Prep Gardens not Bunkers

For the last decade I have become increasingly interested in most things agrarian, especially gardening.  I feel it draws together my theology, ethics, love for ecology and aesthetics and even family life.  And of course I just like playing in the dirt.  What makes this pertinent to what I am going to say is that gardening was not something I just decided one day to invest time and money into.  I came from parents that gardened and mini-farmed and no they weren’t hippies, (at least not by the time they decided to farm). But, they did come from agricultural families and communities. So, this was a learned and inherited interest and one I am grateful for. I have come to appreciate the long traditions that pass from one generation to another. I have also come to appreciate the contemplative reflections of life, failure, patience and the humility of the close and practical connections we share with the dirt; and I appreciate the process of growing plants, food and me.  It has given me a vision of our interconnectedness.

Why am I telling you all this?  To put it simply, it is because we live in a culture dominated with contrary investments and now I am watching the church, quite literally, buy into it.  We buy into things that offer self-security because we are afraid of being without or losing what we gained or just saving ourselves, but then we set ourselves at odds with others to keep it.

Of course we shouldn’t be all that surprised since it is the cycle many Christians entered into some time ago with pre-tribulation raptures, flighty heaven theologies and prosperity gospels, just to name a few of the things that should be “left behind”. 

Now within my own community I am meeting more “doomsday preppers” who store up to secure for their own needs and store weapons for their own protection (for my thoughts on the weapon topic see here).  We have those trying to secure wealth in case of an economic collapse and tell me to buy up gold and silver in preparation. But, no matter the medium for our security, it is all self-focused escapism which comes at the cost to many other things necessary for life’s flourishing.  It’s like Norman Wirzba says, “We have assumed that we can know and pursue what is best for ourselves, all the while disregarding the needs of the communities, natural and human, that sustain us.”[1] The reality is none of us are big enough for that and to continue denying our “biological kinship” with creation will only make our destructiveness increasingly evident.[2] Might I add, this stands in full-scale opposition with the gospel by which we are offered the freedom to affirm this life not escape it.

However, if we stop devising new self-preserving ways that avoid trusting God with our lives, we might just end up becoming a church that is faithful.  We might become a church that feeds our neighbors.  We do not have to be a false church that returns to the historical arrangements of power struggles and hierarchy. We do not have to be dualistic Christians who, as Brueggemann says, “…juggle [God’s] good purposes and our hidden yearnings and try to serve two masters, try to live two narratives, try to live two dreams, and [become] weary.”[3]  This was the cycle of Israel before Jesus and it suffered greatly. But with Jesus, life comes from our surrender and death because we have finally touched our impuissance, or our inability to do it alone.  Until we reflect deeply on our own fragileness, limits, interdependence on the elements, ecosystems and communities to which we belong, we will find ourselves on the wrong side of the competing voices and withdraw into isolation and abandon the rootedness and loyalties that bind us together.

   

[1] Edited and Introduced by Norman Wirzba. The Art of Common Place: The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry (Berkley, CA: Counterpoint Press 2002), viii.

[2]Ibid, ix.

[3] Walter Brueggemann Prayers for a Privileged People. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008), 43.

Everybody Jesus Healed Died…

Lately I have spent a lot of time reading the Gospels (currently Mark) and there is one thing standing out at the moment: all them healings! People flock to Jesus in droves knowing that he can heal their infirmities and while there are clearly times when he is happy to do it, there are also times he seems reluctant and worried that they are missing the point of his being there (Mk 1:32-38)  Nevertheless, Jesus faithfully responds to faith and heals.

It is in light of this that I inevitably hear the question, “if God can heal, then why doesn’t he heal everyone?”  Note that I am not trying to debate whether faith healing is real or whether God still heals. I am going to throw you all a “Pentecostal-bone” and let it stand as a glaring assumption.  With that said, we do not have to look far to see that many are left sick, disabled, addicted and so forth.

For me, getting the answer to this is secondary to another question, “why did God even heal at all?”  Like my title says, everyone Jesus delivered, healed and raised from the dead died later on.  The healing aspect of his ministry was clearly not the resolution to creation’s bigger problem, so why do it?

