In his book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn’t (2007), Stephen Prothero argues that while Americans are the most religious people in the Western World, we are perhaps the most religiously illiterate. He states, that the “private and public lives of Americans are “awash in a sea of faith.” “Unfortunately, however, Americans’ knowledge of religion runs as shallow as Americans’ commitment to religion runs deep.” While some religious and non-religious folks would respond that this really does not matter, it does matter a great deal.
On the one hand, the non-religious would argue that we ought to do away with religion altogether because religion is only an ideology that causes problems and conflicts. They would argue that more wars have been fought over faith, and to some extent their argument is valid. On the other hand, the religious might argue that there is no pressing need for religious literacy for faith is not about formal religion, it is about a relationship with God. Formal religious doctrine and practices only get in the way of a unique and personal relationship to God. But both of these positions ignore the powerful role religious traditions and practices have played and continue to play in the lives of people of faith from all religions and in our world.
Only in the recent past, however, have we come to grips with the reality that religion is a major factor in world affairs. For the most part, until perhaps the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have ignored or downplayed religion as a powerful force. For sure, the cause of international conflicts cannot be boiled down only to religious ideologies, for there are economic, political, and social issues that contribute to these conflicts as well. But now that we are acknowledging that religion is important to world affairs, and that religion will not simply go away, how are we to respond?
First, we should respond by increasing our literacy about our own faith tradition as well as the religion of others. Churches need to take seriously the old-school idea of Christian Education. We have reduced such times of education to teaching about spirituality and personal relationships with God, which surely have their place. But we are failing to teach Christian theology and practice with any depth except when it relates to personal spirituality. Basic biblical and theological knowledge is a must, and specific church traditions ought to be educating the faithful about their beliefs, traditions, and practices.
Moreover, gaining a basic knowledge of other world religions can help us make some sense of world events and history. Such education about other religions will also avoid stereotypes and untruths about other religions that can only lead to a dehumanizing of adherents of that religion. While some churches offer classes about world religions, these often only serve as a pretext for evangelism, and time is usually spent finding problems within a particular religion in order to win an apologetic argument with an adherent of that religion. We need to see the intrinsic value of learning about other religions for the purpose of being better informed world citizens, and not solely for evangelistic reasons.
Second, we need to gain an appreciation of the truth value of all religions. All the great world religions search for God as the ultimate reality and for how we are to live as humans. While the various religions may have their specific way to seek God in order to formulate ideas about who God is, no one religion can logically gain the upper hand of truth over the others. There does not exist a completely logical religion that stands up to every philosophical or scientific critique. This does not mean that to be true faith must answer all the questions that the social and natural sciences throw at it, for faith cannot be proven or disproven by science. But it does mean that while religion can and does acknowledge that God is an all perfect being, religions are human interpretations of the experience of God, and therefore, they are flawed. This does not outright invalidate the truth of one’s religion; but neither does it mean that one religion is more truthful than another.
Finally, through education about our own faith tradition and the religious beliefs of others, we can reach a place where we can acknowledge the similarities as well as the differences between various religions. At their cores, all religions seek for the common good of humanity. While small groups of adherents from every religion make outsiders think ill of those religions, every faith has a center from which it seeks the common good. Keeping interfaith dialogue focused on the common good, while at the same time having open and honest discussions about religious differences, can help us balance the truth and value of our own religious faith while at the same time acknowledging the truth and value of the faith of another.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Separating the Wheat of the Gospel from the Chaff of Patriotic Idolatry
In recent weeks, controversy has swirled around Barack Obama because of remarks made from the pulpit by his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. While I sincerely doubt that the media and those quick to judge Wright for his controversial comments have taken into consideration most of the sermons he has preached, preferring to act in their normal modus operandi by taking his statements out of context, the remarks Wright has made do draw attention to the divide that exists between white and black Christianity in America.
A popular remark that characterizes race relations in America is that Sunday morning is the most segregated time of the week. There is indeed a division that exists between black churches and white churches. Certainly more African-American Christians are attending predominantly white churches these days, and conversely, many white Christians attend African-American churches. But for the most part, the hour of worship on Sunday morning remains very segregated. This is due mostly to the racial divide in this country, and some of it stems from different worship styles the two communities embrace. But part of the segregation is due to differing interpretations of the gospel.
Conservative white evangelicalism has been influenced greatly by a dispensational theology that sees America as playing a key role in God’s predestined plan; a quasi-theological manifest destiny. Indeed, dispensational theology is still very much a part of the theological and political culture of evangelicalism. Jerry Falwell was a dispensationalist, as is Pat Robertson, both of whom have had a huge political influence. And one cannot scan the channels of religious broadcasts without running across preachers like John Hagee or Ronnie Floyd spouting off their brand of dispensationalism.
Dispensationalists see the world moving toward a God-ordained end in which an apocalyptic battle will take place when nations, particularly Muslim nations, will rise up against the modern State of Israel. In the minds of many of these dispensationalists, America will play a key role in supporting Israel, who they equate with the ancient chosen people of God.
Many of the proponents of dispensational theology, therefore, have an apocalyptic view of the world that sees the inevitable end coming in a war between good and evil. Since this end is unavoidable, there is no need to work for earthly peace and justice; the plan is already written and America, as the only real God-blessed nation, plays a lead role on the side of good.
