SUNDAY, AUGUST 16, 2026 | AFTER PENTECOST (A)

Sermon

Good morning,

Do you wash your hands, pots, and so on? Me too, so today’s gospel passage can feel jarring—if Jesus is God then he should know all about germs and infections, right? True, but can you imagine if God sprung germ theory on the ancient people? Little animals that might crawl into your body or you swallow them? Are you quite sure?

God did what God could at the time—turned the hygienic realities into purification religious laws to follow. For the religious elite, not just everybody. Sounds reasonable enough.

But here is the problem with purification—it often ends up misused for power, control, and exclusion. Most of the Tanakh, including the five books of Moses and the Mosaic law, was most likely written after the Babylonian exile, when the Persian king Cyrus the Great permitted the Israelites to go back to Canaan. It wasn’t really out of the goodness of his heart, but rather a different way to control a vast territory with a diverse populace—captivity requires too much manpower, but with the right ideological encouragement, nations can have an illusion of free governance and pay the tribute. It is reasonable to assume that this then shaped the way the oral tradition was put together into writing—the goal was to set an ethnic identity that is quantifiable and controllable through endogamy and rigid rules. The problem is that the prophetic tradition did not want to “get with the program” and shifted the Jewish identity towards actual worship and observance, rather than a social identity such as “eunuch” or “foreigner.”

Fast forward to Jesus' times and the tension is still very much alive, intensified by Pharisees that took the purification protocols meant for the elite and applied them to everybody as a way of “right worship” (orthodoxy). It is then clear that Jesus’ challenge to their dogma is rather unwelcome, taking him for quite the rabble-rousing rabbi! It has always been that way according to them. But Jesus calls back to the prophetic tradition—following the community building and God-pleasing basics is what matters, not some pot cleaning!

Does that sound familiar? Nationalism is often like that—hanging onto some very specific details to build up identity. And I think that is especially troubling and dangerous when the two enter the mix—religion AND nationalism. It was true in the post-exilic era, in Jesus' times, and it is true today. And so is the history of God’s beloved resisting it—Daniel did not bow down to Nebuchadnezzar; Micah condemned rulers and priests who built Jerusalem through bloodshed and corruption while claiming God’s protection, prophesying the city’s destruction (Micah 3:9–12); Amos challenged Israel’s sense of chosenness by reminding them that God brought the Philistines from Caphtor and Arameans from Kir just as he brought Israel from Egypt; John the Baptist rebuked those that based security on their descent from Abraham; Jesus built on that as evident in our text today; and the Apostle Paul confronted Peter at Antioch for withdrawing from Gentiles out of fear, later reminding the church in Romans that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable, extending beyond ethnic borders.

That resistance extended into our history—Francis of Assisi identified the Constantinian period, when the church and the Roman empire became one, as the source of ecclesiastical corruption, a critique later developed by early proto-Protestant reformers like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus. And I believe it also applies to Bonhoeffer, who strongly opposed the joining of the German Lutheran church with the NSDAP/Nazis. And that is just ancient Judaism and mostly Western Christianity; we could talk much longer about nationalism in other traditions like Hinduism, Islam, or modern ethnocentric Judaism.

Every time religion has gotten mixed up with nationalism, it has never led to the humanizing and betterment of nationalism, because the nationalist side would rip out the religious language and out-of-context scripture verses, leaving the religious side hollow without its actual core. Like a fanciful painted egg that seems whole, but in reality is only the shell. An ethically and spiritually bankrupt version of the religion.

It is then all the more alarming that Christian nationalism experiences a strong resurgence in the U.S. and around the world—Ghana, Brazil, Canada, Czechia, Hungary, South Korea, and so on. Despite the pushback from many quarters, the influence is spreading. It often conflates particular Christian membership and devotion with native-born citizenship as a basis for moral and social judgment. And rigid rules and some kind of purification are not far behind. Sound familiar? It is the same story over and over again, all too human. A mechanism driven by anger, fear, and panic.

