Monday, December 17, 2007
Change Is Not Easy
In his book “Everything Must Change”, Brian McLaren gives a great example of how Jesus’ political statements have too often been shaped to fit modern middle-class suburban life. He makes the point by looking at Matthew’s account of the Canaanite woman and Jesus (Matthew 15:21-28). Many people look at this message as an example for how modern individuals should treat other people. We should resist the urge to make it easy. This message is bigger than a third grade Sunday school lesson about being nice and letting your neighbors borrow a cup of sugar or an occasional power tool. This message is political and it foreshadows Jesus' critical message about the balance of power in Israel and its political relationships with its neighbors.
Brain highlights the unusual use of the word “Canaanite”. This word was a word of hostility towards a people that had been a long time enemy of Israel. These people had been defeated in order to settle the Promised Land and many border wars continued long after. Israel looked down on them and the way he addresses her at first was a type of racial slur used by the story teller to present the history backdrop for the punch line. In this story, Jesus rejects the woman then he later embraces her to suggest that the way these people were being treated was wrong and that those old divisions and wars are now over. Instead of conquering Canaanites, this Jew will feed her. The parable may or may not have been a literal conversation of the historical Jesus, but the symbolism does reference a real historical system of injustice. The scene foreshadows what Jesus told the authorities in Jerusalem about their treatment of people and how the violence of their past could only beget more violence in their future. I guess Jesus was hip to the concept of Karma.
The point Brian makes is that Jesus is suggesting an entirely different way of dealing with political divisions and settling tension on a global level. This “other way” is justice and forgiveness rather than violence, prejudice, and holding grudges. Jesus' storytellers craft this event in a way that challenges the politics of their leaders who must have cringed at the thought of Jesus' actions toward this long time enemy. It is unfortunate that stories like this have been domesticated and stripped of their power to change the world. The domestication of these stories is what allows our leaders to claim Christ in name, but ignore his message. One solution is to free our stories from their domesticated prison. That won't be easy.
4 comments:
Mike -
In this blog entry you say
"The parable may or may not have been a literal conversation of the historical Jesus, but the symbolism does reference a real historical system of injustice. The scene foreshadows what Jesus told the authorities in Jerusalem about their treatment of people and how the violence of their past could only beget more violence in their future. I guess Jesus was hip to the concept of Karma."
Now this is a serious question - I'm not trying to point out any inconsistencies or anything. I guess I'm just curious as to why you think Jesus actually said what he said to the authorities in Jerusalem - but you're not convinced the conversation with the Caananite woman was a literal conversation. I'm assuming - and I know what they say about assuming - you're response will be something along the lines of it's not important whether the conversation took place or not - what's important is the message being taught. But in all seriousness, are you sure Jesus actually said those things to the authorities?
That is a good question reggie. Actually, I don't assume he literally said any of those things to the authorities.
I treat all these instances consistently. We can't say any of them are literal sayings of the historical Jesus. What we can "know" is what the author was trying to say about Jesus. We can study the stories they told about Jesus and know what Jesus had become to them. It becomes even more clear what each storyteller is trying to tell us about Jesus when we compare the different stories. The differences often tell us more about the motivation of the authors.
By careful study of the various versions of the stories going from the earliest to the latest, we can derive what might have been more historical compared to what is more clearly added as the stories grow. But, we have to be careful not to turn assumptions into facts. Faith in Jesus has nothing to do with belief in any set of historical facts. It means trusting his vision and following through with making it a reality.
I worship a character in a story. It is that character who lays out the wonderful vision of what can be a reality if we follow him. How much of that character is historical may never be completely known. I tend to think he was a living historical figure who did and said some of those things. But I can't prove it. Regardless of that, it is this wonderful character who has won my heart and is transforming my life. It is that character who we keep alive by retelling his stories. This Jesus lives today in our hearts and minds as we become his body and do his work. In the same way Jesus made God's widsom flesh and dwelt among us, we make Jesus flesh by living out his vision.
I'm interested in talking to you about your views on biblical sources. Let me know if you would like to talk off-line about it in more detail.
Excellent point, Mike. Here's a couple of questions for you: If we are to perceive Jesus as a political figure and that His message is political, are the remedies to the injustices, the violence, the prejudices to be pursued through political means?
I just left Mike Goodyear's blog where he has a YouTube interview with a fellow who's written a book titled "UnChristian." That fellow says that young Christians (who are hesitant to call themselves "Christians") today believe that Christianity is "too political." Do you share that belief?
William Wilberforce aside, are there current politicians whom you would embrace as forwarding the Christian paradigm?
One last question: (I know this is more than "a couple of questions")Do you see individual responsibility in combination with church/political force to effect change?
Peace, Kim
Thanks for those questions Kim. The remedies for injustice are dependent on the particular injustice. If the injustice is between a person and another person then the solution is personal and individual. However, if the injustice is systemic then the solution must be a change to the system.
When people say "Christians are too political" I think what they mean is that Christians are using political avenues to enforce personal values. If we stick to political issues in the political arena then those comments would stop. Economic justice, workers rights, health care, and war are all public issues so they need public solutions. I can be charitable on a personal level but I need to work through public entities to end large scale injustice. Giving to the poor doesn't end the injustice, it just soothes the symptom temporarily.
I would suggest Christians are not political enough! Conservative Christians have a history of being too personal even in their politics. They seek to enforce personal issues at the public level (anti-choice and homophobia).
We can nit pick individual candidates (I certainly don't care for them all 100%) but in general it is clear which overall party represents justice and which one represents maintaining the current balance of power and injustice.
In general, all of the Democratic candidates seem to support policies that could help remove injustice and create freedom. That sounds like the "Christian Paradigm" to me. The Republicans seem to oppose the values I see in the bible. Their views center around selfish tax-cuts for the wealthy, cutting programs that could create justice, anti-choice, pro-war, pro-torture, pro-separatist, nationalistic, and they are against freedom of speech and religion. How is that Christian?
I see the church's role as a being the place for prophetic critique, motivation, and inspiration. The church can do charity, but it has no place or power to create justice.
Individuals can't create justice either. If individuals try to create justice on their own outside the government that would be called "lawlessness". Government is where and how we make changes to systematic problems.
I am an advocate for separation of church and state. However, faith and politics should go hand in hand. Our faith should direct our politics and our politics should protect and manifest our faith.
Post a Comment