Black liberation theology, however, holds a slightly different view of the gospel message. Influenced by the liberation theologies that were birthed in the countries of the Third World, where the message of Jesus was viewed as more than a promise of spiritual salvation, and extended to the political, social, and economic liberation of oppressed populations, black liberation theology confronts governmental leadership with its failure to implement God’s justice for the oppressed.
African-American theologians and pastors like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as some white religious leaders who supported the Civil Rights movement, embraced this liberation message and took seriously the political, social, and economic message of Jesus. In doing so, they stood very much in line with Jesus and the Prophets of ancient Israel who railed against Israel’s rulers for their unjust policies against the oppressed.
While I dare not over generalize the dichotomy between these interpretations of Christianity, I see a lack of understanding this division as part of the problem with many who have criticized Rev. Wright. I am not here to offer an uncritical defense of Wright’s words, but I have preached sermons that verge on the same tenor as his; sermons that scold American leadership for its failure to side with the poor and oppressed in favor of the rich and powerful and for its failure to seek true peace and justice in the world in favor of waging war.
If we are serious about our Christian faith, then we need to become more biblically literate in order to separate the wheat of the gospel message from the chaff of our patriotic idolatry. This calls for us to read the scriptures afresh and to consider seriously the political, social, and economic, in addition to the spiritual, messages of the Prophets and Jesus, all of whom spoke harshly to Israel’s leaders, condemning their policies and calling them to repent before God brought judgment on them.
The problem that some have had with the kind of preaching done by Rev. Wright and others is that it does not view America as God’s predestined hope for the world. Rather, it condemns governmental leadership when it does not seek justice, when it does not lift up the oppressed, and when it does not seek peace. Such preaching does not make Rev. Wright or others anti-American or unpatriotic. Rather it positions them in the prophetic tradition of Jesus, who I suspect would have more brutal things to say to America’s leaders.
A popular remark that characterizes race relations in America is that Sunday morning is the most segregated time of the week. There is indeed a division that exists between black churches and white churches. Certainly more African-American Christians are attending predominantly white churches these days, and conversely, many white Christians attend African-American churches. But for the most part, the hour of worship on Sunday morning remains very segregated. This is due mostly to the racial divide in this country, and some of it stems from different worship styles the two communities embrace. But part of the segregation is due to differing interpretations of the gospel.
Conservative white evangelicalism has been influenced greatly by a dispensational theology that sees America as playing a key role in God’s predestined plan; a quasi-theological manifest destiny. Indeed, dispensational theology is still very much a part of the theological and political culture of evangelicalism. Jerry Falwell was a dispensationalist, as is Pat Robertson, both of whom have had a huge political influence. And one cannot scan the channels of religious broadcasts without running across preachers like John Hagee or Ronnie Floyd spouting off their brand of dispensationalism.
Dispensationalists see the world moving toward a God-ordained end in which an apocalyptic battle will take place when nations, particularly Muslim nations, will rise up against the modern State of Israel. In the minds of many of these dispensationalists, America will play a key role in supporting Israel, who they equate with the ancient chosen people of God.
Many of the proponents of dispensational theology, therefore, have an apocalyptic view of the world that sees the inevitable end coming in a war between good and evil. Since this end is unavoidable, there is no need to work for earthly peace and justice; the plan is already written and America, as the only real God-blessed nation, plays a lead role on the side of good.
Black liberation theology, however, holds a slightly different view of the gospel message. Influenced by the liberation theologies that were birthed in the countries of the Third World, where the message of Jesus was viewed as more than a promise of spiritual salvation, and extended to the political, social, and economic liberation of oppressed populations, black liberation theology confronts governmental leadership with its failure to implement God’s justice for the oppressed.
African-American theologians and pastors like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as some white religious leaders who supported the Civil Rights movement, embraced this liberation message and took seriously the political, social, and economic message of Jesus. In doing so, they stood very much in line with Jesus and the Prophets of ancient Israel who railed against Israel’s rulers for their unjust policies against the oppressed.
While I dare not over generalize the dichotomy between these interpretations of Christianity, I see a lack of understanding this division as part of the problem with many who have criticized Rev. Wright. I am not here to offer an uncritical defense of Wright’s words, but I have preached sermons that verge on the same tenor as his; sermons that scold American leadership for its failure to side with the poor and oppressed in favor of the rich and powerful and for its failure to seek true peace and justice in the world in favor of waging war.
If we are serious about our Christian faith, then we need to become more biblically literate in order to separate the wheat of the gospel message from the chaff of our patriotic idolatry. This calls for us to read the scriptures afresh and to consider seriously the political, social, and economic, in addition to the spiritual, messages of the Prophets and Jesus, all of whom spoke harshly to Israel’s leaders, condemning their policies and calling them to repent before God brought judgment on them.