However, that is not God’s story. We are called to choose faith over fear, patience over anger, and hope over panic. The Canaanite woman had hope in approaching Jesus, patience in debating him, and faith affirmed by Jesus—she exemplifies all three, where others may have been fearful and angry as Jesus did not go easy on her. We can learn a lot from her. We are all dealing with crises that we cannot control or even understand, but faith, patience, and hope carry us through. In Romans, Paul reminds us that God's mercy and calling are irrevocable—a grace that encompasses all people. Purifications, rigid rules, and national boundaries do not give us our standing before God; God’s radical grace already does. Freed by that grace, we do not need to live in fear or panic, but are set free to love God and neighbor. Amen.

Children’s Embodiment Activity: "Outside Scrub vs. Inside Love"

Theme Connection: Moving from external purification rules to the inner posture of the heart, emphasizing God's inclusive welcome.

The Set-Up: Ask the children to use their bodies to pretend they are scrubbing their hands really well—getting the fronts, backs, and between the fingers. Remind them that while washing away germs is important for our physical health, some leaders in Jesus's time thought you had to follow rigid purification protocols to be close to God.

The Pivot: Stop the scrubbing. Explain that Jesus taught that God cares much more about what is inside our hearts than whether our hands are perfectly clean.

The Heart Check: Have the children place both hands firmly over their hearts and take a deep breath.

The Welcome: Tell them that a "clean heart" looks like a welcoming heart. Have them take their hands off their chests and immediately throw their arms open wide, as if offering a giant hug or a warm welcome to an outsider, demonstrating that God's house is a place for all people.

The Game: Play a quick embodiment game to cement the concept. When you call out "Outside!", the children vigorously pretend to scrub their hands. When you call out "Inside!", the children put their hands on their hearts and then throw their arms wide open to show love and welcome.

Notes

Matthew:

Obviously not science - it’s a loooong way from germ theory.

Dynamics:

Uncleanliness is not a physical, but moral issue

x

Canaanite woman - considered unclean like a dog (they were not the house dogs we have now)

->The fact of her alleged uncleanliness does not matter in the end -> her faith does

==================

Isaiah:

Maintain justice, and do what is right

Foreigner or eunuch - societal status doesn’t matter to God,

what matters:

all who keep the Sabbath and do not profane it and hold fast my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar, for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. 8 Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel: I will gather others to them besides those already gathered., New Revised Standard Version: Updated Edition (Friendship Press, 2021), Is 56:6–8.

Romans:

the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. New Revised Standard Version: Updated Edition (Friendship Press, 2021), Ro 11:29.

Isaiah 56:1–8 emerged during the early Second Temple period as a prophetic statement intended to reshape the social boundaries of the Judean community, offering an alternative to the nationalist and exclusivist views represented by Ezra and Nehemiah regarding membership in the community.[1]

The passage’s historical significance lies in its response to pressing post-exilic tensions. The oracle strategically uses the figures of the eunuch and the foreigner to address conflicts over land possession and reproduction, challenging the exilic principles of community membership that centered on “purification” and “loyalty” through ethnic purity and endogamy. Instead, it relocates the markers of belonging to Sabbath observance and ethical behavior—criteria that neither require reproductive capacity nor ethnic heritage, thereby enabling non-exiles to join the community while expanding its access to resources.[1]

This text reflects a broader post-exilic conflict: while the Pentateuch was being established through a Persian-sponsored program designed to purge Jerusalem of foreign elements, prophetic authors simultaneously claimed divine authority to oppose that very agenda, most prominently in Isaiah 56–66.[2] The passage directly invokes divine authority for the inclusion of foreigners in Israel’s cult, framing such inclusion as an extension of God’s gathering of the Israelite Diaspora—a distinctive feature that builds upon earlier Isaianic tradition.[2]

Some scholars identify Isaiah 56–66 as “proto-apocalyptic” texts that emerged from post-exilic prophecy as marginalized prophetic visionaries countered the ruling priestly hierarchy by envisioning an eschatological fulfillment of Second Isaiah’s restoration promises.[3] This contextualizes the passage within broader theological debates about who belonged to restored Israel and how God’s salvation would ultimately be realized.