It first needs to be understood that there is always a close link in Scripture between sin and sickness. Now this is not the same as deplorably telling someone that their (or their family member’s) terminal illness is because of the sin in their lives (if I am wrong then there has been a lot of murderous tyrants throughout history that pestilence missed the mark on).  No, in actuality, that kind of finger pointing mostly comes from those refusing to accept the burden of caring for those that will not be cured.  But, sin does seem to be the root cause in the undoing of order in all its forms, hence the reason Jesus calls himself a physician instead of a judge.  Sin itself was ultimately sickness unto death with God being the one and only cure. 

So, I would suggest that Jesus as the living icon of God is an important feature to remember.  Jesus heals and does signs to tell the part of God’s story that words cannot bear. It begins with his entering into and experiencing all its brokenness, but then he reveals himself as its solution; the cross-shaped tree whose leaves will heal all nations (Rev. 22:1-4).  Consider the idea that all that needs to be said by God cannot be spoken or written with fleeting words, but can only begin to be understood through mystery and symbol within Jesus’ life.  It is not a far leap from there to see that our lives in praxis, sacrament, suffering and joy are in fact living symbols too, and ones that echo our participation in God’s story. 

The enemy to such a proclamation can only be the very thing Jesus was revolting against which was an empire built on privilege and exclusion. Look at how the Jewish leaders in Jesus day had epitomized this aspect. They were married to their purity laws for fear of contamination, it was tribalism run amuck with ideas that say “we are special” and “your sickness and brokenness can only bring us down” (Mt. 15:1-14; Mk 3:1-6).  However, Jesus not only seems unworried about contamination, but heals/cleanses and brings them back into the community they live expelled from. If this doesn’t tell the story of God bringing creation back from exile, I don’t know what does. 

Jean Vanier helped bring this into focus for me when he said, “Between all of us fragile human beings stand walls built on loneliness and the absence of God, walls built on fear—fear that becomes depression or a compulsion that we are special.”[1]  Walls reveal a fundamental lack of risk and trust and I promise you no healing can come from that.   But we were given a Messiah that is the very presence of God and made a point of tearing walls down; now we should too.  So, while it is not the solution itself, such symbolic rhythms in our lives point to a mysterious but actualized hope that restores all of creation and reintegrates all that was lost, even when it has yet to be fully revealed.

Now, if you are left with more questions than you have answers, then I did my job, but I would recommend starting here when asking unanswerable questions like why doesn’t God heal everybody?

[1] Stanley Hauerwas & Jean Vanier. Living Gently in a Violent World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 26.

Jonah as Satire

Thalia Theatre Poster

Jonah has become for me one of those books that get better the more I revisit it.  I was set on a new course, however, when I heard Brian Zahnd point out that this book, while containing a serious message, was blatantly comedic.  The more I consider the idea the more I see he is right and I would continue the notion by comparing it with the humor found in Yiddish theatre (or vice versa).  So, if Jonah as that kind of production has not been done yet someone should get on that.

Nevertheless, Yiddish humor is characterized by its unique use of irony, satire, wordplay and its direct aim at the affluent and religious authorities as-well-as at itself. This is especially true in the wake of Haskala (Jewish Enlightenment) and its schism with Zionists.[1] Now I must say that the artists which emerged from Haskala, unlike the prophets, did little to energize the community toward God’s vision of hope, but like most artists they were certainly not void of vision in which to rightly critique their dominant culture (something to keep in mind while reading Jonah).

A Word about Prophets

However, to preface Jonah as a prophetic voice, I want to say something about the prophets.  Prophets have been seen as a kind of Godly fortune-tellers of future events, but foreknowledge, while it was present, was not the defining aspect of their task.  It did reveal God’s concern and investment for creation’s future (often by what was happening in the present), but it was only part to a much larger sum.  What was central was the prophets redirecting the community back toward the covenant responsibility and covenant hope.  This was much of the prophetic message from pre to post exilic time-periods. 

