Thoughts on Evil: Part 2, “The Enemy Inside” January 20, 2012
Posted by joejames in Evil, Psychology, Theology, Thomas Kelly, Humility, Jean Vanier, Enemies, Demon Possession, Demonic, Pop-Evil.add a comment
Building off some of Wink’s ideas concerning Powers, Evil, and the Demonic, I thought it a good time to say something important about humility when dealing with the issue of evil. I find the grotesque images of evil that pop-culture renders to be incredibly absurd. The images of the demon-possessed girl in “The Exorcist” come to mind. Have you ever asked yourself, “Why does pop-culture want evil to look like that?” I am not a psychologist (and I would incredibly interested to know what Richard Beck thinks about this), but I cannot help but wonder if this is a kind of cultural exercise in projection.
Whether or not it is technically “projection,” it seems to me that pop-culture renders evil and the demonic in such grotesque ways as a sort of defense mechanism to say that “true evil does not abide with me or I would know it because it looks something like this.” How convenient. It is also interesting to me that pop-culture renders evil as explicitly religious. Perhaps this is a cultural critique of religion’s inability to deal with the evil in our world. Or perhaps we think evil only operates against those institutions and forces that are explicitly religious or “pro-good.” But allow me, for a moment, to sweepingly deny that either of these are true renderings of evil or the demonic.
In my first post “Thoughts on Evil: Part 1″ I said this: “I have a scarier thought. What if evil and the demonic were much more subtle and more difficult to notice than the extreme renderings of pop-evil?” In other words, what if we abide with evil more closely than we wish.
In his wonderful book “Community and Growth,” Jean Vanier notes that even well-intentioned movements (and people) can be overcome with evil and corrupted with power – in other words, they can become demonic. He says that this is the difference between “groups” and spirit-filled “communities.” Spirit-filled communities are always looking inward with a keen eye to examine our own motives, our own ends and means.
“There are more and more groups today oriented towards issues and causes. There are peace movements, ecological movements, movements for oppressed people, for the liberation of women, against torture, etc. Each movement is important and, if they are based in a community life and the growing consciousness that in each person there is a world of darkness, fear, and hate, they can radiate truth and freedom, and work towards justice and peace in the world. If not, they can become very aggressive and divide the world between oppressors and the oppressed, the good and the bad. There seems to be a need in human beings to see evil and combat it outside oneself, in order not to see it inside oneself.
The difference between a community and a group that is only issue-oriented, is that the latter see the enemy outside the group. The struggle is an external one; and there will be a winner and a loser. The group knows it is right and has the truth, and wants to impose it. The members of a community know that the struggle is inside each person and inside the community; it is against all the powers of pride, elitism, hate and depression that are there and which hurt and crush others, and which cause division and war of all sorts. The enemy is inside, not outside.”
From time to time, I revisit the powerful introduction to Thomas A Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ.” Kempis begins this work by calling the would be follower (imitator) of Christ to humility.
A true understanding and humble estimate of oneself is the highest and most valuable of all lessons. To take no account of oneself, but always to think well and highly of others is the highest wisdom and perfection. Should you see another person openly doing evil, or carrying out a wicked purpose, do not on that account consider yourself better than him, for you cannot tell how long you will remain in a state of grace. We are all frail; consider none more frail than yourself.
If we believe that evil is only manifested in the grotesque renderings of pop-culture and films like “The Devil Inside,” then the probability of examining our own hearts and searching for and rooting out the evil is unlikely. We have accepted, instead, that evil is only in the extreme and grotesque. It is outside of us. Beyond me and my community. It is “out there.” It is inside someone else – conveniently, it is often our enemy.
