Sons, little dogs, demons and free movement

(Mk 7:24-30)

Jesus discovered the will of the Father in the events of life. The same is true for the growth of awareness of the first communities, which carried no small prejudices, at least until the third generation of believers (inclusive) - as witnessed by the Synoptics.

Religious law prevented dealing with foreigners and people of other ethnicities, borders or cultures. At first, Jesus [i.e.: He in the first communities, His mystical Body] seems not to want to care (v.27).

But after helping the crowds and his own to emancipate themselves from the prison of the norms of purity (vv.14-23) Christ breaks out of conformist ways of experiencing God.

He even exoduses himself from the national and racial territories that then sequestered the life-bloods - thus overcoming sacred preconceptions.

The Son's singular initiatives arise on the basis of a wholly personal experience of the divine, of a Father munificent in bestowing without conditions.

Provident and unequal from the stingy God of religions: the latter discordant from creatures, alien, and (incomprehensibly) habitual.

The Lord himself helps us in his story to experience the transcendent in even summary life. Thus, to get out of the contrived doctrinal ways that cage existence [territory, customs, ideology, belonging of various kinds - even 'internal'].

With an unusual gimmick, the young Rabbi tries to open up the Judaizing mentality, crossing borders.

The intent is to make us develop his own Faith. It promoted diverse existence, and outside of traditional myopia could thus find astounding adherences.

No boundary fences, no obstacles ... can contain our will to live: we want to feed not on pride (or resistance) but on love at risk, not debased - and express ourselves completely.

Even dialogue with a woman not of his people was a 'thought' alien to the mentality of the crowds of the time - alien even to the conceptions of the first two generations of believers, in this respect still entrenched and mixed with idols.

But there was a whole people of strangers [the mestizo 'woman' and her spiritual 'descendants'] who felt they had no future. And this challenged the many apriorisms of the time.

In short, even the church of Mk had not fully grasped the meaning of the 'bread of the children' - all available to be “recognised”.

Because of atavistic rivalries, ancient peoples used to call foreigners by the derogatory appellation 'dog', synonymous with impudence, meanness and ignoble baseness.

They were widespread misgivings about the sense of human brotherhood - from primitive vision [and not only, in the age of access].

The Lord's harsh sentence (v.27) reflects a comparison from poor areas and family life, where pets and youth once abounded.

There was still a difference between 'children' generated by hearing the Word of God and those who adjusted themselves “by scent”.

But although no one denied sustenance to the 'children' in order to give it to the 'dogs' around - the latter at least had the right to the crumbs that fell on the ground.

In fact, the text speaks of 'little dogs' [kynaría-kynaríois] as pets loved by the very young and who easily fed them leftovers during meals.

In a sense, they belonged to 'the house'.

For the different and distant - even the misunderstood - it is not a problem to resort to Jesus instinctively; on the contrary, they would be content with the scraps.

According to this, the community of the sons should not lack bodily nourishment and wisdom food for anyone (Mk 6:42-44).

However, the old-timers, who considered themselves family members of entitlement and asserted registry rights, sulked and in the assemblies pretended not to allow everyone to partake of the communion, the Eucharistic grains, the gifts of the festive kingdom.

But thanks to the appeal of the Gospels [quite different from the exaggerated imperial or legionary 'evangelical' proclamations] the dominion of demons (v.29) - so alive in all the various forms of religiosity at the time in Rome - was coming to an end.

According to Mark, there should be no obsession, chain, or preconception that can take away our direction of progress and energy, so that with extreme freedom we are enabled to work and open ourselves to the needs of others, even pagans (Mk 6:45a).

Thus a debate arises in the Roman fraternities about the conditions of community membership.

What is the position of converts from paganism? Do they have the right to participate in the breaking of the Bread without prior doctrine-discipline? Is there or is there not a break with the observant tradition?

Mark emphasises that we have no pre-emption: the principle of universal salvation is the attitude of Faith; not a right.

The community of the baptised is not allowed to live on rent. The gospel is open, it goes beyond the biblical priority of the chosen people.

The reason for any exception is sensitive love, which has the freedom to yield, which becomes the only principle of belonging.

The condition of membership in the new people of God is Faith in the heart and not in the blood or in the head, nor in the discipline that distances us from ourselves, God and others.

Faith: a new principle, which shatters every illusion of exclusivity.

With the Father, in the Son, it is no longer a matter of mortifying oneself, depending, striving and struggling, in order to stand before one another.

Legal purity is insufficient (vv.1-23), indeed now it is the person even of disconcerting origins - formerly an outsider - who emerges 'victorious' from the fight with the Lord.

Spousal entrustment is appreciable everywhere, by anyone: foundational Eros gushing from every soul, and not bound to repertoires. It overcomes any particularism.

Of course, it has its criteria - but they are essential: transparency, freshness, tension towards unity, overcoming conditions and taboos; value of the person; secret empathy of energies.

The Gospel passage traces a whole path of adherence to Christ.