The problem that some have had with the kind of preaching done by Rev. Wright and others is that it does not view America as God’s predestined hope for the world. Rather, it condemns governmental leadership when it does not seek justice, when it does not lift up the oppressed, and when it does not seek peace. Such preaching does not make Rev. Wright or others anti-American or unpatriotic. Rather it positions them in the prophetic tradition of Jesus, who I suspect would have more brutal things to say to America’s leaders.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Easter Story is God’s Answer to Human Evil, Failure, and Despair
This past Sunday millions of Christians across the globe gathered to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For centuries, Easter has been the most important day on the Christian calendar. But even though Christians have celebrated the resurrection for the past two-millenium, the meaning of the resurrection remains fairly mysterious to us. What does the resurrection of Jesus mean? The answers to this question are multifaceted, but a close look at the gospel stories can offer us the heart of Easter’s message.
While all four canonical gospels tell the story of the resurrection, there is something very interesting about the way the gospel of Mark describes the experience. When the women reach the tomb that Sunday, they meet a young man who says to them, “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here.” While this seems straightforward to most readers, a look at the Greek text brings out the meaning of the Easter message. The key words in the statement are ‘crucified’ and ‘raised’. Both are in the passive voice and they are in juxtaposition to one another. A literal translation might be, “The one who was crucified, has been raised.”
Since both words are in the passive voice, the subject of each word is hidden. But are they? The subjects of the participle ‘crucified’ are those who acted evilly against Jesus. But the subject of the verb ‘raised’ is God. And so we have in these two words the story of Easter: On Friday Jesus was crucified by humans; but on Sunday Jesus was raised by God. But what do these few words mean for the faith of these first witnesses and for the faith of millions today?
First, the story of Jesus’ resurrection shows that God’s goodness overcomes human evil. The arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus demonstrate the essence of human malice, as those who tried Jesus falsely convicted an innocent man of a crime he did not commit. But those who perpetrated the evil against Jesus would not have the final say, for God was overcoming their evil act through God’s power to raise Jesus from the dead. The resurrection narrative reminds us that though evil is real and powerful, evil will never win. The Easter message is God’s powerful response to human evil.
Second, the young man’s message about the empty tomb also implies that in the resurrection God’s faithfulness was prevailing over human failure. The scene of Jesus’ arrest, trial and execution is memorable for many reasons, but what is significantly shocking is the absence of Jesus’ closet followers. The disciples had abandoned Jesus in his time of need; turning their backs on the one they called master. They had moved from being followers to failures. But in the message of the resurrection, God’s faithfulness prevailed over their failures. The man in the tomb said to the women, “Go and tell Peter and the others that he is going ahead of you to Galilee.” While they had failed in their faithfulness, God was continuing to be faithful to God’s plan to bring good news to the world. The resurrection of Jesus is God’s continuing faithfulness to humans who fail.
Third, the resurrection story illustrates that God’s hope triumphs over human despair. The women who came to the tomb that day came to put spices not on their living Lord, but on a dead criminal. Their journey to the grave must have been filled with grief and despair. They were hopeless not only because their teacher had died, but also because all their hopes and dreams had died with him. But the resurrection story transformed their despair into hope. They had left the other disciples in mourning, but they returned to them with joy. Easter not only gave these followers of Jesus back their master, it gave them back their hope and their purpose for living. In the resurrection the futility of human existence was defeated by God’s purpose for humanity; to proclaim loudly and boldly that God has raised Jesus from the dead.
Jesus was crucified, but he has been raised! Although a short statement, it is one that has changed the world. For in this simple but profound announcement we hear the crux of the gospel story that God’s goodness defeats human evil; that God’s faithfulness overcomes human failure; that God’s hope triumphs over human despair. Jesus was crucified, but he has been raised!
While all four canonical gospels tell the story of the resurrection, there is something very interesting about the way the gospel of Mark describes the experience. When the women reach the tomb that Sunday, they meet a young man who says to them, “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here.” While this seems straightforward to most readers, a look at the Greek text brings out the meaning of the Easter message. The key words in the statement are ‘crucified’ and ‘raised’. Both are in the passive voice and they are in juxtaposition to one another. A literal translation might be, “The one who was crucified, has been raised.”
Since both words are in the passive voice, the subject of each word is hidden. But are they? The subjects of the participle ‘crucified’ are those who acted evilly against Jesus. But the subject of the verb ‘raised’ is God. And so we have in these two words the story of Easter: On Friday Jesus was crucified by humans; but on Sunday Jesus was raised by God. But what do these few words mean for the faith of these first witnesses and for the faith of millions today?
First, the story of Jesus’ resurrection shows that God’s goodness overcomes human evil. The arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus demonstrate the essence of human malice, as those who tried Jesus falsely convicted an innocent man of a crime he did not commit. But those who perpetrated the evil against Jesus would not have the final say, for God was overcoming their evil act through God’s power to raise Jesus from the dead. The resurrection narrative reminds us that though evil is real and powerful, evil will never win. The Easter message is God’s powerful response to human evil.
Second, the young man’s message about the empty tomb also implies that in the resurrection God’s faithfulness was prevailing over human failure. The scene of Jesus’ arrest, trial and execution is memorable for many reasons, but what is significantly shocking is the absence of Jesus’ closet followers. The disciples had abandoned Jesus in his time of need; turning their backs on the one they called master. They had moved from being followers to failures. But in the message of the resurrection, God’s faithfulness prevailed over their failures. The man in the tomb said to the women, “Go and tell Peter and the others that he is going ahead of you to Galilee.” While they had failed in their faithfulness, God was continuing to be faithful to God’s plan to bring good news to the world. The resurrection of Jesus is God’s continuing faithfulness to humans who fail.