What the Bible Really Says: Mark 8:29 January 19, 2012
Posted by joejames in Christianity, Discipleship, Following Jesus, Interpretation, Jesus, Kingdom of God, Mark 8:29, Messiah, N.T. Wright, Salvation, Scripture, Self Sacrifice, Servanthood, Son of God, Suffering, Textual Study, The Cross, Theology, Translations, What the Bible Really Says.add a comment
Let’s begin with the NRSV:
He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”
Wow. That’s simple. Or is it? About 2 years ago, I sat in church and listened to a sermon on Mark 8:27 – 9:1. After reading the text aloud, the preacher said something like this:
“There are a lot of religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Islam…. there is even one called Jainism! But only one world religion carries the claim that Jesus is the Son of God. Mark tells us the story of Peter confessing, as an eye-witness that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.”
“That’s interesting…” I thought to myself. “…considering that is not what Peter said.” And it’s not. Peter does not confess Jesus’s divinity. he confesses his kingship. He says “You are the Messiah.” He does not say “You are the Son of God.” and those are two very different things.
Now, before we go on to explore the difference between “son of God” and “Messiah” (or “Christ”), let me be clear about something. I am NOT saying that Mark (or Peter) is somehow saying that Jesus isn’t the Son of God. I am only saying that in Mark chapter 8, the disciples have not had this epiphany yet. (There is even some good scholarly debate as to whether or not Jesus himself understood that yet – which is beside the point at the moment). The point of Mark 8, is that Jesus is the King of Israel. Moreover, Jesus uses Peter’s confession that he is indeed the Messiah, the King, to say something equally as important – namely, what KIND of King Jesus would be and what it means to be a citizen (or “follower”) of His kingdom.
The Kingdom New Testament reads:
“What about you?” asked Jesus. “Who do you say I am?” Peter spoke up. “You’re the King,” he said.
In his “For Everyone” New Testament commentary series, N.T. Wright says this about Mark 8:22 – 9:1
It is vital for us to be clear at this point. Calling Jesus ‘Messiah’ doesn’t mean calling him ‘divine’, let alone ‘the second person of the Trinity’. Mark believes Jesus was and is divine, and will eventually show us why; but this moment in the gospel story is about something else. It’s about the politically dangerous and theologically risky claim that Jesus is the true King of Israel, the final heir to the throne of David, the one before whom Herod Antipas and all other would-be Jewish princelings are just shabby impostors. The disciples weren’t expecting a divine redeemer; they were longing for a king. And they thought they had found one.
Jesus is a prophet, announcing the kingdom of God; the long-awaited moment when God would rule Israel, and ultimately the world, with the justice and mercy of which the scriptures had spoken and for which Israel had longed. All mere human rule, with its mixtures of justice and oppression, mercy and corruption, would fade before it. What Jesus had been doing – notably, for Mark, the healings, the battles with evil, the extraordinary feedings, stilling of storms, and so on – are signs that this is indeed the moment when the true God is beginning to exercise this power. Finally the disciples have taken a further step: Jesus is not just announcing the kingdom. He thinks he’s the king.
By no means all Jews wanted or expected a Messiah. But those who did were clear (not least from their readings of scripture) that he had to do three things. He had to rebuild, or cleanse, the Temple. He had to defeat the enemy that was threatening God’s people. And he had to bring God’s justice – that rich, restoring, purging, healing power – to bear both in Israel and out into the world. No doubt these ideas were believed and expressed in different ways by different people. But there was a central agenda. The Messiah would be God’s agent in bringing in the kingdom, in sorting out the mess and muddle Israel was in, in putting the Gentiles in their place.
Jesus had already been redefining that set of tasks. He hadn’t been gathering a military force. He hadn’t been announcing a program to topple the Sadducees – the high priests and their associates. He had been going around doing things that spoke powerfully but cryptically of a strange new agenda: God’s healing energy sweeping through the land, bringing about a new state of affairs, arousing passionate opposition as well as passionate loyalty. And he’d been saying things, by way of explanation, that were often so cryptic that even his friends were puzzled by them. Now finally they have grasped the initial point at least. He is giving the dream of Messiah a face lift. He has in mind a new way of being God’s appointed, and annointed, king.