Those who are far away can approach and even start from the popular - inconvenient - idea that Jesus is the expected 'Son of David' [cf. parallel Mt 15:22]: a military commander and ruler who was supposed to seize power, subjugate the nations, ensure the golden age, himself fulfil the prescriptions of the Law as if he were a Model, and impose their observance on all.

The starting point of the journey may be a miserable glimmer, a beginning that perhaps does not promise much. In fact, in this specific case, it is decidedly confusing: the Master does not answer (Mt 15:23).

The title affixed to Him has nothing to do with God, nor does it concern the authentic Firstborn. He is not a powerful Messiah - a predatory, homologated image - but a servant.

It makes no sense even to ask Him for "Mercy" (Mt 15:22)! Indeed - let's face it - despite the superficial ritual habits we have, here Christ seems quite angry (v.23).

This is not the healthy relationship with the Lord: He does not chastise or enjoy being begged by the needy.

Rather, He educates as He does a friend, brother or parent; and He does not grant graces by lottery, or miracles by sympathy and protection, or favours by territory - like pagan gods.

That image is totally deviant, but it is a bogus figure that comes out of the very "insiders" (Mt 15:23-24), who would have nothing to object to [cf. again v.23].

Indeed, their own catechesis is the source of it: the title "son of David" sounds strange, on the lips of a pagan.

Even today, this homologising paternalistic idea - of inculcated guilt - tends to drive away those who seek an amiable companion.

The priority for 'Israel' is acknowledged by Jesus because it is precisely the eldest sons who must be converted to a new Face of the first God of Sinai - still valued Lawgiver and Judge, instead of Creator and Redeemer of our intelligence and freedom.

[Albeit in a good-natured way, they unfortunately continue to spread it, as a sullen notary, since pre-catechism].

Jesus distances himself from those who make claims and at the same time divert the souls of the needy who seek him.

Then, in spiritual terms, no one can boast a right to anything: the truly sacred Gifts do not derive from any selective election relationship, nor even clientelistic [of the buying and selling kind].

So, to become intimate with Christ... can one be content with the Eucharistic 'crumbs' - i.e. 'minimal salvation'?

Can one be satisfied with the mere crumbs that fall from the table of the supponent closed in small schemes (Mk 7:27-28)?

Certainly, because it is Faith that saves (Mk 7:28-29a), not a grand gesture or a long habit in the disciplines of the arcane - nor a code of purity.

The authentic Lord only says:

"By this Word, go" (v.29) - i.e. proceed to the joy of a full life, transmissible to an "offspring" not destined for torment or premature death.

And without the judgement of others, the one with the usual deceptive tares of inadequacy, on your back.

Thanks to Him we are not introduced into a perfunctory religious practice, but into a Relationship that is chiselled over time (vv.25-30).

How to orient oneself?

Instead of the narrow Law, it is the Gospel that fully empowers us.

As if we were "little dogs" (vv.27-28) that seek life and nourishment, instinctively proceeding [by "sniffing"] along unexplored paths. And that according to character, inclination, Calling by Name, appeal to other secret forces.

In short, all men - although still far from an explicit adherence to faith - are inhabited by this knowledge that is at once personal and primordial, that gives immediate and infallible direction.

So, in simplicity, shall we too, in order to find the Way. 

In fact, Faith has no nationality, and is the only valid language-relationship-trajectory for communication between God and woman and man.

It is universal; it crosses time, denominational and even religious borders.

Commenting on the Tao Te Ching (LVIII), Master Wang Pi states:

"He who rules well has no form or name, he does not initiate administrations. The various categories divide and separate, that is why the people are fragmented'.

Master Ho-shang Kung adds:

"When the ruler is liberal, the people are united in wealth and satiety: people love each other and get along well".

Today it is about sharing the minutiae and fragments of the 'more' we in the West inherited from past generations.

A very instructive and affluent 'more'; lavishly bestowed, yet received without 'anything too much' [ne quid nimis] nor much merit or risk (as 'good Christians...').

And respecting in everything the nomenclature of the veterans, of the cordate and the powerful - always disinclined to real coexistence.

Christ, on the other hand, is sapiential food for free circulation; not impeded food, to be kept locked in tabernacles.

His virtue is now understood only outside the sacristies - from far and wide (vv.24-25) - where even a minuet of bread makes one trust and rise, in sharing.

To break the Eucharist as source and summit is to proclaim it a Gift not to be held back or kept intact, but rather to be exposed and distributed without moralising.

To share that Food is to participate in the root of existence, what we have and are; the yardstick of what we proclaim, believe and practise.

Sadly, not infrequently the strangers and dissimilar are hungrier for the true Manna from Heaven.

Saturated to the point of nausea - and perhaps still unable to comprehend its meaning - why experience the shared Nourishment [perhaps with little regard for its meaning] as a problem and fear?

To internalise and live the message:

If not of 'your people', do you at least want to talk to them - even if veterans, inner clubs and regulars forbid it?

Don't you think the synodal path is a good opportunity to review abstract positions?

Do you know of any ecclesial parishes that do not give outsiders a chance?

Do you know people hurt by exclusions? What do you do, silence-consent?