[1] William Sailer et al., Religious and Theological Abstracts (Myerstown, PA: Religious and Theological Abstracts, 2012). [See here, here.] [2] David M. Carr, “Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible,” in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. Richard D. Weis, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 225:33–34. [3] David P. Melvin, “Apocalypticism, Early Jewish,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). [See here.] The Persian-sponsored program involved efforts to purge Jerusalem of foreign elements, as documented in Nehemiah 10 and 13:1–3, 23–27, as well as Ezra 9–10.[1] This initiative was part of a broader imperial strategy rather than an ideological crusade. The apparent tolerance the Persians showed toward diversity actually reflected their pragmatic interest in maintaining uninterrupted tribute payments; empowering local elites who controlled regional trade would have been counterproductive, so adapting to local conditions allowed the Persians to better control regions, peoples, and resources.[2]

The specific mechanics of this purification effort become clearer through the actions of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra received royal authorization to enforce Mosaic law, but comprehensive success came only when Nehemiah arrived with governorship authority and assisted in purifying the community by expelling foreign wives and enforcing complete observance of Mosaic law.[3] A parallel example appears in the Udjahorresnet inscription, where a high official petitioned to expel foreigners dwelling in a temple and demolish their homes and unclean possessions.[4]

Critically, this wasn’t a Persian directive imposed from above. Power and wealth among local elites depended on alliances between families, balanced by their access to Persian officials; as Persian subjects, local elites maneuvered for their own benefit, sometimes independently and sometimes as imperial officers.[2] The purification program thus represented local elite interests—likely those returning from exile—consolidating authority and economic control by redefining community membership through religious and ethnic boundaries. The Persian administration provided the structural authority and military backing that made such enforcement possible, but the initiative itself emerged from internal Judean power struggles over land, resources, and religious identity.

[1] David M. Carr, “Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible,” in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. Richard D. Weis, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 225:33. [2] Mary Joan Winn Leith, “New Perspectives on the Return from Exile and Persian-Period Yehud,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible, ed. Brad E. Kelle and Brent A. Strawn, Oxford Handbooks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 155–156. [3] Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914), 6:53. [4] Norman K. Gottwald et al., “Themes and Perspectives in the Historical Writings,” in The Old Testament and Apocrypha, ed. Gale A. Yee, Hugh R. Page Jr., and Matthew J. M. Coomber, Fortress Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 468. The search results don’t directly address Paul’s explicit reflection on Isaiah 56:1–8 in Romans 11. However, the documents reveal thematic resonances between these texts that illuminate Paul’s theological vision.

Isaiah 56 envisions a future community where eunuchs and foreigners—those previously excluded—participate fully in worship and covenant relationship based on Sabbath observance and ethical commitment rather than ethnic identity or reproductive capacity. Paul’s argument in Romans 11 operates within a similar framework of inclusion and reversal. Through Israel’s stumbling, salvation reaches gentiles, fundamentally reorienting the boundaries of God’s people. Where Isaiah promises that foreigners who join themselves to the Lord will be brought to God’s holy mountain and find acceptance (Isa 56:1–8), Paul argues that gentile inclusion represents an expansion of divine blessing that will ultimately benefit Israel itself (Rom 11:1–36).

The connection deepens through Paul’s emphasis on grace and election. A remnant exists chosen by grace rather than works (Rom 11:1–36)—a principle that parallels Isaiah’s redefinition of covenant membership away from genealogy toward obedience and devotion. Paul’s broader theological trajectory across Romans consistently emphasizes that Christ confirms the promises to the ancestors while enabling gentiles to glorify God (Rom 15:8–12), effectively universalizing the Isaianic vision of a house of prayer for all peoples.