Just how new that way is will now emerge. But for the moment we need to examine our own answers to the question. Who do we say Jesus is? Would we like to think of him as simply a great human teacher? Would we prefer him as a Superman figure. able to ‘zap’ all the world’s problems into shape? Are we prepared to have the easy answers of our culture challenged by the actual Jesus, by his redefined notion of messiahship, and by the call, coming up in the next section, to follow him in his risky vocation?
It is vital that we keep this focus of Messiah and King here. If we supplant what is at stake for Peter with “Son of God.” Then we can quickly jump to the next conclusion – believing that Jesus is the Son of God is all that matters… and it’s not.
Not only is Jesus king, not only is he the awaited Messiah of Israel, but he is also about to clue us in on what sort of Messiah he will be starting in verse 31…
Then he began to teach them that the [he] must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’
You know what is happening in Peter’s head – indeed all 12 of their heads – “What? What is this? This does not sound like a mighty king! This does not sound like the program for restoration and renewal that we have waited for! Haven’t you seen who is oppressing us? We need might! We need force! We need power!”
Peter calls Jesus aside… “Ummm… I need to set you straight… None of that is going to work to do what it is that the Messiah is suppose to do.”
What Peter did not account for is the power of suffering love.
Again, N.T. Wright is helpful here.
But this was different. This was something new. Mark says Jesus ‘began to teach them’ this, implying that it was quite a new point that could only be begun once they’d declared that he was the Messiah – like a schoolteacher who can only begin the next stage of mathematics when the pupils have learned to add and subtract, or a language teacher who can only start on great poetry when the pupils have got the hang of how the language works. And the new lesson wasn’t just that there might be danger ahead; the new lesson was that Jesus had to walk straight into it. Nor would it simply be a risky gamble that might just pay off. It would be certain death. This was what he had to do.
You might as well have had a football captain tell the team that he was intending to let the opposition score ten goals right away. This wasn’t what Peter and the rest had in mind. They may not have thought of Jesus as a military leader, but they certainly didn’t think of him going straight to his death. As Charlie Brown once said, ‘Winning ain’t everything, but losing ain’t anything;’ and Jesus seemed to be saying he was going to lose. Worse, he was inviting them to come and lose alongside him.
This is the heart of what’s going on here, and it explains both the tricky language Jesus uses (tricky for them to puzzle out at first hearing, tricky for us to reconstruct what he meant) and the strong negative reaction of Peter, so soon after telling Jesus that he and the rest thought he was the Messiah. Messiahs don’t get killed by the authorities. A Messiah who did that would be shown up precisely as a false Messiah.
So why did Jesus say that’s what had to happen?
Mark will explain this to us bit by bit over the coming chapters. But already there is a hint, an allusion. ‘The son of man’ must have all this happen to him, declares Jesus; only so will ‘the son of man come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels’. Only so will the kingdom of God come…
So important is this message that opposition to the plan, wherever it comes from, must be seen as satanic, from the Accuser. Even Peter, Jesus’ right-hand man, is capable of thinking like a mere mortal, not looking at things from God’s point of view. This is a challenge to all of us, as the church in every generation struggles not only to think but to live from God’s point of view in a world where such a thing is madness. This is the point at which God’s kingdom, ‘coming on earth as it is in heaven’, will challenge and overturn all normal human assumptions about power and glory, about what is really important in life and in the world.
Jesus seems to think that evil will be defeated, and the kingdom will come, precisely through his own suffering and death.
Indeed the Messiah (as Peter has just declared, is Jesus) will be powerful. But power in this new kingdom gets re-defined. Power is seen in the capacity to love, even suffering-love, with faith that the Father who is in heaven will vindicate such love.
Now the kicker. We have to follow suit. The cross, is not just for Jesus. It is for us as well.
