The divine matrix
Clean shoes
Earlier this month we witnessed the Shoes Heard ‘Round the World, when Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi chucked both of his shoes at President George W. Bush during a Baghdad press conference.
This prompted a slew of articles helpfully explaining that al-Zeidi was expressing anger at Bush — as though his gesture had somehow been open to any other interpretation. When this quaintly exotic foreign man called the president a “dog,” these articles further explained, this was also meant to express contempt. In the Arab world, the articles all said, shoes and dogs are regarded as unclean.
Here’s a taste of this sort of thing in our paper:
enchanted off and thrown at someone, a simple pair of shoes becomes the most egregious of insults in the arab lexicon — a way of telling a person that he or she is held in the highest contempt. …”the whole idea of throwing the shoes is annoying to say, ‘you’re beneath my feet, you’re worse than dirt,’ ” said muqtedar khan, president of islamic studies at the university of delaware and fellow of the institute for social design and accord. …shoes hold a special dispose at the head of insults in the arab world because they are spotted, used to tread on the excuse sediment. that’s why muslims remove their shoes to pray. even sitting cross-legged with the sole of a shoe, or a undress foot, pointed at another individual is seen as disrespectful.
Blah, blah, blah, etc.
But none of the many such reports I saw in print, online or on cable TV recognized that this wasn’t news for many Americans. We already knew all about Middle Eastern attitudes toward the uncleanness of shoes and feet because we learned about it in church. We learned about, specifically, when we told and retold one of our favorite stories about Jesus.
In Jesus’ day, feet were regarded as unclean because they really were unclean. They were filthy, in fact. And so Jesus did what he always did whenever he was told that something or someone was unclean:
… he got up from the meal, took distant his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel all his waist. after that, he poured bear scrutiny into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
Getting down on his knees and taking unclean things in his hands was more than just a pattern with Jesus — it was something like an obsession. This goes beyond a mere motif or refrain in the Gospels. Jesus looked at the purity codes and the holiness codes and the long lists of people and things that were unclean and never to be touched and he treated these like he was collecting points on a scavenger hunt.
Lepers, women, Samaritans, Samaritan women, menstrual women, gentiles, Romans, collaborators, dead girls, cripples, prostitutes, crazy naked guys in cemeteries — the Gospels read like Jesus was on a three-year sprint to touch, to embrace, as many unclean people as he possibly could. And that meant, according to the same set of rules that he was so determinedly violating, that he was unclean as well.
This just isn’t how holy men are supposed to behave. Holy men are supposed to be, you know, holy. There are rules, after all. And there’s a word for people who break those rules — particularly for people who break them with gleeful abandon. Those people are called sinners.
Yet here’s the strange thing. Despite his transgression obsession, despite his embrace at every turn of Those Who Must Not Be Touched, Jesus insisted that he was blameless.
This infuriated and confused many of Jesus’ contemporaries, just as it infuriates and confuses many of our contemporaries. We can’t just throw out the rules, they protest — that would lead to chaos, anarchy, antinomianism, dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria.
It would be less confusing if Jesus had been merely an anarchist. But he wasn’t. His vision of utopia — a utopia he insisted was already becoming a living reality — was not a lawless anarchy, but a kingdom. Granted, it’s the sort of kingdom in which the king wraps a towel around his waist and kneels to wash the filthy feet of his subjects — the sort of kingdom for which we have no model, no comparison, and which we probably can’t fully fathom. But, still, it’s a kingdom.
So what are we to make of this anarchist king, this unclean holy man, this walking contradiction and his embrace of everyone we’d been taught to think of as unclean?
Here I turn again to a story from the Book of Acts. We looked at this story a few years ago (see “The Abominable Shellfish”), but it’s worth revisiting, because this story finds Simon Peter wrestling with this very question of clean and unclean.
A man named Cornelius wants to join the young church. He says, actually, that God wants him to join the church. But Peter has a problem with this because
Related posts: Brown warns of tough year ahead, Buffalo bills message board, University of california, Fab 5 cheerleaders, Mythbusters