Rather than directly citing Isaiah 56, Paul absorbs its fundamental claim: God’s covenant community transcends ethnic boundaries and rests on spiritual commitment, making room for those previously considered outside the covenant. Both texts challenge their respective audiences to recognize divine inclusion as the ultimate expression of God’s purposes.

The Mosaic Law established detailed dietary restrictions, prohibiting consumption of certain animals—such as pigs—and requiring adherence to specific criteria for what could be eaten. (Lev 11) Beyond food, the law created categories of ritual impurity through bodily discharges, requiring purification rituals and temporary separation from community life. (Lev 15) Contact with corpses rendered individuals unclean for seven days, and failure to undergo prescribed purification would result in being cut off from Israel. (Num 19:11–22)

The Pharisees extended these priestly purity regulations—originally designed for temple service—to apply to all Jewish people in their daily lives.[1] The “tradition of the elders” represented an extensive oral corpus interpreting and elaborating on the written law with detailed rules of conduct, which the Pharisees regarded as having authority nearly equivalent to Scripture itself.[2] This included meticulous specifications about handwashing before meals, such as precise quantities of water required for effective ceremonial purification.[2]

In Matthew 15:10–20, Jesus fundamentally reorients the framework. He demonstrates sovereign freedom regarding the Mosaic Law by declaring that ritual impurity laws no longer apply as God’s kingdom breaks into history, though moral requirements intensify.[1] Rather than external substances defiling a person, defilement originates from the heart—manifesting as evil intentions, murder, adultery, and slander. (Matt 15:10–20) This represents an attack on the Mosaic law concerning clean and unclean foods, comparable to Jesus’ other teachings that abrogate specific legal requirements.[3] This reframing allowed Jewish Christians to maintain Levitical observance while recognizing they could share meals with Gentile Christians without becoming ritually impure.[1]

[1] Ben Witherington III, Matthew, ed. P. Keith Gammons and R. Alan Culpepper, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated, 2006), 295–296.

[2] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 348.

[3] Donald Senior, John J. Collins, and Mary Ann Getty, eds., The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd Ed.: Notes (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 1363–1364.

Matthew 15:10–20 reflects authentic Jesus tradition rather than anachronistic community invention, though Matthew has deliberately shaped it to address his specific ecclesial context.

Jesus likely contrasted ritual purity with inner purity, emphasizing that the latter held paramount importance—a teaching consistent with other Jewish teachers who stressed circumcision of the heart over circumcision of the flesh.[1] This core principle fits squarely within Jesus’ mission to Israel, challenging Pharisaic interpretations without necessarily rejecting the law itself. Rather than attacking or affirming the law, Jesus articulated an entirely new understanding of what constitutes defilement, with abrogation latent within the saying but not explicit.[2]

However, Matthew’s editorial choices reveal how he applied this teaching to his own community’s tensions. While Matthew’s community accepted Jesus’ teaching that genuine defilement emanates from the human heart, they hesitated to embrace Mark’s radical conclusion that all foods are clean—a statement Matthew notably omits. Jewish Christians in Matthew’s community likely continued observing Jewish purity laws while interpreting them through Jesus’ teaching.[3] Matthew avoids Mark’s sharp either/or formulation, instead presenting a contrast between inner and outer purity, implying that ritual impurity from unclean food is insignificant compared to impurity from the heart.[1]

Matthew heightened the polemic against the Pharisees while withdrawing from Mark’s wholesale rejection of food laws, instead emphasizing his community’s commitment to the weightier matters of the law.[4] This represents not anachronism but rather Matthew’s faithful preservation of Jesus’ original teaching while adapting its application to a Jewish-Christian community that maintained Torah observance. The passage thus embodies Jesus’ mission to Israel—challenging Jewish leaders’ priorities—while simultaneously addressing Matthew’s readers’ need to navigate their own relationship with Jewish legal practice.

