Jesus the Radical

From time to time it really hits me just how radical Jesus was: in his words, in his attitudes, in his behaviour.

The passage from John's Gospel set as today's lectionary reading really brings this home. It's the passage in John 4:5-42 in which Jesus visits a well and asks for a drink from a Samaritan woman, leading to a discussion about the water of eternal life.

In focussing on the message of water in eternal life, it strikes me that there are three major aspects of this reading which could easily be overlooked, yet speak volumes:

1. Jesus was human.
   It's quite something when John makes a point of describing Jesus in a human way, for he usually takes great pains to emphasise the divinity and high status of Christ - far more so than the authors of the synoptic gospels. But in this passage, John specifically states:
   'Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well' (Jn 4:6).
   It's especially important to remember when reading John that Jesus is not some alien figure; like every other human being he experienced pain, fatigue, anger and a whole other array of human emotions.
   
   
2. Jesus overlooked race boundaries.
   For centuries Jews and Samaritans were divided; Samaria was in the northern kingdom, Judah in the southern, and since the united monarchy they had been separate. The divide was deep: children of Samaria grew up with the understanding that they didn't associate with people from Judah, and likewise those from Judah learnt very quickly to avoid Samaritans.
   
   But for Jesus, this wasn't going to happen. He was in need of a drink, and a Samaritan woman was present. Connecting with another human being on the human level was far more a concern than long-standing cultural animosity. The woman, however, is clearly taken aback when he asks her for a drink, for she asks: ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ (Jn 4:9).
   
   Clearly Jesus envisaged a kingdom of God which did not exclude anyone - certainly not on the basis of race.
   
   
3. Not just race boundaries, either...
   The fact that this lady is Samaritan is not the only shocking thing here...she is, of course, a woman! To the twenty-first century reader, of course, this wouldn't raise an eyelid; but one must put oneself in the cultural context. It's 1st century Palestine...and women are effectively considered second-class citizens. Women would have had certain domestic roles, including of course as mothers - but this would have been their main domain. It would have been quite shocking for not just any man, but a man like Jesus who was revered in some circles, to have been in conversation with a woman. Yet Jesus time and time again is found talking to women and even defending them (cf. Matthew 26:6-13).
   
   In this passage, John explicitly states that: '[The disciples] were astonished that he was speaking with a woman' (Jn 4:27). He also tells us of her fundamental role in spreading the good news of Jesus: 'Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony' (4:39).

What is abundantly clear from this passage, therefore, is that Jesus envisages an inclusive kingdom where people of all races and genders are not only welcome, but also valued, having an important role. Perhaps churches and church leaders who attempt to exclude people from leadership or even membership would be well-advised to consider this.

Mass exodus?

It appears that there will soon be a mass exodus of Exodus International applications from iPhones - an application which Apple initially approved.

I've been reading about the whole application here: http://exodusinternational.org/

It appears that Exodus International is an organisation which promotes certain strands of Christian teaching and one of those areas regards conservative interpretations of Scripture on homosexuality. (I won't go into my take on these, as I've done it about 100 times already).

The picture being created is of a homophobic and hateful organisation promoting the 'curing' of people from their homosexuality through many means, one of which is an iPhone application. If this picture is correct, then Apple are correct in withdrawing it: irrespective of one's personal beliefs, it is entirely irresponsible to promote an application which could be damaging and hurtful to thousands of people on the basis of an element of their nature which they neither chose nor invented. Such an application would be as unacceptable as one attempting to cure people of their skin colour.

However, it seems that this isn't quite the case. The organisation quite clearly acknowledges that one cannot be 'cured' of one's sexual orientation and claims to approach the subject with compassion and consideration.

What the organisation attempts to do therefore is to encourage those with conservative Christian beliefs and homosexual orientations to seek to discipline themselves not to act on them.

Do I agree that what Exodus International encourages is correct? Absolutely not. Do I think that they are taking the right approach? Probably not. Do I think that their beliefs are agreeable on the whole? Not really.

But, despite their beliefs being highly conservative and some of their claims regarding homosexuality highly questionable, it is not entirely clear that their views are hateful and homophobic. For that reason, it does not strictly seem to be necessary that the application is

withdrawn.

And, unfortunately, the result of such an action is invariably the protests of conservative religious believers that the devil is at work, persecution of Christians is on the rise and most Western citizens are on their way to hell. Oops, no sooner had I said it....