Additionally, while I think many readers are thrown off by the blending of poetry and apocalyptic imagery within the prophet’s literary makeup, they too are artists employing these elements to convey a two-fold message that aims to critique and energize.  They critiqued the dominant reality which was (as Walter Brueggemann termed) the “Royal Consciousness”.[2]  This royal-consciousness is a reoccurring theme throughout the Bible, but it gained renewed life in Solomon’s reign. He maintained a pagan ideology by “trading God’s vision of freedom for the reality of security; he banished the neighbor for the sake of reducing everyone to servant; he replaced covenanting with consuming, and all promises had been reduced to tradable commodities.”[3]  In the process, Solomon regressed to pride, despair, numbness and thus an inability to imagine hope or anything new (Ecclesiastes 1).

            The prophets then critiqued the broken royal order and energized their weary culture of faith toward God’s vision of hope and freedom.  This was the main vision from God that the prophet was privy to and God would use that visual-language, as Brueggemann says, “to bring to expression the new realities against the more visible ones of the old order. Energizing is closely linked to hope. We are energized not by that which we already possess but by that which is promised and about to be given.”[4]  Now, how does this fit in with a book like Jonah especially since the prophet is warning of Nineveh’s judgment?  Well it starts by looking at Jonah’s story.

Jonah’s Prophetic Comedy

Jonah, from beginning to end, looks unusual next to other prophetic books. It is a narrative, as Leslie Allen suggests, that is not recounting historical fact, but is a story crafted like a parable employing provocative elements of surprise and shock.[5]  Here are some of the key elements of each chapter:

Act 1:  In chapter 1 the story begins already in motion. There is an assumption for the reader that much has already happened as God calls Jonah and tells him to travel to Nineveh to warn the Assyrians, Israel’s worst enemy, of their incurred judgment.  This itself was an abnormality in the text because while prophetic oracles against a nation was commonplace, traveling to them was not; “[prophets traditionally spoke] from their native soil for the benefit of their fellow nationals.”[6]

 Right off Jonah surprises us when he does not even give God his reservations/frustrations about doing this (like Moses or Jeremiah). Rather, he refuses to carry the prophetic burden by promptly turning around and running as far as he could in the opposite direction of Nineveh.  From a southern port in Joppa our prophet then buys a ticket and boards a ship that will carry him as far west as he can get. 

While on the boat, God sends a ship-devastating storm. The captain implores the people to pray to their gods for rescue, but our prophet slinks away to hide below. After finding Jonah sleeping and telling him to pray, they cast lots to see who has offended the gods and it falls on Jonah.  Jonah then confesses that he is a Hebrew running from the world’s Creator and if they want to live they should probably just throw him overboard (apparently still a better option than attempting to repent and go to Nineveh).  After God’s power is displayed in the storm they have no choice but to throw him over. This in turn calmed the sea. Upon witnessing the events, the entire boat repents and vows to serve Israel’s God.  The scene then ends with God intervening and making arrangements with a fish to swallow Jonah for three days and nights.

Act 2: Now in the belly of the fish, there is a clear sense that God is still unwilling to let Jonah die.  Here Jonah finally laments and repents and he does it by methodically stringing together Psalter into a congruent psalm of his own (Ps. 3, 5, 18, 30, 42, 69, 120, 139 & 142). As Jonah closes with a promise that he will fulfill his vows, God tells the fish to hock Jonah up safely on shore.  There is, perhaps, a point of amusement for the author depicting a fish that releases its catch back on land.

Act 3: The following chapter opens with God telling Jonah a second time: go to Nineveh and deliver the message; Jonah obeys and travels to the great city. Upon arrival he delivers possibly the worst judgment speech ever.  There was no concern to convince anyone that it was true; no elaborate message planned; he simply walked through the gates and yelled “In 40 days Nineveh will be destroyed” –The End  

Jonah’s worst fear comes true.  While in other texts this might be where the prophet’s life comes to an end, here the king and the entire city believed him and came together fasting, wearing burlap and repenting for their violence. Then just to make extra sure Nineveh was well covered the king also made all their animals fast and wear burlap in repentance. Nevertheless, God is pleased and has mercy on them.

