The Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost Year B, Proper 17

The Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost
Year B, Proper 17
Sunday, August 30^th, 2009
The Rev. Dr. Katharine C. Black

Song of Solomon 2:8-13
Psalm 45: 1-2, 7-10
James 1: 17-27
Mark: 7:1-8, 14-15,21-23

Blest be the pure in heart, for they shall see our God; the secret of the Lord is theirs, their soul is Christ's abode. AMEN.

It's been quite a couple of days, of TV watching and listening to eulogies, commentary, and speeches, of watching image after image of Senator Kennedy's life. In many of the accounts, I kept hearing an apt example of the key line in this morning's Gospel, "There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile." I usually read the lessons on Mondays, and then think about the phrases all week. This week it seemed to me there were stories or reports about excessive one things and another that the Senator ate and drank, but what came out of him was not defiling, but legislation, which changed the fairness component in this country. Of course, bad things come out of us all, and he was no exception- his bad things were just splashy, public, and to be regretted for a lifetime. The things that went in may have enabled some of the out-going defiling things, but none of them, those going-in substances, were, in fact, evil in themselves. He exemplified the vitality and goodness, that even things that might be considered defiling going in, could be transformed going out, instead, into things forever a credit to a person.

Think about the food codes of various religions. It's Ramadan, so no Muslim eats from dawn until the sun sets, and of course, Muslims don't ever drink alcohol, or eat pork or shellfish, as Jews don't eat pork or shellfish. People opine that shellfish was judged to be a risk in the hot climate of the Middle East, making people ill. Pork comes from a cloven footed creature and that was seen to be evil. For both Jews and Christians wine is an integral part of our religious life, liturgies, and lives, and there is no negative moral attachment to wine- against excessive wine, to be sure, but not wine, in itself.

In our time, the food codes are more about sustainable food production values, sharing food resources throughout society, or concerns about weight, than about good or evil. Somehow spelt, quinoa, seaweed, and tofu have been touted as more morally virtuous than butter, bread, eggs, and red meat, All sorts of secondary considerations are tied to food, some close to thoughts of virtues and some not. While the former may be more virtuous, the world's great cuisines have more often featured the latter. Other considerations, like price or availability have also affected fashion attitudes around food. Like some considerations of dress, such as skirts or trousers, fashions and the meanings around them have varied through the ages, and some similar moral leanings have gone with one or the other. Manliness means courage and virtue so bold men always wear trousers and skirts therefore are weak-unless you consider Greek evzones, Scottish highland fighters wearing kilts, and that blue jeans have made trousers the norm for nearly everyone in many places, but those dress attitudes haven't usually been written into holiness codes. Sometimes though, in many places, religions require women to cover their shoulders or heads, while men are required to cover or not cover their heads. Here, where shellfish is available, delicious, and safe to eat, it seems particularly odd to have made such forbidden.

Paul also takes up the question of what comes into a person rather than what goes out being defiling, while in our day this social commentary about food has again become almost religious commentary, I quote from one of our more astute social commentators, from Woody Allen's Sleeper, a movie. set years into the future

Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he [the stranger visiting from the past] requested something called "wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."

Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.

Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?

Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.

Dr. Melik: Incredible.

While we laugh at this, and don't, at religious codes, let's consider a harder current example of the conundrum around this idea the Gospel. The Libyan prisoner, who was near death, we are told, the only person convicted, connected to the Lockerbie, Scotland plane that was brought down, presents such a challenge of what is right and what makes a person culpable by what comes from him or her. What was right in this action? Surely he deserved to be in jail for being a tool responsible for the actual mechanics of making that plane crash, but he could not have acted alone, so there has been some talk around this- since many people planned and carried out the bombing, it might not be right for him, alone, to serve a life sentence while the other conspirators serve nothing- fair point. Is it not compassionate to release any prisoner in the final stages of his life, to allow him or her to die among his family and people? Maybe. It may be virtuous to do for the releasing people, but not for the person released, if one can draw that line for virtue. Someone who is a convicted assassin might have less appeal to many to be eligible for such compassion, but that might not be relevant. Is it the person's deeds or the person's near-death-need to be at home? If the assassin's return home is celebrated, like that of a returning conquering soldier, does that tilt the moral plane? Can there be a virtue to the release for the releaser but not for the welcoming group, when the release is a single action? Perhaps, the consideration we want to be most important, is compassion for the prisoner, but can it be affected by whether he or she expresses guilt, remorse, and so pledge to restitution? If compassion is a virtue for the releasing people, is there redemption for the sinner without remorse? Redemption is clearly out of human hands, so it's the hardest for us to achieve, and so is often the hottest topic to discuss. Can there be simultaneous virtues and non-virtues around a single act depending, for different doers or actors in the total action, so the releaser, the released person, and the welcoming people, and should we include the point of view of the victims of the original action and those who still mourn for them? If a killer is to be celebrated by his country, should that affect the act intended as compassion? If the releasers' act is virtuous and the welcomers' act is not virtuous, and the killer unrepentant and so not even appealing to a newly acquired virtue, does that make all considerations of this case on a shifting base of virtue, or a base of relative virtues rather than absolute virtues? Is there an absolute in this particular circumstance?

This is not my field of expertise, and I've often found the circular nature nearly inevitable in these discussions annoying rather than pleasingly logical or definitive. However, some of what this man took in was morally virtuous in following some religious tenet, and acting for service and or love of country. Can acts of mass murder ever be along the continuum or point of virtue? Probably not, because there must be better ways to demonstrate love of God and country. There must be. Can the act of compassion in releasing the killer ever be definitively with or without virtue? Probably we're more at ease when the released person is worthy, but does that really affect the virtue of the releaser? Does economic advantage for the releaser-good trade considerations with Libya-lessen the virtue of the compassionate act? What came from the killer was what defiled him, and he has done little to lessen his defilement. What came from the releasers was not pure, but did not really defile them. What came from the planners and celebrating welcomers seems to defile them without much redemption, but is that relevant to the killer, either way? Enough philosophical ping pong, but it does demonstrate the true risk in aspiring to be the Judge. Even for the families of the victims it's hard to assess considerations between "it's time to move on" against the life-long grief, anger, loss, and victimization made by the action of the bomber and his associates. Our society often plumps for the former psychology, but the murder of a loved one affects the survivors' whole life. Is it more virtuous to move on or hold on- even that question has no simple answer.

It would seem to me that eating shrimp or any particular foods should not be considered defiling, and that premeditated intention mass murder should be, but we don't live in a world with such straightforward choices very often. The collect this morning offers help. "Graft in our hearts the love of your Name, increase in us true religion; nourish us with all goodness and bring forth in us the fruit of good works, through Jesus Christ our Lord..." Both considerations of stuff going in and out of us are addressed. We pray to be nourished with goodness, and that, what then does come from us be the fruit of good works. More importantly, we ask for help and acknowledge the need for such guidance. We ask that Jesus be the agent to direct our feeding and actions. We flip right on by the "through Jesus Christ," but that is our real prayer, that someone, that Jesus, safeguard both that we are nourished with true goodness, not that which defiles, and that what comes from us not defile, but bring forth good fruit. We are often, in true honesty, clear that we neither are up to being The Eternal Judge, nor do we much want that job. Less often, though, do we admit that being soley responsible for directing our own nourishment and for our own every action is beyond us also. The first promise of Jesus is to be Jesus Emanuel, God with us, and that is what we pray for; that is what we need, and that is the Holy One's guarantee to us in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. That is our need, and that is God's promise through Jesus Emanuel, and that is surely Good News.

Katharine C. Black © 2009