Uncategorized
Untitled
“Shorts!?” based on James 2:8-13 and Mark 7:14-23

It was really hot, sort of like this past week, when I went to visit some parishioners in my first church. I was in my mid-20s, and very aware of my pastoral role, so I’d carefully purchased only knee length shorts. I wore them, because they were modest and it was hot out.
The couple I visited was in their 80s, kind and thoughtful, passionate gardeners with great stories to tell. Without malice or judgement one of them remarked on my shorts to the other, something along the lines of “I never thought I’d see the day that a pastor would wear shorts.”
It had not occurred to me until that exact moment that I was violating an expectation. It was HOT OUT, and they were LONG, and someone had told me not to be too frilly or people wouldn’t trust me and…. most of all, I just didn’t know that pastors were expected not to wear shorts.
As an FYI this also applied to sandals and sleeveless tops, where there were expectations of some that I didn’t know about. Oddly enough, I’m willing to violate your expectations if you think I shouldn’t show my toes or my upper arms, but I haven’t gone visiting in shorts since that day!
Our passages today land us smack dab in the middle of purity conversations, and my experience of wearing shorts on a hot day seem like a decent example of how purity expectations change with time. There was a 60 year difference in ages between the faithful members of the church and the new pastor in that story, and we didn’t have the same understanding of what “appropriate” attire was for a pastor in the summer. That’s not exactly shocking. I have not experienced a time when women wore hats, gloves, and dresses to church while men wore suits, ties, and had handkerchiefs but I’ve heard about those times. I’ve heard about the transitions to making space for women to wear pants. For that couple, those transitions had happened during their live-times, and I was unfathomably casual. For me, finding shorts that were long enough to be “appropriate” was seriously challenging work – I was going against the grain of what I wanted to wear and what my friends wore for the sake of adapting to expectations, and I was embarrassed to learn it wasn’t enough.
As I read the Gospel this week, and listened to a story about Jesus condemning kosher dietary laws, I thought to myself, “well, that’s not likely to go back to Jesus. The decision to forego Jewish purity laws happened much later in Christian history. Jesus was Jewish, and he wouldn’t have condemned a faithful expression of his own tradition.” So, I went to the Jesus Seminar so they could tell me how brilliant I am.
They didn’t.
Instead, they said, “The aphorism – it’s not what goes in but what comes out that defiles – is a categorical challenge to the laws governing pollution and purity. … As a simple aphorism, it may well go back to Jesus: it challenges the everyday, the inherited, the established, and erases social boundaries taken to be sacrosanct. If Jesus taught that there is nothing taken into the mouth that can defile, he was undermining a whole way of life. That, in the judgement of the Fellows, sounds like Jesus.”1 They did think the later explanation of all the sins was likely a creation of Mark, for what it is worth, which is pretty much nothing.
I am not exactly sure what to do with this now, because it has a problematic anti-Semitic feel to it, but also Jesus was Jewish and I think people within a group get to see its reform. I just think that we, as Christians, better be very careful about how we speak about such things.
So I’m going to move away from the kosher conversation, and further into the purity conversation. The Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels makes this really interesting. They say, “Purity practices are a form of group boundary markers. They define who is in and who is out. They draw lines between those who are loyal to a group and those who are not…. Redefinition of purity rules such as Mark describes here and in the preceding passage can thus be construed as a redefinition of group and its boundaries.”2
I hadn’t even thought of that. I’ve been too busy being upset about the way that purity movements in my life-time are anti-sex, anti-female, homophobic, transphobic, and small-minded. I missed that they had a purpose.
If purity laws about defining the boundaries of who is in and who is out, well, first of all, a lot of things suddenly make more sense. Because that indicates that by drawing a line somewhere and thus excluding someone you can feel good about yourself and your self-righteousness, and well, I’ve seen that trick.
But also, if purity laws are about who is in and who is out then a whole lot of the Bible makes more sense. Because it turns out the word “neighbor” is also about who is in and who is out. Back to the Commentary, “Persons interacting positively with each other in in-group ways, even when not actual kin, become “neighbors.” The term refers to a social role with rights and obligations that derive simply from living socially close to others and interacting with them – the same village or neighborhood or party or faction. Neighbors of this sort are an extension of one’s kin group.”3
OK, so the ancient world was obsessed with in group and out group thinking – not so different from how we are now. And the first level of in group was family, everything else balanced on family. So as the in-group expanded outward, it became about thinking about who counted as being “family like,” and neighbors were family-like, in no small part because their well-being was tied up with one’s own.
But this is weird I fall in love with the Jesus movement all over again. Because we’ve got this purity thing going on, this drawing lines in the sand and excluding people from it, right? But then it turns out we include our families. And we include our neighbors. And then we have this Jesus who teaches centering on the question “Who is my neighbor?” and the answer ends up being the expected enemy, and that means everyone is your neighbor and there isn’t an out group after all, just one big in-group and everyone’s well being is interconnected.
This concept is why I use the language “kin-dom of God” where many others have used “kingdom of God.” Part of my decision there is to reject the idea that God is like an overbearing earthly king, interested in power and obedience. That part of my decision is ironic because the whole idea of “kingdom of God” is meant to be a counter to the idea of earthly power, but it seems to me we’ve gotten confused along the way, and it hasn’t worked. The positive piece though, is that we are moving towards the kin-dom of God when all people are treated as kin, as family, as members of the in-group, as people whose well-being is interconnected.
Now, there is a challenge in this. One of the best ways to bind a group of people together in an identity is to define an us by defining a “them.” It is engaging to be “in” and we create an “in” by creating an out. It is harder to be without those purity boundaries. But it is worth it.
When I think about being a person of faith, the way I think about it is to be about moving with God towards the kindom, and hopefully inviting others with me along the way. Or, in similar language, I’m told one of my predecessors in this pulpit, J. Edward Carothers, talked about the purpose of church being “to establish and maintain connections of mutual support in an ever widening circle of concern.”
Ever widening circle of concern. Which might, even, be a circle of mercy. Our James reading ends with “mercy shouts victory over judgment.” I always have to remember that mercy is compassion shown to someone who it would be in one’s power to punish or harm. In this phrasing it seems like the opposite of judgment. Judgment would be using one’s power to punish or harm. But “Mercy shouts victory over judgment.” James is making a point common to the Bible – the ways we act and judge are the ways we will be treated and the ways we will be judged. Be merciful, he says, so you will receive mercy. Be merciful so mercy shouts victory over judgment.
May mercy be the way forward.
Compassion, when one holds the power over another.
Compassion.
Mercy.
Mercy shouts victory over judgment.
Ever widening circles of mercy.
Until the kindom comes.
Yes, God, yes, let’s do it! Amen
1Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? (USA: HarperOne, 1993) 69.
2Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) “Textual Notes: Luke 16:1-16” p. 176.
3Malina and Rohrbaugh, 373.
Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady
September 10, 2023