Act 4: The final chapter opens with Jonah throwing a fit because he knew from the beginning Israel’s God would be merciful, compassionate and filled with all that horrible unfailing love for such stupid people. Jonah then says, if you are not going to kill them than kill me, to which God asks, “Is it right for you to be angry?” Jonah ignores him and continues his tantrum outside the city hoping God will destroy it anyway. 

While there, God intervenes to make a plant grow to provide shade for Jonah and he is actually grateful for it, but then that night God makes arrangements with a worm to eat it.  As the sun grew hot the next day the entire scenario pissed Jonah off in a way that confounds even God.  God then demands to know how Jonah can care more about a plant than he can about the people of Nineveh, and their animals.  But, just as the story began in motion, so it also ends in motion and the curtain closes on God and Jonah are finally arguing out their disappointments with each other. 

Interpretative Addendum

This story seeks to entertain, indict and energize Israel through self-deprecating humor.  First, as the only Jew in the story, Jonah seems to have made himself emblematic of Israel.[7]  Everyone Jonah comes across (from the boat to Nineveh) turns their heart to God in record numbers regardless of Jonah’s failures.  Now herein lies the critique: The Jewish people who are privileged to hear God’s voice are the only ones refusing to listen to him.  They have been wearing their chosen status as a “badge of privilege” when in fact it was a call to responsibility. Thus it is a critique of priorities and lack of care for the other nations. 

            Jonah does not however neglect the “energizing” aspect either.  Throughout the story we see God as being merciful, redemptive, loving and committed to the future of all creation through Israel (not even refusing their enemies).  There is a deep hope and vision established by God’s attachment to us, especially for those we like to marginalize and trivialize.  In God’s subversive kingdom the last are not the least and the lost are not left.  So also those ensnared in mind-sets of superiority become free to be God’s community receptive, un-offended and recommitted to the covenant. Such a purpose is what God insists for Jonah (Israel).  

 

[1] Joel Berkowitz. Landmark Yiddish Plays: A Critical Anthology (Albany, NY: State University of NY Press 2006), 1.

[2] Walter Brueggemann. The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2001), 33.

[3] Ibid, 14.

[4] Ibid, 33.

[5] Leslie C. Allen. NICOT: The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans 1976), 176.

[6] Ibid.

[7] I got this line from Zahnd, but I believe good part of this interpretation was from him as well so here is a link to his outworking of it: http://wolc.com/watch--listen/sermon-archives/jonah-a-comedy-2015/

Con-Caucusing a Leader

We are entrenched in the season of presidential candidates vying for attention. They want to divide and conquer you, your family, friends, neighbors and your pets.  While I certainly do have my own convictions about not entering into the voting process (with some exceptions), I am not entirely writing to persuade you of them.  What I do want to say is that when one claims Jesus as Lord it comes with a resolve that stands at odds with empire and requires a rethinking of our political involvement.      

Our Nation-State

The first thing to consider is the schema by which governmental institutions operate, especially when considering a president.  A government’s primary function is to systematically rule its society.  They do so by leveraging control over the people through a formation of politicized ethics, laws and regulations that everyone must adhere to.  At the same time citizens expect their leaders to help create something of a free and equitable society.  This is really what the average voter is after. A piece of control through their vote (power to the people and all that) and a leader they can put trust in because a president can potentially work to advance a society one can feel good about and have a sense of security in.                      

To add to the picture, American politics has shoehorned all of our issues into two parties which created bipartisan loyalties, but for a long time Christians as a whole were not necessarily committed to one side over the other.  This changed with the rise of the "Christian Right", in which Ronald Reagan became a key figure, as it sought to gain Christian loyalty to the conservatives by merging political symbols with Christian ones. They emphasized the Republican Party as being inherently more Christian than the Democrats especially during the Reagan campaign.  Yet, Ronald and Nancy also became known for putting their trust in Joan Quigley's astrology more than in God...  

More to the point, no matter how anyone felt about Carter’s presidency he was and is an outspoken Christian who thought the democratic side could exist in line with his Christian values. This alone flew in the face of the Christian Right’s agenda, but the ploy worked and Reagan got the majority of Christian votes. 

