This sermon just in from an Episcopal Church in NC addressing Mark 7.24-30. Does one weep, puke or scream?
The Syrophoenician woman snaps right back though, using his feeding-the-dog metaphor and says she’d be happy to have the dog’s scraps, thank you very much, Sir. Clearly her mixture of audacity and humilty makes Jesus stop and think. He listens, and apparently learns something, and he realizes he has made a mistake. He has judged unfairly. She may be Gentile scum but she values what he has to offer. She has faith in him. He decides that he will heal her daughter after all. What an amazing story! Jesus is shown to be wrong. And he changes his mind. This is unique in all the Gospels – Jesus being bested by someone else – and a Gentile woman at that! (emphasis in preacher’s original text)
Pray tell, preacher, what other mistakes might Jesus have made?
A diet Mountain Dew to anyone who guesses the preacher and parish. Here’s a hint: their motto is, “Love all, serve all” – oops, sorry, that’s the Hard Rock’s motto. Theirs is: “Welcome All, Love All, Serve All Through Christ.”
Related Articles
40 users responded in this post
Is it Father Arius, perhaps?
St. James in Hendersonville, NC has that motto. Am I close, boss? Like Todd, I’ll do anything for a Diet Mountain Dew. In this case, the mountain part may be curiously applicable.
If I’m wrong, I’ll keep searching!
Good Grief!
A man, or even better yet, a gentile woman teaches the inept little Jesus a lesson and by so doing suggests we ought to be arrogant self centered narcissists who being the intellectually advanced elite we are, not only put Jesus in his lowly (and proper) place but also command him to do their bidding as though he were a slave. Yep now there is a gospel for TEC. I won’t guess priest or parish because this could be preached in many parishes in NC and throughout TEC as it seems to be the norm these days… Sad, very sad. I think I’ll puke, then cry.
Craig…Funny thing is that my mind immediately thought it was Kanuga. I remember when Rich Giersch (our former Youth Guy) made an alter call during a youth conference and was sternly warned in a letter from the camp that alter calls were offensive and not welcome at Kanuga.
Step Tom, very interesting connection. Good to know. Due to my totally depraved lust for a Diet Mountain Dew, I did a Google search & found that church but left the rector’s name out in case I was dead wrong. Interesting note about Kanuga & altar calls being offensive. That has to rank right up there with the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. Interesting proximity. Could it be in the water up there?
Thank God for altar calls. Otherwise, I would be in far more desperate shape that I’m in right now.
The real question is how’s their pulled pork sandwich?
A topic worth a field trip to investigate – “worshed” (as we say in Indiana) down with a Diet Mountain Dew!
Well, if you have ever been around hungry kids, you know that everyone benefits by feeding them. Perhaps our Lord was just taking care of first things first and maybe (going out on a limb here) Jesus knows what He was doing after all. My head is so much quieter when I relax and know that Jesus is God. I don’t have to define Him with my head but instead define Him by my experience of Him.
Not sure, but I think I interviewed with the preacher when he was in this diocese.
I like Becky Pippert’s take on the story much better. Jesus’ disciples perhaps were pestering him to get rid of the woman. So he teased her with comments that fit with the disciples’ desire. Jesus had a sense of humor and delighted in her responses. He was the teacher, not the learner here.
I also like to note that this is a close as Jesus gets to ever saying “No” to a request for healing. Since Jesus demonstrates God’s character, we can confidently pray for healing!
Since I live close by I’ll say St. James in Hendersonville. That is their motto. However, I can’t guess which priest uttered the words. All could have.
St. James Hendersonville; woman priest, first Sunday in September. I was there. I left at the peace.
Well done, Kay. You’re right on all counts. God help the congregation she serves – although, they called her so in that respect they deserve what they get.
Well, well, well, it seems no one reads Scrpiture commentaries, or they choose to overlook the difficult passages where Jesus utters some hard words. At best, he is not nice to the Syrophoenician woman and calls her a dog simply because she’s a Gentile. The scholars can’t explain why he behaves so uncharacteristically. It does not change my belief in him as Lord and Savior–we need to be careful of the heresy of Ebionism as well. Not only that but sermons are to make us think not simply to reinforce what we want to believe. I was not totally comfortable with the sermon either, but it did make me think. It seems some folks’ faith was not strong enough to hear difficult things in the sermon, and for that I apologize. There was no heresy preached however much you may not have liked the sermon. Yes, we do our best to welcome, love and serve all who come to St. James, because we believe Jesus compels us to do so. However, being the sinners that we are, we do fail and ask God’s forgiveness. I am proud to serve here. By the way, Steve, Austin was quite moved to have met you at General Convention. I think this judgemental shot at a fellow priest was beneath you Steve.
