Racial Prejudice?

There is an occasion when Jesus is reported (shockingly) as saying to a Canaanite woman: "It is not good to take the food for the children and give it to the dogs." Clearly in the context the statement was referring to the request she had made for help for her demon-possessed daughter. While such a saying may not have seemed strange to those who were already prejudiced against the Canaanites it does rather hit us in the face who have been taught that racial prejudice is wrong.

Were Jesus' words really an indication of the kind of prejudice which led to the Holocaust - prejudice which springs from a superiority quite out of step with those who consider themselves followers of Jesus and Paul? In other words was Jesus really prejudging the Canaanites? Was his epithet as vicious as it might be if used by one of us? To answer that question we need to understand Jesus' motive for the question.

He told the woman he had come in order to seek and save the lost children of Israel. He had previously had an altercation with the Scribes and Pharisees. He had, as a result, explained to the disciples the difference between a false view of defilement (by not carrying out ritual cleansings) and real defilement - that which comes from the heart. It was after that incident that he withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon where they met up with the Canaanite (Syro-Phoenician) woman. It seems significant that Matthew records only one incident (her request) from that visit to the region. Were there no Israelites there who felt the need for the Savior's touch? Or was it her response that the Savior wanted to draw to our attention?

She comes to him - a Canaanite seeking help from a Jew! Such an event was uncommon in itself. At this point all the disciples would have been watching - they had just been reminded that it is what comes from the heart which defiles. Now they see their Master reject her request! He didn't merely say politely: "I'm sorry I didn't come to help anyone but the Israelites ..." That would have been acceptable to the modern ear. He said it insultingly. "It is not right to give food, reserved for the children, to the dogs!" Plainly he was likening the Canaanite to a dog - the kind of animal which slinks around the table attempting to steal the food belonging to the people of the house.

Her response was humble and an unexpected acceptance of his apparent denigration. "True, Lord," she responds, "but even the dogs are allowed the crumbs which drop from the table." Was there an implied rebuke in her words as if to say she was (after all) better than the dogs? I believe not. On the contrary it would appear she was prepared to place herself lower on the scale than the very dogs to which Jesus referred. The obvious interpretation is that, such was her love for her daughter, she would accept any insult, any denigration if only it would be a benefit to her daughter.

Jesus, however, read more in this than merely love for her daughter. He saw the faith she had in him. He saw she was prepared to accept any assessment he wanted to make of her. In comparison with his glory she was nothing, less than the dogs which were given the right to feed on the crumbs. She was prepared to ask for that which was theirs by right, and of one who was capable of giving so much more than just food for the body. Do you consider this an exaggeration? Is this reading more into the text than is there? Then hear the words of the Lord himself: "Woman," he said, "Your faith is great, be it done for you as you wish." And, Matthew records, her daughter was immediately healed.

So, was Jesus racially motivated? The words he used certainly seemed to indicate that was true. But his willingness to recognize her faith and declare it as great proves his words were for the disciples' benefit. He had not yet finished teaching them that it is what comes from the heart which defiles - even when it appears the language shows something different. That they left the region without any other recorded event indicates that was the way Matthew saw it for, as soon as they return to the Sea of Galilee, Jesus was healing the people again - and we read of the feeding of the four thousand who had been with him for three days and had no food. This view of the incident is entirely consistent with Jesus' treatment of the Samaritan woman at the well (who was surprised that he, being a Jew would even talk to her) and the Gentiles who came to him for help.

One cannot but conclude that Jesus' whole purpose in going to the region was just to find this lady and help her while, at the same time, reinforcing a valuable lesson for his disciples. His words were designed to evoke the kind of response which comes from humble faith, the kind which bows to God's judgment, even when it is unflattering to the recipient. Such faith ought to characterize all those who have been given the privilege of being called the children of God.

The Regulative Principle and Freedom

I was reading an excellent summation of the Regulative Principle of worship given as a paper at the International Council of Reformed Churches and reported in "The Ordained Servant" a paper of the OPC. I am not intending to add anything directly to what was said by the author, G.I. Williamson, but I did want to deal with an issue which has been raised against the idea of the principle when it comes to worship.

The issue is explained as God requiring a different set of standards in his worship from that which he requires everywhere else in life. Everywhere else, goes the argument, God lays out the principles and lets us decide how we are going to apply them. In worship (suppose the regulative principle is correct) he not only lays out the principles but (it is implied) even tells us how to apply them. This means (the conclusion) that the regulative principle must be wrong, there is no freedom in it. So, is there freedom in the regulative principle of worship? Looking at just the issue of what we sing for the present:

Suppose we were to set aside the principle. When we come to worship we would have to accept the decisions taken by the Church leaders as to whether the particular songs we sing were acceptable to God. The Old Testament shows us that there are eternal consequences hang on such choices - if a pair of well-meaning young men can be struck dead because they offered an incense which God did not commend - we had better be certain those leaders have chosen carefully. Then the way we find out what choice has been made is the songbook we will sing from. Ordinarily, that means we are limited to the songs in that book. Then, significantly, as time goes on such books tend to have fewer and fewer of the Psalms in them (at least that seems to be the common experience of those who use such books).

Now, the intent of those who wish to make changes to the regulative principle may not have been to exclude the Psalms but such is the sinful heart of man that the effect is the same as if it had been. Sin will always push us to avoid the word of God - even in his worship. So, God provides us with a song book and requires us to sing from it when we come to worship him. The leaders of the Church do the same, but they provide a different song book. If it comes to a choice, I know which will be mine, especially when I know that what I sing will be used to "teach and admonish" me. I would rather know that what I was learning about spiritual matters and attitude of mind was taught by God's book rather than the book of a man (however well respected he might be).

Then there is a matter of the tunes. God did not supply us with tunes. The would seem to imply we are free to make tunes as we will or (in the same way as he had preserved the Bible) we would still have the tunes of David, Moses and the others. The question of what musical instrument(s) should be used to accompany the singers is less important than the way it(they) is(are) played. Guiding the melody in order to keep the singers in tune should be the role not providing a show.

A Capella is always possible, though, God is less concerned about the beauty of the music and more concerned about the intent of the singer. Tunes and musical insruments have been assumed to be matters of circumstance rather than elements of worship (like the time we gather and the location) so are matters God leaves to our discretion. A case, however, can be made for the practice of the Scottish Reformers who set out a number of tunes which were taught over a period to all congregations and which would match the versions of the Psalms which had been set to meter. The result was (with a good, strong singer to lead the congregation) every Presbyterian Church in Scotland, no matter the size, sang the same songs and used the same tunes. And none felt they were limited in their ability to worship God. They were free from the tyranny of men and free from the need to buy the fancy musical instruments so beloved by the cathedrals of the Romanists.

The best thing about the regulative principle is that I am free to choose any one of the selections in the song book and know they are not going to lead me astray. There is freedom. And, were Churches all over the world to use the same song book (as was the intention - if the regulative principle is applied correctly) I would have the freedom to enter any church and join in the worship knowing the singing is pleasing to God. In the end it is what pleases God which matters - and shouldn't he be to one who has the choice about what is acceptable worship?