  But, like I said, I see little alternative for those who are not “mentally ill” and only succumb to violence as means to get their way.  Alternatively, community conferencing for offenders has been a surprisingly effective solution even within the prison system.  This is where they are given the opportunity to talk with mediators and the victim(s) and/or family members which make them face questions from the victim’s side like “why them”, “for what purpose” and so on. 

These meetings are often harder for the offender than just sitting in a cell, and yet it has also contributed to a large decrease in repeat offenders.  When the victim can ask questions and get answers, and also when the offender faces what they caused and in some cases can help make things right, or at least offer a symbolic gesture of remorse and compensation, it re-empowers both in a positive way.  It offers a little bit of control back to the victim who had it stolen and it empowers the offender to be part of the rebuilding process. Though many assume they are getting off easy, they are not.  They are having to make new choices in contrast to their toxic behavior that not only devastates people and community, but reveal the obligations to persons injured they would otherwise be shielded from.  Through this process many victims feel justice has been served even more so than in the criminal justice process. While I leave a lot out, this is the essence of restorative justice.

Biblical Justice
So to bring this back together with the first part I want to say this is Biblical.  What I see is the overall narrative of God’s reconciliation and restoration within the setting of broken covenant.  Covenant, Zehr reminds us, is an agreement between two parties that implies personal relationship with reciprocal responsibilities and mutual commitments.[5]  This is something that exists, to greater and lesser degrees, within all societies and communities simply because we are relational creatures.  The difference is God refuses to play the game of scapegoats, marginalization and elimination.  Think of how we brand ex-cons as criminals and refuse to see past that; when that is all you are defined as what else can a person do but embrace it, but God says no to that.  God confronts Adam and Eve, Cain, Moses, David and Israel, but does not destroy them.  God does allow Israel to finally be exiled, but even then he goes with her so to enable the correction process instead of throwing the clay out altogether and labeling her hopeless (Jer. 18:1-11; Rom. 9).  His request was always that we begin by taking responsibility for the other (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 14:29; Lk. 10:27). 

Jesus further rejects our one-sided thinking and expulsion toward another when he comes as the physician/reconciler not as judge or attorney, prosecuting or defending (Mk. 2:16-17).  Jesus does the work of making the sinner face that dark part of the self and does not lessen the offense, but he does not leave them there either.  Though no one can take back the offense they committed Jesus permits them to cut ties with it and work to help make things right in the earth under a new covenant and relationship with God and neighbor  (Mt. 19:16-22; Lk. 19:1-10; Jn. 8:1-11).    

God and human has been the victim of human harm and yet scripture tells of God entering in to make it right rather than destroying it.  To then bear witness to God’s act we are asked to participate in it, so I believe more Christians would do well to understand and enact restorative justice where it is possible.  While I have no interaction with law and courts, I did realize I disciplined my children in a way that looked like punitive justice by grounding, or taking away possessions or spanking as punishment. This only created children who obeyed out of fear of punishment not out of responsibility to do what was right because they understood the damage.  I have had infinitely better results (though I have had to get creative) when I hold them accountable and enable them to see what they did and make it right. The big take away here is not that I am now a superior parent (because I certainly still have lots to learn and still fail) but start where you can (home, schools, workplace etc…).

To me this is how we can thwart the tendency to interpret God based on our own criminal justice system in judgment, punishment and penal atonement theories and finally allow God to form our lens in a modern age for the return of shalom.        
 

   

[1] Something also to keep in mind, since we tend to link “justice” with “punishment”, is that the Hebrew word for “punish”, rsy (yasar), means “to teach” and “to discipline”, but it does not mean “to hurt” or “to injure” (those got their own word).  See William L Holladay. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing 1988), 137.
[2] Howard Zehr. Changing Lenses: Restorative Justive for Our Times (Harrisonburg, VA:  Herald Press 2015), 69.
[3] Ibid, 237.
[4] Ibid, 40-45.

[5] Ibid, 136.