Joel – I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that Jesus DID make a mistake, that he was wrong, and that he changed his mind? I have no problems being challenged to think and engage my brain. If a sermon doesn’t challenge my faith, devotion, and/or practice, I might as well be listening to somebody drone on at the local Rotary. This goes beyond challenging – this is teaching that is in error.
Heresy is the rejection or corruption of doctrine. The preacher has rejected that Christ was perfect. I admire your loyalty to your staff but your first loyalty should be to Christ and his Church.
Grow up, Joel. The pulpit is to be a place of scriptural exposition, not a therapy couch for your clergy to work through their issues, nor a lab for them to experiment with their latest theological innovations. Of course, sermons are meant to be thoughtful, my thought was “why is this being preached?” Jesus erred in His judgement. Hmmm. So what other judgements await in which He might again err? “Jesus was wrong.” Pray tell, Joel, what else might Jesus be wrong about: His divinity? His full humanity? That we might find salvation in and through Him? Please tell me, Joel, just what can I believe that comes from the lips of Jesus? I’m pleased that you were not “totally comfortable” with the sermon. You should not have been. Please note that I did not label the sermon “heresy”, it is, in fact, not heresy as it too shallow to bear that lofty assertion. And, while I’ve not met the woman who preached this I am enjoined in Scripture (Titus 1.9) to “refute those” who depart from sound doctrine. Finally, may I suggest that your preacher invest in a sound set of commentaries. I will gladly purchase them for her.
Wow. So what did y’all do with yesterday’s Gospel?
I had thought about asking you the same – any millstones being fitted? As a teacher you don’t find that text terrifying as you prepare to step into the pulpit?
Lastly, and by the way, Jesus spoke to her nature as it truly was – and as mine (and yours) is. Aside from and outside Christ we are dogs. His forthrightness offends our sensitive ears as it pricks our dead conscience. The remedy? Offered by the woman. Accept our Lord’s identification of our condition and receive healing.
I love it when Steve gets his dorsal fin up & goes for the kill!
Many posts ago Steve made mention of Calvin’s idea that the pastor must have two voices – one for the sheep entrusted to his care and the other for the wolves seeking to damage the flock. This comment string is a great example of that premise. A teacher badly handling the Word of God in the pulpit is called on it by another pastor.
It’s obvious we’re worlds apart, my brother, on how to interpret Scripture, the faith, and the person, love, and salvation of Jesus Christ. I’m not a Calvinist, so we’re probably never going to agree on the “Total Depravity” thing. What you and others are holding up as a form of Christianity strikes me as mean spirited, self-righteous and pharisaical. I do not believe God sees nor did Jesus see us as dogs, because that’s absurd–”For God so loved the world…” But if y’all need to feel like a dog to feel better, have at it. I’m gonna rely on God’s grace and love. That’s what changed my life for Jesus when I was 16. God bless.
Just wondering, Steve:
Do you make guest preachers submit their sermons to you ahead of time so that you can appropriately censor what they’ve written and make sure that nothing comes out of their mouths that you disagree with?
Joel, a little review of your own words may put things into a different light. You believe that:
-No one reads Scripture commentaries.
-They overlook difficult passages where Jesus utters “hard words”.
-Jesus calls a Syrophoenician woman a dog simply because she is a Gentile.
-Scholars cannot explain Jesus’ “uncharacteristic” behavior.
-We need to be careful of the “heresy of Ebionism”.
-Some “folks” faith isn’t strong enough to hear the “difficult” things in the sermon.
-No heresy was preached.
Speaking of “love”, “self-righteousness” and “being mean-spirited”, let’s examine each one of your points – point by point to evaluate who really is “self righteous” or “mean-spirited”.
1. If you believe that people at St. Andrew’s do not read Biblical commentaries, you are in for quite a shock. If you were to conduct an objective evaluation, you would be very surprised at their Biblical depth and sophistication. Your assertion is an uninformed and prejudicial attack to put it mildly – speaking of being mean-spirited albeit somewhat subtle.
2. Mark 7:24 is not a difficult passage when viewed in the whole of Scripture. You cannot read the whole of Scripture and conclude that Jesus becomes “persuaded” or “changes his mind” due to a clever response by the Syrophoenician woman. It is far more plausible to conclude that Jesus was testing her faith while knowing her heart and final outcome of that situation. In reality, she acknowledged Jesus’ challenge of her condition. She was humble (not subservient). This revealed her faith and Jesus blessed that faith. Your perspective and that of your associate reveals your extraordinarily weak view of Scripture. This raises serious questions about how truly well you know the God you claim to worship when you do not accept the breadth of the authority of His Word.
3. In no way did Jesus perceive this woman as Gentile scum. He could have avoided speaking to her. This did not happen. He spoke to a woman and a Syrophoenician woman at that and he delivered her daughter in the bargain. You don’t treat “Gentile scum” that way.