Third, the resurrection story illustrates that God’s hope triumphs over human despair. The women who came to the tomb that day came to put spices not on their living Lord, but on a dead criminal. Their journey to the grave must have been filled with grief and despair. They were hopeless not only because their teacher had died, but also because all their hopes and dreams had died with him. But the resurrection story transformed their despair into hope. They had left the other disciples in mourning, but they returned to them with joy. Easter not only gave these followers of Jesus back their master, it gave them back their hope and their purpose for living. In the resurrection the futility of human existence was defeated by God’s purpose for humanity; to proclaim loudly and boldly that God has raised Jesus from the dead.
Jesus was crucified, but he has been raised! Although a short statement, it is one that has changed the world. For in this simple but profound announcement we hear the crux of the gospel story that God’s goodness defeats human evil; that God’s faithfulness overcomes human failure; that God’s hope triumphs over human despair. Jesus was crucified, but he has been raised!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
In Worship We Join Creation in Celebrating the Coming of God’s Anointed
There is no greater activity we do as Christians than worship. Whether we worship daily in our individual devotion times or worship corporately as we gather with the body of Christ in community worship, our lives ought to exude attitudes and actions of worship. Yet, we may often find worship boring, unnecessary, and even burdensome. As Christians, however, our worship is a response to God and God’s actions in the coming of Jesus. Worship, then, is not a boring, unnecessary, and burdensome exercise. It is an act of grace in which we respond to God’s love and majesty.
The coming of Jesus as God’s Messiah brought euphoric celebration from some and contempt and jealousy from others. Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem in Luke 19:28-40 narrates a scene that most pointedly describes these opposing reactions. As Jesus enters the city, the crowds cry out with joy and worship of God for a promised Messiah who has now arrived. Yet, the Pharisees react to Jesus with contempt by refusing to join in the celebration and by stifling the worship of the people
The scene begins with Luke informing us that Jesus was going to Jerusalem. We should not take this as simply a reference to Jesus’ location. Rather, Luke purposely indicates that the prophecies about God’s beloved are about to be fulfilled in the city of fulfillment. The long expected coming of the Messiah is now happening in their lives and the joy they feel cannot be contained. The irony of this is that though the crowds see Jesus coming in victorious power, Luke, Jesus, and the readers familiar with the story, know that Jesus goes to Jerusalem to face denial, rejection, and death.
Yet, while Jesus’ actions were taken by some as the victory of God, others understood them as a direct threat to their authority. The Pharisees, religious leaders of Israel, held their power by the permission of the Roman authorities and any disruption in Jerusalem would surely end their power. In many ways, although the Pharisees hated the Romans, their own fate was tied to pleasing their pagan overlords.
This is why the Pharisees seek to censor the worship of the crowd. Jesus, however, implies that creation itself has longed for this day and if the crowd was silenced, the Pharisees would hear the stones shout in worship to God. The reference to the stones shouting out does not mean that if the crowd is silenced then the stones would begin their worship. The meaning seems to be that the stones, which are symbolic of all of creation, are already offering praise to God. The people are only joining God’s creation in worship.
The portrayal of the characters in the Triumphal Entry scene forces us to see ourselves as part of the story and it calls us to choose a reaction to Jesus’ coming as God’s anointed one. We can either react as the Pharisees did by rejecting Jesus, or we can react as the crowds did and join with creation in the worship of God.
The story also defines for us what our worship should be—the celebratory reaction to God’s actions in Jesus. In worship, we find our place in the choir of creation and we experience the joy of being the objects of God’s love and actions. In the authentic worship of God, we become caught up in the joy of the worship of God as we join creation in shouting out to God in an eternal and exuberant celebration.
The coming of Jesus as God’s Messiah brought euphoric celebration from some and contempt and jealousy from others. Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem in Luke 19:28-40 narrates a scene that most pointedly describes these opposing reactions. As Jesus enters the city, the crowds cry out with joy and worship of God for a promised Messiah who has now arrived. Yet, the Pharisees react to Jesus with contempt by refusing to join in the celebration and by stifling the worship of the people
The scene begins with Luke informing us that Jesus was going to Jerusalem. We should not take this as simply a reference to Jesus’ location. Rather, Luke purposely indicates that the prophecies about God’s beloved are about to be fulfilled in the city of fulfillment. The long expected coming of the Messiah is now happening in their lives and the joy they feel cannot be contained. The irony of this is that though the crowds see Jesus coming in victorious power, Luke, Jesus, and the readers familiar with the story, know that Jesus goes to Jerusalem to face denial, rejection, and death.
Yet, while Jesus’ actions were taken by some as the victory of God, others understood them as a direct threat to their authority. The Pharisees, religious leaders of Israel, held their power by the permission of the Roman authorities and any disruption in Jerusalem would surely end their power. In many ways, although the Pharisees hated the Romans, their own fate was tied to pleasing their pagan overlords.