[1] J. D. G. Dunn, “Law,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 508–509. [2] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 352. [3] Donald Senior, The Gospel of Matthew: Interpreting Biblical Texts Series (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2011). [See here.] [4] John Riches, Matthew (London; New York: T&T Clark, 1997), 65. The search results do not directly address Talmudic teachings on this tension. However, the documents reveal the historical conflict that would have shaped later Jewish interpretive traditions.

Post-exilic Jewish leaders who returned from Babylon viewed exile participation as a defining marker of true Israelite identity, a perspective reflected in Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah that naturally devalued and excluded those outside this narrow definition.[1] An exclusivist faction vigorously opposed allowing foreigners to participate in Temple worship, exemplified by Zerubbabel’s declaration that only returning expatriates should rebuild the Temple.[2]

These separatists extended prohibitions from Deuteronomy against certain nations and castigated intermarriage, with Ezra urging those who married indigenous populations to divorce their wives in order to maintain ethnic purity.[2] This created a fundamental conflict with Isaiah 56–66’s vision: inclusion determined not by ethnicity but by willingness to observe God’s commandments, marking the emergence of religious conversion as a concept in Israelite history.[2]

Isaiah 56:1–8 reframes the Sabbath—previously an exclusive sign of Israel’s covenant identity—as no longer the exclusive property of Israel, while gradually binding it to the practice of justice.[3] Eunuchs and foreigners, categories otherwise marginalized and excluded, could enter the temple through Sabbath observance.[3]

The Talmudic response to this tension would have required navigating competing scriptural claims about inclusion and exclusion. While the documents don’t provide explicit Talmudic rulings, they establish that post-exilic Judaism inherited this fundamental disagreement—between Torah’s exclusionary provisions and Isaiah’s expansive vision—which later rabbinic interpretation would need to reconcile through hermeneutical strategies.

[1] Bret Wells and Elaine A. Heath, What Kind of God? Reading the Bible with a Missional Church (New York, NY: Cascade Books, 2018). [See here.] [2] Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 448–449. [3] Benedetta Rossi, “Tracking the Scribal Trails in the Book of Isaiah: The Sabbath Affair,” in Unity in the Book of Isaiah, ed. Benedetta Rossi et al., Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies (London; New York; Oxford; New Delhi; Sydney: T&T Clark, 2024), 732:70.

Isaiah 56: Challenging Nationalist Exclusivity

The historical context of Isaiah 56:1–8 perfectly mirrors modern political and religious tensions regarding national identity.

The Nationalist Blueprint: During the post-exilic period, leaders like Ezra and Nehemiah implemented a purification program driven by an exclusivist and nationalist agenda. This initiative sought to purge Jerusalem of foreign elements, enforcing community membership strictly through ethnic purity and endogamy.

The Prophetic Pushback: Isaiah 56 emerged as a direct, prophetic counter-narrative to these ruling elites. The text invokes divine authority to expand community boundaries, explicitly including those traditionally marginalized—like the eunuch and the foreigner.

The Contemporary Link: Christian Nationalism often conflates national belonging with a specific ethnic or religious heritage, much like the Ezra-Nehemiah purification efforts. Isaiah challenges this by relocating the markers of belonging away from ethnic heritage and reproductive capacity, focusing instead on Sabbath observance and ethical behavior. God declares His temple a "house of prayer for all peoples," dismantling the idea that divine favor is restricted to a single demographic.

Matthew 15: Inner Character Over External Markers

Just as Isaiah challenged the ethnic purity laws of his day, Jesus challenges the ritual purity laws of His.

Redefining Purity: The Pharisees had extended priestly purity regulations to daily life, focusing heavily on external markers like meticulous handwashing and dietary restrictions. Jesus radically reorients this framework, declaring that true defilement comes not from external substances, but from the heart—manifesting as evil intentions and slander.