4. Scholars can most certainly and do explain Jesus’ behavior. Check the ESV Study Bible notes or the New Bible Commentary (pg. 867) on Mark 7 just for starters. Consistent with Steve’s previous comment, Jesus gave her a true snapshot of her condition just as the Holy Spirit give us that realistic snapshot by convicting us of our sin. What a bonus!! I am honored to be “totally depraved” because I know that God cares enough about me to show me who I really am and then provides the solution through his saving power. This is hardly “pharisaical”. Once again, if you do not have a clear picture of where you stand before God, you CANNOT fully appreciate His love, grace and mercy. Therefore Steve’s assertion that your associate and you are blind guides is an accurate assessment – shocking as that might be to hear.
5. Your assertion of the “heresy of Ebionism” is a distortion or spin of the term. I suspect that you thought you could pull that out of your hat without being called on it. This is hardly an issue of Ebionism (an extreme overdependaence on Jewish law resulting in the denial of the divinity of Christ). Your use of Ebionism is your spin on pharisaical judgmentalism. This becomes more evident in your last post. Bottom-line, when you don’t have a high view of Scripture, everyone appears to be “judgmental” and “mean-spirited”. Don’t associate “Ebionism” with your weak view of Scripture.
6. and 7. These are the most insulting and offensive points of all. Your assertion that “some folks faith was not strong enough to hear difficult things in the sermon” is condescending at best and aiding and abetting undisciplined and heretical teaching at its worst. The fact that your associate and you were called out on this is evidence that the respondents in this blog can address difficult issues. I believe Steve was too understanding regarding your associate. (Despite being from northern Ohio, he can be a softy at times!) Her message was heretical because she denies the sovereignty, foreknowledge and omnisience of God. She confuses by implication Jesus’ divine place in the Trinity by stating that Jesus has made a “mistake”. You will find no true hermeneutical support for that idea in Scripture when the examples are placed in their total context.
The business of “us all” needing to feel like dogs is classic look down the nose liberal patronizing. The shock to you is that you are surprised when you all are called on it. Do yourself a favor and repent while there is still time. Even better, do your congregation a favor and provide them with accurate teaching while there is still time for them. Some of them may not know any better. You are leading them blindly down the path of destruction through your misleading and perhaps disingenuous “reliance” on God’s grace and love.
My dear Joel. “Total depravity” (a phrase not employed by Calvin, himself) means every aspect and dimension of our humanity has been affected by sin – body, mind, spirit. You know that. It does not mean that every person is depraved in the modern sense of corrupt, degenerative and perverse in every action and generally reserved for those who commit heinous crimes. You know that, also. Your insinuation to the contrary is sophistry. This idea of sin’s pervasive stain is both assumed and enshrined in the confessions and Eucharistic liturgies of the Prayer Book – “there is no health in us.” But, you know that as well.
How pleased I am to hear your affirmation of grace! The great reformers – Anglicans, Lutherans, Continental – all championed the God of Grace – grace which is understood, celebrated and embraced as undeserved blessing freely bestowed on humankind by God. It was this amazing grace which subdued my rebellious heart and brought this prodigal son home. And, my dear Joel, it is only against the backdrop of my sinful human nature, that grace is revealed as grace and God is understood as loving beyond comprehension.
No, my friend, I fear our difference finds its home in another place. However, unlike you, I will not arrogate to myself the determination of your belief(s) and dismiss them unchecked and unexplored.
This post is about the absolute dribble you allowed to pour forth from your pulpit which found its way to my desk. Having checked a dozen commentaries now, none have even hinted at the point of view asserted by your preacher du jour.
Ann, how commendable that you come to the defense of your husband, Joel.
At St. Andrew’s the entire staff gathers on Thursdays to hear the preacher review with us their exegesis and the Lord’s leading in the shaping of their message. From the discussion which ensues, weakness are addressed and ambiguities are challenged. By the time the preacher makes it to the pulpit they have run the gauntlet of 5 clergy and 20+ lay staff. The preacher is just as likely to be challenged by our sexton as he is by me. We end our time praying with and for the preacher and congregation.
With regard to my guest preachers, yes, I do vet them. Not necessarily their specific content, rather their general theology. And, guest preachers almost always receive a topic I wish them to address. We’re up for diversity as well: Tom Wright, Michael Green, John Stott, Eddie Gibbs, RT Kendall, Archbishops Orombi, Chew, Nzimbi, Kwashi, Duncan, Griswold and Jefferts Schori, amongst a host of others, have all spoken at St. Andrew’s. Clearly, I have substantial theological differences with the latter two. Hence, they did not preach from our pulpit, nor did we function together in any sacramental manner. Rather, we had an open and gracious dialogue.