This is why the Pharisees seek to censor the worship of the crowd. Jesus, however, implies that creation itself has longed for this day and if the crowd was silenced, the Pharisees would hear the stones shout in worship to God. The reference to the stones shouting out does not mean that if the crowd is silenced then the stones would begin their worship. The meaning seems to be that the stones, which are symbolic of all of creation, are already offering praise to God. The people are only joining God’s creation in worship.
The portrayal of the characters in the Triumphal Entry scene forces us to see ourselves as part of the story and it calls us to choose a reaction to Jesus’ coming as God’s anointed one. We can either react as the Pharisees did by rejecting Jesus, or we can react as the crowds did and join with creation in the worship of God.
The story also defines for us what our worship should be—the celebratory reaction to God’s actions in Jesus. In worship, we find our place in the choir of creation and we experience the joy of being the objects of God’s love and actions. In the authentic worship of God, we become caught up in the joy of the worship of God as we join creation in shouting out to God in an eternal and exuberant celebration.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Jesus’ Glory is Found in the Cross
One of the dominant themes in the Gospel of Mark is the journey that Jesus and his disciples travel. Often, this wandering band is pictured on the road moving toward, as we discover through reading the story, Jerusalem, the holy city of David. As the narrative of Mark moves forward, however, Jerusalem begins to come into clear view, and Jesus begins to point this out to them.
Most likely those who followed Jesus knew they were headed to Jerusalem; what faithful Jew would not know the direction to Jerusalem. So Jesus’ acknowledgement that they are headed to Jerusalem seems out of place, unless the mention of the direction in which they are headed is intended to mean something. Why does Jesus state specifically that they are headed for Jerusalem? For what purpose did the disciples think they were headed for Jerusalem? Did their understanding of trip to Jerusalem match that of Jesus?
Perhaps they thought that when they reached Jerusalem, Jesus would take his rightful place as King of Israel and overthrow the Romans. Perhaps they followed Jesus, hoping that they would be participants in this rule of Jesus in David’s city. Most likely they believed that Jesus’ purpose in continuing on the road to Jerusalem was so that he would be made King and, consequently, they would share in that kingly power.
This expectation is seen most clearly in the request two of Jesus’ disciples make as their band moves even closer to Jerusalem. The brothers, James and John, come to Jesus with the bold request, “Grant us to sit, one at your right and one at your left, in your glory” (Mark 10:37). These disciples seem to understand that following Jesus leads to glory, but they fail to understand that there is no glory apart from the cross that looms in Jerusalem. The Markan Jesus had spoken to them two other times before this exchange about what would happen in Jerusalem; he would be arrested, beaten and killed. But somehow they failed to hear, or better, refused to hear his words. Instead they continued to see the movement toward Jerusalem as a move toward power and glory and not one that would lead to suffering and death.
The specifics of the request made by the brothers should not be missed. James and John were seeking seats of authority by requesting places on the right and left of Jesus. Jesus affirms that there are such seats, but that they are reserved for whom they have been prepared by God. But the only other place in Mark where people are said to be on the right and left of Jesus is in the crucifixion scene of 15:32-52, where someone is crucified on his right and someone else is crucified on his left. Moreover, just before we read of these two other crucified victims on either side of Jesus, we are told of the inscription that read, “King of the Jews.”
What all of this says to us is that the kingly glory of Jesus in Mark’s narrative is found in his death on the cross, and those who are at the right and left of Jesus in glory are those who take their places on the right and left of Jesus in crucifixion. For Jesus, glory comes not in the heavens, but in the cross.
This overturns our own ideas of greatness and power. Greatness does not come in worldly thrones, but in the throne of a cross. Power does not come by ruling over people, but by serving others. In opposition to the disciples, Jesus was living out true greatness and power by going down the road to Jerusalem that led to the cross.
When I was getting ready to preach one Sunday morning, I sat on one of the front pews in the church. At the end of the pew there was a stack of music books. As we stood to sing, I happened to glance at the title of the books, which read, “Easy Gospel Arrangements” We often are like James and John in that we want easy gospel arrangements. Certainly the gospel is freely offered to all, but it is not cheap in its demands. The real gospel of the real Jesus calls us to give up ourselves in self-sacrificial service to God and others by taking up the cross of Jesus. The true glory of God is in the cross.
Most likely those who followed Jesus knew they were headed to Jerusalem; what faithful Jew would not know the direction to Jerusalem. So Jesus’ acknowledgement that they are headed to Jerusalem seems out of place, unless the mention of the direction in which they are headed is intended to mean something. Why does Jesus state specifically that they are headed for Jerusalem? For what purpose did the disciples think they were headed for Jerusalem? Did their understanding of trip to Jerusalem match that of Jesus?
Perhaps they thought that when they reached Jerusalem, Jesus would take his rightful place as King of Israel and overthrow the Romans. Perhaps they followed Jesus, hoping that they would be participants in this rule of Jesus in David’s city. Most likely they believed that Jesus’ purpose in continuing on the road to Jerusalem was so that he would be made King and, consequently, they would share in that kingly power.
