# The Case of the Poor Syrophoenician Woman - and Lib Protestantism



## DMcFadden (Sep 11, 2015)

Many pastors in lectionary using congregations preached on Mark 7's account of the Syrophoenician woman last Sunday. I was struck by the ways in which this text has been used by those on the left.

A "Ten Second Sermon" by the "Women of ELCA" quoted Mark 7:27 where Jesus says, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs" (NRSV)

Then, it comments: "If our Lord Jesus can make an error in judgment, we mere humans certainly will. The problem is not in the mistake, the problem is in failing to acknowlege it. Jesus said he was sorry by healing a precious daughter. How will you say it?"

The idea that Mark 7 "proves" Jesus to be in error, in this case to engage in racist name-calling, presumably along with the idea that he shared the jingoistic notions of his fellow Jews regarding Gentiles, is astounding!

A post today by Robert Gagnon on "First Things" reports on the recent denial of tenure to a Fuller Seminary prof who supported same sex unions. As a pretty close observer of my alma mater since graduation nearly four decades ago ('77), the denial of tenure is welcome, but a bit surprising. During my seminary years a much respected theologian (Westminster trained Paul K. Jewett) argued that the Bible was "wrong" on egalitarianism; Paul simply allowed his Pharisaical training to overwhelm his theological common sense as epitomized in Galatians 3:28. Now another Westminster trained professor is denied tenure 40 years later for suggesting that the Bible was wrong on homosexuality. Surprising, but welcome. 

When the current president, Mark Labberton, was an associate professor of preaching at Fuller, he wrote a blurb on the back of this same tenure-denied professor's book strongly endorsing it: “What makes this book exceptional is that [it]. . . . addresses a complex and commonly felt set of controversies about Jesus, Paul, women, sexuality and homosexuality and does so in particularly careful, unflinching ways. . . . demonstrating an interpretive manner that both honors Scripture and wrestles with it.”

Gagnon writes, 



> Kirk recently published further indications of support of committed homosexual unions. On June 9 in a blog post entitled, “Gay Christians: Should Relationships Matter?” he made a bad analogy between Jesus changing his mind toward the Syrophoenician woman and Jesus changing his mind about “gay” relationships. I think a better reading of the story in Mark 7:24-30 is that it concerns a change only of timing as regards Gentile outreach (sooner rather than later), not a change in substance.


http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/09/fuller-seminary-takes-a-stand

Pity the poor Syrophoenician woman. Her encounter with Jesus which ended rather well (for her, her daughter, and was a great affirmation of faith) has been hijacked by the left to defend all manner of poppycock, prattle, and palaver.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 11, 2015)

> The idea that Mark 7 "proves" Jesus to be in error, in this case to engage in racist name-calling, presumably along with the idea that he shared the jingoistic notions of his fellow Jews regarding Gentiles, is astounding!



In a way it's not, when, as your piece touches on, they have effectively been saying for a long time that our Lord and their "Lord", made a much bigger error by choosing Paul to be Apostle to the Gentiles and write a large section of the NT. Their "Christ" is very much a fallible and sinful man who made great errors.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 11, 2015)

Given a choice between an interpretation that makes my Lord out to be a jingoistic racist xenophobe or one that comports well with how he characteristically and customarily acted throughout the Gospels as the perfect God-man . . . well, I guess you can mark me down for the latter one.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 11, 2015)

I too was surprised with Kirk being denied tenure at Fuller. Is it too cynical of me to suggest that appearing to surrender on this would have hurt them financially with regard to donors and recruiting new students? That's basically the line in the sand issue for many who have caved on just about everything else. I am reminded of mainline "Christian" liberal arts colleges who were forced to maintain certain appearances for quite a while (on things like not allowing those of the opposite sex in dorm rooms 24x7) to appease the old white men on the board of trustees who were under the mistaken impression that the school still had something to do with Christianity. 

We'll see how things stand in 5-10 years. It does seem to me that some of the people in the PCUSA who opposed "SSM" but went along with just about everything else were shaken in the past few years and have come around to a more orthodox position overall. I've come across some who are arguably sounder than others who have been officially "evangelical" for a much longer time. May it please God that something similar happen at Fuller.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 11, 2015)

Chris,

I have been a persistent critic of many things at my old school, but catering to $$$ is not one of them. If anything, the place of Hubbard, Mouw, and Labberton would err in the opposite direction. 

Not sure about the composition of the student body today, but my impression is that it is still heavily PCUSA. Compared to the run of the mill mainline seminary, the Pasadena crowd must look like raving fundamentalists. Compare it to places like Trinity, Gordon, Westminster, Dallas, Talbot, or Masters, however, and that would give you a different controlling metaphor.

Based on my contacts with the school over the past four decades, it is shocking to me that professors would actually set aside the seemingly untouchable ideal (or was that idol?) of academic freedom over such an issue. Fuller grads (e.g., Rob Bell), former professors (e.g., Mel White), current students, and part-time faculty (e.g., Tony Jones has been a teacher in the D.Min program)have all come out in favor of same sex marriage. Getting rid of the traditional view in favor of egalitarianism required ignoring, contradicting, or reinterpreting heretofore seemingly clear (perhaps equally clear) passages. So, four decades later, it would stand to reason that the school would apply Jewett's hermeneutic to the question of homosexuality (as he did himself before his death).

But, it would be wrong to criticize someone for doing the right thing. So . . .


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 11, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Given a choice between an interpretation that makes my Lord out to be a jingoistic racist xenophobe or one that comports well with how he characteristically and customarily acted throughout the Gospels as the perfect God-man . . . well, I guess you can mark me down for the latter one.



This reminds me of when Arden Hodgins of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in La Mirada once preached on this passage at our church when we were in Tacoma.

It was very effective and moving. The thing I remember most was this line: "it is as if she said, 'I may be a dog, Lord, but I'm _your_ dog.'"

Such is the great faith given to the humbled and needy sinners.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 11, 2015)

Vic, that sounds like a great sermon. Excellent rhetorical strategy and theological insight. It's not as easy to accomplish as some think it is.




VictorBravo said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Given a choice between an interpretation that makes my Lord out to be a jingoistic racist xenophobe or one that comports well with how he characteristically and customarily acted throughout the Gospels as the perfect God-man . . . well, I guess you can mark me down for the latter one.
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 12, 2015)

Thanks for that insight, Dennis.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 12, 2015)

Vic,

Someone already followed that line of interpretation . . . 500 years ago.



> What a superb and wonderful object lesson this is, therefore, to teach us what a mighty, powerful, all-availing thing faith is . . . Is not that a masterpiece? She clutches at Christ’s own words. He compares her to a dog, she grants that and asks nothing more than that He would let her be a dog, as He Himself had judged her to be. Where could he go? He is captured. We let a dog have the crumbs under the table, that is its right. Therefore, He now completely opens His heart to her and yields to her will, so that she is now not a dog, but a child of Israel [Matt. 15:28] . . . This was written for all our comfort and instruction, so that we may know how deeply God hides His grace from us, so that we would not consider Him according to our perception and thinking but strictly according to His word. Here you see that though Christ pretends to be harsh, yet He gives no final judgment when He says, ‘No.’ Rather, all His answers sound like no, but they are not no … "Gospel for the Second Sunday in Lent " on the Matthean version of the account, pgs. 378-382 in Vol. 76 of Luther's Works: Church Postil II.



The larger context argues that Jesus deliberately tests the woman so that she will demonstrate her faith. Luther argues that he never intended to express a racist view, merely to draw her out to reveal the tenacity of her faith.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm pretty sure Arden knew about Luther's take, because he followed the same larger point.

Thanks for that.


----------

