The Reign Versus the Regs

The person who has the leprous disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head be disheveled; and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, "Unclean, unclean." he shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean. He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp. Leviticus 13:45-46

In my offline life, I work for an agency whose activities are controlled by books full of state and federal regulations -- "the regs." The regs determine, often in excruciating detail, whom we can help, and how. The regs are impersonal and unforgiving. If you need a particular kind of assistance that our organization can provide but you don't meet an eligibility criterion -- perhaps you're a couple of months on the wrong side of an eligibility age, or your income is a few hundred dollars over the guideline -- too bad, so sad. Regs are regs.

This is the situation in which the leper in our Gospel lesson finds himself. Because he suffers from a certain type of skin disease, he has been ritually banished from life in the community. He is not allowed to be near his family or friends; in fact, he is banished to the outskirts of town. He is not allowed to dress like a healthy person. He is not allowed to practice the rituals of his faith. If he does encounter a non-diseased person, he is required to keep a significant distance and loudly warn that person of his uncleanness. He has in fact become for all intents and purposes a "dead man walking."

Why were the Mosaic cleanliness rules so strict and unyielding? They're obviously partly grounded in a nascent understanding of contagious disease and a desire to protect the health of the community, even at the cost of a member of that community. In reading these ancient stories about Moses and the people of Israel, one also comes away with an appreciation for the awe and fear the people felt in the presence of the tabernacle where they believed God lived in their midst, and their terror of offending God by letting the abnormal, the flawed, the diseased too near this holiest of holy places. A diseased person like a leper not only risked God's displeasure by his or her proximity to God's holiness, but also threatened the safety of the entire community, if God decided to punish all of them for the presence of this unacceptable individual.

So he or she is cast out. It's the best solution for the most people. It's the regs. "God said it; we believe it; that settles it."

The leper in our story does an unexpected thing. Instead of trying to keep Jesus away from him and his ritual uncleanness, which is his duty according to the rules, the leper instead calls out to Jesus for help. His plea is almost a dare: "If you choose, you could make me clean."

Jesus' response is also suprising. Most translations of the text say that Jesus was "moved with pity," but some manuscripts instead say that Jesus was moved with anger; that may indeed be the more original version. Why would Jesus be angry? In Mark, Jesus often appears angry at disease itself -- at the pain and suffering of the people around him. Pastor Brian Stoffregen of Crossmarks offers an alternative perspective on the scenario, and suggests instead that Jesus may be angry at the whole system -- a system that dehumanizes the suffering and makes their personhood completely dependent upon the whims of the religious authorities. The leper's initial statement to Jesus can also be translated, "If you choose you could declare me clean," which would hearken back to the official clean bill of health that the leper needed from the priests to be reintegrated into society. Perhaps the leper, on some level, recognizes that Jesus possesses an authority that supersedes that of the priests; or maybe he's just decided that he has nothing left to lose in asking.

But in any event, Jesus responds compassionately: "I do choose"; and then, in a shocking move, Jesus touches the leper and heals him. Imagine the reaction of any people around Jesus as he breaks this social taboo, and in so doing assumes the ritual uncleanness of the leper. What social taboo in our society might be equivalent to this?

Jesus then warns the leper not to not talk to others about this healing, but instead to simply show himself to the priests "as a testimony to them." When I was younger this comment was presented to me as an example of Jesus being a good, obedient "Bible-believing" rabbi who followed all the rules; but I now think that this is an example of Jesus doing exactly the opposite. I think Jesus wanted the religious authorities to know that there was something, someone in their midst who was bigger than the regs; who had come to bring wholeness, and was willing to do whatever it took to achieve that, even if it meant breaking rules and ignoring societal norms.

Kelly Fryer writes that, according to the ethic modeled by Jesus, if we have to choose between leading with a "law" foot or a "love" foot, we choose the "love" foot every time. This sounds so obvious...but how many Christians are actually willing to do this? How many Christians are willing to risk being "wrong," law-wise, in service to love? I've had numerous conversations about various hot-button topics in the Church with Christians who've told me, "Well, if it were up to me I'd be on the other side of the issue...but the Bible says..." In other words, they're going to lead with the "law" foot, because it's safe. It covers their fannies. When I hear statements like this I'm reminded of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings, where he talks about a love that's willing to take on the guilt of breaking rules in service to one's neighbor, and I think of his own willingness to do just that, and the price he paid.

If we take the question "What would Jesus do?" seriously, then we must also take seriously the fact that, when the Reign ran up against the regs, Jesus chose the Reign. Do we?

"Jesus Heals a Leper," Rembrandt