This expectation is seen most clearly in the request two of Jesus’ disciples make as their band moves even closer to Jerusalem. The brothers, James and John, come to Jesus with the bold request, “Grant us to sit, one at your right and one at your left, in your glory” (Mark 10:37). These disciples seem to understand that following Jesus leads to glory, but they fail to understand that there is no glory apart from the cross that looms in Jerusalem. The Markan Jesus had spoken to them two other times before this exchange about what would happen in Jerusalem; he would be arrested, beaten and killed. But somehow they failed to hear, or better, refused to hear his words. Instead they continued to see the movement toward Jerusalem as a move toward power and glory and not one that would lead to suffering and death.
The specifics of the request made by the brothers should not be missed. James and John were seeking seats of authority by requesting places on the right and left of Jesus. Jesus affirms that there are such seats, but that they are reserved for whom they have been prepared by God. But the only other place in Mark where people are said to be on the right and left of Jesus is in the crucifixion scene of 15:32-52, where someone is crucified on his right and someone else is crucified on his left. Moreover, just before we read of these two other crucified victims on either side of Jesus, we are told of the inscription that read, “King of the Jews.”
What all of this says to us is that the kingly glory of Jesus in Mark’s narrative is found in his death on the cross, and those who are at the right and left of Jesus in glory are those who take their places on the right and left of Jesus in crucifixion. For Jesus, glory comes not in the heavens, but in the cross.
This overturns our own ideas of greatness and power. Greatness does not come in worldly thrones, but in the throne of a cross. Power does not come by ruling over people, but by serving others. In opposition to the disciples, Jesus was living out true greatness and power by going down the road to Jerusalem that led to the cross.
When I was getting ready to preach one Sunday morning, I sat on one of the front pews in the church. At the end of the pew there was a stack of music books. As we stood to sing, I happened to glance at the title of the books, which read, “Easy Gospel Arrangements” We often are like James and John in that we want easy gospel arrangements. Certainly the gospel is freely offered to all, but it is not cheap in its demands. The real gospel of the real Jesus calls us to give up ourselves in self-sacrificial service to God and others by taking up the cross of Jesus. The true glory of God is in the cross.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Real Jesus Offends Us
When I was working on my Ph.D. in Edinburgh, Scotland, I would often take breaks from my writing and roam Auld Reekie, as Edinburgh is affectionately known. One of my favorite places of respite from the grind of writing a dissertation was the National Gallery. There I could view in peace the creative works from the great artists of history. It was there that I discovered one of my favorite paintings; one which I had only known from books. That painting is El Greco’s Savior of the World.
For me El Greco’s painting captures the essence of Jesus. Although El Greco painted a Jesus who looks more like one of El Greco’s contemporary Europeans than a Jew living in first century Palestine, once you get past this historical flaw, you begin to appreciate what the artist has done. As I would sit there viewing this work, the face of the subject always drew me to himself. El Greco’s Jesus is inviting, compassionate, and loving.
Yet, as I would sit for periods of time staring into the warm and compassionate face of the painted Savior, I would begin to see something else. Those same inviting and loving eyes became piercing and condemning. That once warm face now became offensive to me as if he was looking deep into my soul and witnessing the worst of human sin.
In Mark 6, Jesus, Nazareth’s own hometown boy, returns home to preach to those who knew him as a child. You can imagine the anticipation they felt for what he might say as he preached his first sermon in his home synagogue. Yet, although Mark does not tell us the words that Jesus spoke, he does tell us that those who heard him “took offense at him” (Mark 6:3). Taken literally, they were scandalized by what he said. Why?
Perhaps they assumed that their hometown boy would make them proud by affirming their righteousness, their place as God’s elect people, and their pious religious observances. Perhaps they assumed that Jesus would side with them against their enemies, preach stirring sermons convicting others of their sins and pointing to his own people as examples of what it means to live holy lives. Whatever Jesus said in the synagogue on that day convinced the Nazarenes that the returning hometown boy was not the Jesus they wanted. Instead he was the Jesus they got; and they were offended.
We can look at this story and point our pious fingers at these people and others who reject Jesus, shaming them for not embracing the person and words of Jesus. But are we not just looking into the mirror at our own faces? Was not their problem with Jesus the same as our problem with Jesus? We embrace the Jesus we want, but we quickly reject the Jesus we get; the real Jesus who offends us.
The Jesus we want is our friend. He is our ally in the face of our enemies. This Jesus is always on our side, answering our prayers and blessing us. This Jesus tells us what we want to hear, makes us comfortable, and looks pleasingly at our self-righteousness.
The Jesus we want is created in our own minds and answers to our demands. He permits us to wage unjust violence against our enemies in the name of national security. He allows us to hoard money and possessions in the name of financial security. He consents to our prejudices against people of other races, genders, religions and sexual orientations in the name of cultural security. Yes, this is the Jesus we prefer. He is the Jesus we can accept and worship.
But this is not the real Jesus. The real Jesus is the one who calls us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies, to sell all we have and give to the poor, and to take up the cross and follow him. This is the Jesus who calls us to reach out to others and cross the boundaries of race, religion, culture, and gender. This is the Jesus that dined with tax collectors, beggars, diseased, and various persons of questionable social standing. This is the Jesus who compels us to repent of our insular lives and to commit ourselves to work for justice, peace, and hope in our world.