Faith Over Status: The Canaanite woman exemplifies this reorientation. Culturally and religiously, she was considered an "unclean" outsider. Yet, Jesus demonstrates that her alleged uncleanliness does not matter; it is her active faith that brings healing.

The Contemporary Link: Debates over who is a "true American" often revolve around external markers—accents, birthplaces, or adherence to specific cultural traditions. Jesus’s teaching warns against judging belonging based on external "cleanliness" or societal status. True community and righteousness are matters of the heart and moral character, fundamentally undermining nationalist attempts to classify people as insiders or outsiders based on superficial traits.

Romans 11: The Expanding Boundaries of Grace

Paul absorbs and expands upon Isaiah's vision of an inclusive covenant community.

Grace Beyond Borders: Paul emphasizes that God’s covenant community transcends ethnic boundaries. The inclusion of Gentiles represents a deliberate expansion of divine blessing, proving that God's chosen remnant exists by grace rather than by genealogy or works.

The Contemporary Link: A core tenet of Christian Nationalism is the belief that God has a unique, exclusive covenant with a specific modern nation. Paul’s theology directly contradicts this by universalizing the Isaianic vision. If God’s grace fundamentally reorients the boundaries of His people to include the Gentiles, then attempting to bind God's favor to a modern national identity represents a regression from the gospel's expansive grace.

Synthesis for Sunday

Collectively, your texts argue that God's kingdom continually pushes outward, prioritizing faith, justice, and inner transformation over ethnic purity, geographical origin, or external ritual.

. The Law: Humanity's Systemic Gatekeeping

In progressive Lutheran preaching, the "Law" often exposes systemic sins like white supremacy, exclusion, and nationalism. For this Sunday, the Law is our relentless human drive to draw lines, hoard power, and decide who gets to be a "true" insider.

The Post-Exilic Purity Test: In the historical context of Isaiah, the Law is manifested in the ruling elite's purification program, which used ethnic purity and endogamy to control resources and define community membership.

The Pharisaical Boundaries: In Matthew, the Law is seen in the rigid tradition of the elders, where purity codes were weaponized to keep people marginalized. The Canaanite woman is initially treated by the disciples, and culturally categorized, as an unclean "dog".

The Modern Application (Christian Nationalism): The Law convicts us today by exposing how Christian Nationalism operates exactly like these ancient systems. It weaponizes faith to create a nationalistic purity culture, deciding who is a "true American" based on origin, language, or heritage, and casting the outsider or the foreigner as culturally "unclean."

2. The Pivot Point: Divine Disruption

The pivot occurs when the texts reveal that God refuses to abide by our human-made boundaries. As a supply preacher, you can use this moment in the sermon to pull the rug out from under nationalist assumptions.

Jesus disrupts the system by declaring that true defilement comes from the heart, making uncleanliness a moral issue rather than a physical or ethnic one.

God disrupts the post-exilic elite by declaring that societal status does not matter to Him.

3. The Gospel: God's Radical, Irrevocable Inclusion

The "Gospel" is the unconditional good news that God’s grace shatters our exclusionary borders. The ultimate truth is not found in our national identity, but in God's expansive welcome.

A House for All: Isaiah’s vision declares that God will actively gather the outcasts and the foreigners, transforming the temple into a "house of prayer for all peoples". Belonging is based on faithfulness, not genetics.

Faith Over Status: In Matthew, the Canaanite woman’s alleged uncleanliness ultimately does not matter; it is her faith that takes center stage and brings healing.

Irrevocable Grace: Paul delivers the ultimate Gospel promise in Romans: "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable". God’s mercy is not a scarce resource to be hoarded by one nation or ethnic group; it is a universal gift that expands outward to the Gentiles.

By structuring the sermon this way, you move the congregation from the uncomfortable conviction of our exclusionary politics (the Law) to the liberating joy of a God who welcomes the outcast (the Gospel).