At the end of the day, my sister Ann, I am responsible – as is your husband – for the pulpit ministries of our respective parishes. Perhaps some take this lightly. Personally, the scriptural admonitions regarding the Lord’s dealing with his shepherds and teachers is beyond sobering. And truly, in 18 years of ordained ministry not once has anything remotely this egregious come from a pulpit for which I have been responsible.
Now to the most important theological question – When does Kay get her Diet Mountain Dew? How about during the 10:45 service?!
Hello Joel and Ann. Rejoice, for sometime after the end of 40 days you no longer will have to be formally associated with St A, and likely shortly after that the DOSC.
What a day that will be!!
First time poster, long time lurker. Great string. Interestingly, Stand Firm has a similar conversation going on. You may want to check it out: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24756
Steve, reading the comment string above it looks to me like you have one standard for laypersons and another (higher) standard for clergy. Is this correct? And if it is, why? Aren’t we all held to the same standard?
Andy, In his letter, James said that there was a higher standard of accountability for those who teach. He wrote “because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3″1).
Hello Andy, thanks for the question! Yes, I do believe that teachers are held to a higher standard than the average person. Our gospel this past Sunday indicated such (Mark 9.42) and Ken noted James above. Both these texts are illustrative of a large and consistent witness that the Lord hold shepherds/kings/teachers, etc. to a much higher standard as their ability to do great damage increases as their sphere of leadership increases. I appreciate your question. I’d be happy to talk with you more about this. Blessings, bro!
Makes one wonder what folks in that congregation have done to earn this kind of judgement from God. Pestilence and poverty are one thing…Amos 8:11 is another.
If one of the goals of this blog is to prompt conversation, and it is, then this post has succeeded. It has also helped shape off-blog communication between myself and some of the leadership team at St. James. It was a helpful and pleasant interchange. The preacher who made these statements was a guest preacher, not the resident female clergyperson, and it seems that the comments were a surprise to many. It is a sad day for all of us when guest preachers need to be vetted so closely. Personally, and as one with responsiblity for the pulpit ministry at St. Andrew’s, it is even more sad to think that a guest – who would be in the pulpit only at my invitation – would take such liberties without the courtesy of advance notice and permission. Sigh. Never-the-less, I am especially thankful for the discussion which ensued as this sermon was so far off the mark rebuttal was necessary.
It is helpful to know that the speaker was a guest preacher so that we are able to direct our comments toward the correct source. Three observations:
1. A leader is a leader – guest preacher or not. Their words impact “innocent souls”. This is especially true in this day and age when many do not have the opportunity to experience basic discipleship training (e.g. Alpha, Navigators 2:7, Campus Crusade 10 Basic Steps or a comparable approach). Steve, I believe you were right to confront this.
2. I am sure that Joel is a fine and decent man. However, by defending his guest preacher, he revealed his poor leadership. He aided and abetted her poor theology. This is reflective of the spiritual poverty of TEC. Because of this, he is far more culpable than her.
3. Leader or not, this is a lesson to us all. Some of us are formal leaders, some informal. Certainly ordained and formal leaders must be held to a higher standard. However, informal leaders impact people as well and must be held accountable. We all need to rise to a higher standard. Steve, when you challenge us doctrinally, we are called to examine what we believe AND what we do. Hence the value of this blog. We will all need to step up our game when we leave TEC because the enemy will go after this body (individually and corporately) with a vengeance to discredit or neutralize us. And … we will be our own worst enemy if we are not disciplined. Steve, I believe that you would come after me immediately and give me a pastoral whack up side my head if I steered off the doctrinal track and confused others around here. Thank God for that. Joel, you are not alone!
It doesn’t help that much that it was a guest preacher. Certainly, the Rector cannot control what is said in a spontaneous moment. However, as the pastor of that congregation, he is never the less responsible for allowing the guest into his pulpit. Didn’t he know her theology? If not, why not? If so, why then allow her to preach?
Also, has he repudiated her words? I’m guessing not based on his comments above in this string, and if he disagreed, why is it that her sermon also appeared in print at the parish?
Finally, I’d be curious to know what St. Andrew’s members would do and say to their Rector if he allowed this to be spoken from the pulpit of St. Andrew’s? I doubt it’d be dismissed with, “oh, it’s just a guest preacher.”
Sometimes I think orators want to sound novel on some “never heard that before” approach. It is in the same vain as being ashamed of the gospel. We assume everyone in the room has heard or understands or believes the gospel, therefore let’s move into the theraputic applications of the gospel. Thereby removing ourselves from the opportunity to “greater works than these”.
I know this is not where the attention of the post is focused, but what I find most intriguing is why Joel suggests Steve should read commentaries when Joel is the guy who confuses the intellectual and psychological implications of Chalcedon on Christ’s human nature with Ebionism. Careless at best, amateurish at worst. This is pretty basic stuff for a pastor, or should be. Just a thought.
[...] 1. Blind Guides [...]