What makes it worse is that it created a power vacuum and a new pattern for the church’s involvement in politics (namely Evangelical streams) as the church is now invested mostly in the conservative side of the bipartisan trap.  That is unless you are a necessary scapegoat for much of what is wrong with America and Christianity (e.g. progressive/liberal Christians).  We have ultimately fooled ourselves into believing, as Lee Camp says, that we can baptize unrepentant political-structures and dub them Christian.[1] That is a lie from those wanting to gain control and claim certitude for our nation-state, but it inherently sells out the Gospel. 

The Gospel does not create a free and equitable society in the same way or for the same reasons the governments of the world do.  This is because as Christians we have come to locate ourselves within God’s story and it is through this that we begin to be formed by where the story has come from and where it is going.  Thus, there is an underlying need to see why the story of Israel and Jesus should change our relationship and interaction with government and its politics.

Learn a New Song

For sake of length my main focus is on Jesus, but I do want to show the correlations between the Exodus and Jesus as they are pertinent.

In Exodus when Moses leads the Jews out of the land of oppression God has just shown himself as superior to the false ruler Pharaoh (an anti-creational archetype).  It is as Ted Grimsrud terms, God’s and Israel’s “rub with the empire”.[2]  This confrontation results in expulsion from empire out of God’s incompatible cohabitation with it, but it is in exile that God gives them a new hope and new doxology.

Prior to their exit one can imagine that the Hebrews were probably singing songs of oppressed slaves, but when Moses leads them out a new song is sung establishing hope in God as their only true leader and giver of freedom (Exd. 15:1-20).  Walter Brueggemann illustrated that Egypt could not permit or tolerate it when Pharaoh’s own coronation edict (may Pharaoh's reign never come to an end) was misappropriated by Israel’s saying “the Lord will reign forever and ever” (15:18).  Such doxologies are always polemical; the unstated counter-theme at the end is “and not Pharaoh”(15:17-18).[3]     

Move ahead now to Jesus and we see Matthew and Luke very intentionally weave this into the birth narratives in two distinct ways:

1.      Matthew likens Herod to Pharaoh by showing that Herod too feared the one that would bring his reign to an end and thus attempted to snuff out Israel’s potential Messianic boys (compare Exod. 1:15-16; Matt. 2:7-8, 16).[4]

2.      In Luke’s gospel Mary, Zechariah and Simeon sing new doxologies that speak of freedom and hope that will come through this child. Then in Exodus-like fashion the lyrics blatantly threaten Herod’s and the Roman Empire’s positions of power (Lk. 1:46-55, 69-79; 2:29-32). It symbolizes the beginning of the end in a long line of self-deceptions.

Jesus’ Unruly Politics

Nevertheless, the ultimate threat to the empire comes with Jesus’ proclamation that the Kingdom of God is present and is reclaiming its reign over creation (Matt. 13:33) and it is doing so in opposition to its greed, violence and oppression (Matt. 5-7).  The agitation gains traction as the religious leaders fear losing their power positions (Jn. 11:45-53), which gave way to their insurrection indictment of Jesus. They claimed he incites the people to rebellion, tells them not to pay taxes, misleads their nation and claims himself as their king (Lk. 23:2, 14).  Note that the most pressing question out of these accusations for Pilate was: are you king of the Jews?(v.3).  Jesus never denies it. But what is most profound is that he is then the one king whose reign is forever and yet he is the only one willing to quietly go to his end and makes the cross the coronation of his enthronement.     

     

So if Lordship does in fact belong to Jesus, then it will always be in conflict with those who believe they can play power roles because it exposes the sham of personal and national pretentions of importance and reveals that it has an inevitable end.  This is also to say that the sanctification of one nation over another is always an untrue gesture as well.    