This is the Jesus who calls us to rethink our theological assertions and to open ourselves to being moved by his Spirit. And this is the Jesus, who being so offensive and so scandalous to his contemporaries, that he was crucified on the most offensive and scandalous instruments of Roman power-the cross. Yes, this is the offensive Jesus, but he is the real Jesus, the biblical Jesus, and the eternal Jesus.
As we move closer to Holy Week during this Season of Lent, may we repent from our sin of creating a false Jesus and may we turn to stare into the face of the real Jesus who both comforts and offends.
For me El Greco’s painting captures the essence of Jesus. Although El Greco painted a Jesus who looks more like one of El Greco’s contemporary Europeans than a Jew living in first century Palestine, once you get past this historical flaw, you begin to appreciate what the artist has done. As I would sit there viewing this work, the face of the subject always drew me to himself. El Greco’s Jesus is inviting, compassionate, and loving.
Yet, as I would sit for periods of time staring into the warm and compassionate face of the painted Savior, I would begin to see something else. Those same inviting and loving eyes became piercing and condemning. That once warm face now became offensive to me as if he was looking deep into my soul and witnessing the worst of human sin.
In Mark 6, Jesus, Nazareth’s own hometown boy, returns home to preach to those who knew him as a child. You can imagine the anticipation they felt for what he might say as he preached his first sermon in his home synagogue. Yet, although Mark does not tell us the words that Jesus spoke, he does tell us that those who heard him “took offense at him” (Mark 6:3). Taken literally, they were scandalized by what he said. Why?
Perhaps they assumed that their hometown boy would make them proud by affirming their righteousness, their place as God’s elect people, and their pious religious observances. Perhaps they assumed that Jesus would side with them against their enemies, preach stirring sermons convicting others of their sins and pointing to his own people as examples of what it means to live holy lives. Whatever Jesus said in the synagogue on that day convinced the Nazarenes that the returning hometown boy was not the Jesus they wanted. Instead he was the Jesus they got; and they were offended.
We can look at this story and point our pious fingers at these people and others who reject Jesus, shaming them for not embracing the person and words of Jesus. But are we not just looking into the mirror at our own faces? Was not their problem with Jesus the same as our problem with Jesus? We embrace the Jesus we want, but we quickly reject the Jesus we get; the real Jesus who offends us.
The Jesus we want is our friend. He is our ally in the face of our enemies. This Jesus is always on our side, answering our prayers and blessing us. This Jesus tells us what we want to hear, makes us comfortable, and looks pleasingly at our self-righteousness.
The Jesus we want is created in our own minds and answers to our demands. He permits us to wage unjust violence against our enemies in the name of national security. He allows us to hoard money and possessions in the name of financial security. He consents to our prejudices against people of other races, genders, religions and sexual orientations in the name of cultural security. Yes, this is the Jesus we prefer. He is the Jesus we can accept and worship.
But this is not the real Jesus. The real Jesus is the one who calls us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies, to sell all we have and give to the poor, and to take up the cross and follow him. This is the Jesus who calls us to reach out to others and cross the boundaries of race, religion, culture, and gender. This is the Jesus that dined with tax collectors, beggars, diseased, and various persons of questionable social standing. This is the Jesus who compels us to repent of our insular lives and to commit ourselves to work for justice, peace, and hope in our world.
This is the Jesus who calls us to rethink our theological assertions and to open ourselves to being moved by his Spirit. And this is the Jesus, who being so offensive and so scandalous to his contemporaries, that he was crucified on the most offensive and scandalous instruments of Roman power-the cross. Yes, this is the offensive Jesus, but he is the real Jesus, the biblical Jesus, and the eternal Jesus.
As we move closer to Holy Week during this Season of Lent, may we repent from our sin of creating a false Jesus and may we turn to stare into the face of the real Jesus who both comforts and offends.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Faith of Jesus Refuses the Politics of Fear
On September 11, 2001, Americans entered into a daily existence that much of the world already experienced; living with the continual threat of terrorism. Yet, since that tragic day, we have been gripped by the oppressive power of fear, a fear that the media and our political leaders want to consistently bring to our attention. While appropriate measures of security are necessary to defend against violence, fear only suppresses our desire to live with a sense of hope, and it essentially leads us away from living life with faith in the face of fear.
One of the more interesting biblical stories detailing the contrast between faith and fear appears in Mark 4:35-41, where we find Jesus and his disciples crossing the Sea of Galilee in a boat. In the midst of their nautical journey to the other side, a raging storm quickly arises and threatens their lives. While the story shows Jesus as a miracle worker who has power over creation, the impact of the story on its readers speaks directly to the empowering strength of faith to overcome the crippling force of fear in the face of evil.
It goes without saying that the disciples were afraid of the storm, for they believed that they were about to perish under the torrent of the sea. Yet, a deeper understanding of the force of the story rests on the ancient understanding of the sea as a power of evil and chaos that threatens God’s good creation. Simply put, people of the ancient world held the view that the sea was under the power of evil and the unpredictable storms on the sea were a challenge to the creation and a threat of the return of chaos.
But the theology of the story hinges on the dialogue between two characters; Peter, who represents all the disciples in their fear, and Jesus, who calmly sleeps as the storm rages. In Jesus, we discover a peaceful composure and the assurance of God’s presence, even as evil seems to be winning. In Peter, we witness a dramatic picture of human fear in the face of evil’s most powerful force, death.
Since that horrific day in September of 2001, some politicians have used those tragic events to attempt to convince us that we ought to be afraid. This fear mongering rhetoric defines the world in black and white terms, seeing only good or evil. The now infamous “war on terror” tagline has become the rationale for waging war, torturing prisoners, and infringing on the freedoms we have always cherished, all in the name of national security. Moreover, the use of fear as a campaign tactic has created the myth that only one political party can save our nation, while the other will surrender to the terrorists.
What shocks me the most about all of this rhetoric is that many Christians have bought into the fear movement. There are probably many reasons for allowing ourselves to be duped by fear, but I suppose one reason is the false belief that the preservation of American culture is the same as the preservation of our Christian faith. Yet, the reality is that if we surrender to fear, we will lose our faith in God, and we will become less than the humans we were created to be.
The succumbing to the power of fear has produced a rising tide of xenophobia, intolerance, and irrationalism. Moreover, irrational fear is precisely the motivation behind the ever extending trajectory of Internet stories and email messages falsely reporting that one particular presidential candidate is a Muslim and that we ought not vote for him if we want to preserve our Christian culture.
In response to the irrationality of fear, Christians must look to the one who faced the tragedy of death with faith in the God of the living. As Jesus faced his looming death by crucifixion, he did not let the manipulative power of fear overtake him. Rather, he turned to God in trusting faith. This faith led Jesus to reject the force of fear and to embrace the calling of God to go to the cross.
Fear is a powerful force, but if allowed to have control, fear draws us from God and God’s call for us to live faithfully in the world. The biblical message calls us not to fear, but to have faith, for faith is the only divinely given power that combats and defeats our fears. While threats to our security, whether as a nation or as individuals, naturally produce feelings of fear, we must follow the model of Jesus, who at the most vulnerable point in his life, turned to the God who gives the hope and the faith that overcomes all fear.
One of the more interesting biblical stories detailing the contrast between faith and fear appears in Mark 4:35-41, where we find Jesus and his disciples crossing the Sea of Galilee in a boat. In the midst of their nautical journey to the other side, a raging storm quickly arises and threatens their lives. While the story shows Jesus as a miracle worker who has power over creation, the impact of the story on its readers speaks directly to the empowering strength of faith to overcome the crippling force of fear in the face of evil.
It goes without saying that the disciples were afraid of the storm, for they believed that they were about to perish under the torrent of the sea. Yet, a deeper understanding of the force of the story rests on the ancient understanding of the sea as a power of evil and chaos that threatens God’s good creation. Simply put, people of the ancient world held the view that the sea was under the power of evil and the unpredictable storms on the sea were a challenge to the creation and a threat of the return of chaos.
But the theology of the story hinges on the dialogue between two characters; Peter, who represents all the disciples in their fear, and Jesus, who calmly sleeps as the storm rages. In Jesus, we discover a peaceful composure and the assurance of God’s presence, even as evil seems to be winning. In Peter, we witness a dramatic picture of human fear in the face of evil’s most powerful force, death.
Since that horrific day in September of 2001, some politicians have used those tragic events to attempt to convince us that we ought to be afraid. This fear mongering rhetoric defines the world in black and white terms, seeing only good or evil. The now infamous “war on terror” tagline has become the rationale for waging war, torturing prisoners, and infringing on the freedoms we have always cherished, all in the name of national security. Moreover, the use of fear as a campaign tactic has created the myth that only one political party can save our nation, while the other will surrender to the terrorists.
What shocks me the most about all of this rhetoric is that many Christians have bought into the fear movement. There are probably many reasons for allowing ourselves to be duped by fear, but I suppose one reason is the false belief that the preservation of American culture is the same as the preservation of our Christian faith. Yet, the reality is that if we surrender to fear, we will lose our faith in God, and we will become less than the humans we were created to be.
The succumbing to the power of fear has produced a rising tide of xenophobia, intolerance, and irrationalism. Moreover, irrational fear is precisely the motivation behind the ever extending trajectory of Internet stories and email messages falsely reporting that one particular presidential candidate is a Muslim and that we ought not vote for him if we want to preserve our Christian culture.
In response to the irrationality of fear, Christians must look to the one who faced the tragedy of death with faith in the God of the living. As Jesus faced his looming death by crucifixion, he did not let the manipulative power of fear overtake him. Rather, he turned to God in trusting faith. This faith led Jesus to reject the force of fear and to embrace the calling of God to go to the cross.
Fear is a powerful force, but if allowed to have control, fear draws us from God and God’s call for us to live faithfully in the world. The biblical message calls us not to fear, but to have faith, for faith is the only divinely given power that combats and defeats our fears. While threats to our security, whether as a nation or as individuals, naturally produce feelings of fear, we must follow the model of Jesus, who at the most vulnerable point in his life, turned to the God who gives the hope and the faith that overcomes all fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)