To then take part in an anxious election season will be a tricky one for Christian voters because any governmental change for the better is always incredibly shortsighted and temporary especially when it comes to leaders. Remember, Jesus left behind a Church for his political benefactors not a nation-state.  The state that is characterized by power, force and coercion is overturned by the reign of mercy, self-giving love, patient-forgiveness and reconciliation.  If you then feel inclined to take part to vote, then don't use it as a way preserve your own way of life (especially at the expense of another).  Rather, use it as a vehicle to temporarily stand in service of the other: helping the poor, the foreigner, children, the sick, the marginalized all while condemning state-sponsored violence and greed.  More to the point we then need to spend that much more time being the church that embodies this ethic.

It seems to me our faith in ideologies and final solutions are idols that should only be obscured by our trust in the Lord of heaven and earth.  So if our politics, and indeed our lives, do not act as if Jesus is Lord and look like his destabilizing the current power-structures, then we are probably doing it wrong.   

 [1] Lee Camp. Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing 2008), 22.

[2] Ted Grimsrud. Jesus’ Confrontation with Empire Retrieved from http://peacetheology.net/2012/06/09/jesus-confrontation-with-empire/

[3] Walter Brueggemann. The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2001), 19.

[4] Ibid, 82-83.

The Truth About Porn and Fantasy

A friend recently sent me a “TEDx Talks” link in which a gentleman by the name of Ran Gavrieli was speaking about why he stopped watching porn (see here, I recommend it).  I found his initial reasons extremely telling particularly when he labeled the porn industry “filmed prostitution” because we are paying for a sexual act to happen.  More importantly Ran makes the point that no one usually wants to grow up to be a prostitute or a porn star, but it most often happens out of desperation to a related distress which then becomes exploited.  

It does not, however, stop there. He points out that because the porn industry only makes money when they can produce what arouses their audience, now we also have a long list of fantasy genres to pick from, from every unusual fetish to sexual torture and violence (e.g. rape-porn).  Though he goes on to further explain the unhealthy sexuality happening within these industries, this alone should not set well with us.

The point I would like to contribute to this is the reality of our own fantasy life and its affect on shaping our sexuality and influencing this industry.  These films are a result of what has already occurred (or occurs) in our imaginations.  To make certain our sexuality and desire for sex is not a bad thing; it is a good thing and a biological one.  This is something many unprepared parents have tried to stifle and make taboo, but the truth is none of us would be here without it and at our healthiest we are procreating and relational creatures (which means we also do it as the one of the most intimate forms of bonding).

The problem that led to the porn, I surmise, began back when the “stimuli" began occurring in attraction toward another person.  This moment in and of itself was not bad, but rather the moment we began to engage with the imaginative fantasy that offered the proportionate potential for good as it had for bad.  What most often tends to occur is that thoughts of healthy sexual relations become a one-sided venture.  When the physical person is removed from our sexual act the only one to be aroused and satisfied is ourselves.  As this occurs the other person ceases to be an actual person and becomes a tool for our pleasure. Suddenly what was a human-subject becomes an impersonal-object.  They no longer are real people who have problems with some sexual acts, nor do they have any attributes that could be a potential turnoff. 

The tendency then is to say, "well it is only in our heads and not real so what is the problem?"   The problem is our cognition is a very complex thing and we have a unique way of using  imagination and practice to create internal patterns. What might seem like "innocent" sexual fantasies (that pleasure only us) can and does transfer to our behavior. Without our knowing it the repeated process of “getting it” our way forms how we view and what we expect from our sexual partner. 
But, a healthy sexual relationship is a developed two-way road which is occasioned by needs and inconveniences: one or the other not being in the mood, or needing to feel desired in other ways, or listened to, or actually be respected as an equal before being able to connect on any sexual level. So, the man or woman who has needs, problems, boundaries, and possibly gastrointestinal issues is not the person of our fantasies, but is the real thing.  When we embrace that counterfeit the result then is a supply and demand platform for things like the porn industry, prostitution, and human trafficking as a way to force an extremely distorted reality that fulfills our disconnected fantasy.       

Manifesto

As soon as the generals and the politicos can predict the motion of your mind, lose it. Leave it as a sign to mark the false trail, the way you didn’t go. Be like the fox who makes more tracks than necessary, some in the wrong direction. Practice resurrection. –Wendell Berry

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