The NIV reads:
“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
For as long as I can remember, this text has been thought to mean something like this:
“…that we all have a cross to bear: mine is lust, yours is greed…”
Sound familiar? It drastically misses the point. While following Jesus indeed impacts our personal struggles, hopefully for the better, he is not setting forth a framework for thinking about personal morality. He is calling us to something new. This moralistic view removes the “call” to “come after me..” and “follow me.” It emphasizes a simple moral adjustment or two to what we are already doing. But Jesus is calling us to something new. To get there, we must bear the cross along with him.
N.T. Wright says it rather bluntly:
Why he thought that, and what it means for those who follow him, will become clear as [Mark] proceed(s). But this passage makes it clear that following him is the only way to go. Following Jesus is, more or less, Mark’s definition of what being a Christian means; and Jesus is not leading us on a pleasant afternoon hike, but on a walk into danger and risk. Or did we suppose that the kingdom of God would mean merely a few minor adjustments in our ordinary lives?
Thoughts on Evil: Part 1, “Demonic Powers & Pop-Evil” January 18, 2012
Posted by joejames in Church, Demon Possession, Demonic, Evil, Experimental Theology, Naming the Powers, Politics, Power, Principalities & Powers, Richard Beck, Walter Wink.add a comment
Last year, I read Walter Wink’s classic “Powers Trilogy” that has become a staple in Seminaries and Divinity programs. For me, Wink is the only scholar who can make sense of the biblical language of “principalities and powers” and the demonic. Christians have for so long now, either avoided the language of power and the demonic for fear of the unknown, or because we have moved into the age of enlightenment where we know such things are merely folklore, or we have dismissed the language to the realm of the “unseen” stripping the biblical usage of such language of its capacity to effect us in the “real world.” However, for Wink, the language of power is bound up with everything (indeed “all things”). Consider this Pauline passage:
“Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God’s grace that was given to me by the working of his power. Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 3:7-10; NRSV)
Wink points out in the introduction to his book “Naming the Powers” that the language of power is not exclusively “other-worldly” as we might have assumed. Rather, “Every Power tends to have a visible pole, an outer form – be it a church, a nation, or an economy – and an invisible pole, an inner spirit or driving force that animates, legitimates, and regulates its physical manifestation in the world. Neither pole is the cause of the other. Both come into existence together and cease to exist together.” (pg. 5)
This view affirms the assumption of Paul in the above text to the Ephesians. It is possible for the physical manifestation of the church to bear witness to the “invisible pole” of the “principalities and powers” or “rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” as an act of mission.
Wink’s “thesis” is this: “When a particular Power becomes idolatrous, placing itself above God’s purposes for the good of the whole, then that Power becomes demonic. The church’s task is to unmask this idolatry and recall the Powers to their created purposes in the world – ‘so that the Sovereignties and Powers should learn only now, through the church, how comprehensive God’s wisdom really is.’ (Eph. 3;10; JB)”
I find all of this incredibly compelling. If Wink is right, and I think he is, then the “invisible powers of evil” are not ugly creatures waiting to possess some helpless mortal, as Dante would have us believe. Rather, they are the invisible forces that “animate, legitimate and regulate” their physical counter-part. But this is not the popular view that most American Christians have adopted as the face of the “power of evil” and the “demonic.” Rather than to seek a biblical rendering of the meaning of evil and demonic, we accept a kind of pop-culture rendering of evil and demonic that we adopt through film, art and literature. “Thank you Dante, for telling us what evil and demonic are. Now we don’t have to read the bible…”, quipped a friend of mine recently. We can call this popular and assumed rendering of evil and demonic “pop-evil.”
Three years ago, we saw the re-birth of the demon-possession movie in the Paranormal Activity franchise. This month marks the release of a potentially horrifying movie “The Devil Inside.” All of these, of course, riding on the coat-tails of the original demon movie “The Exorcist.” This has become the face of evil. This is what it means to “have a demon.”
But I have a scarier thought. What if evil and the demonic were much more subtle and more difficult to notice than the extreme renderings of pop-evil? The wonderfully insightful social/experimental pyschologist and theologian Richard Beck gives insight to this in his blog post from May 2010 “Politics as Demon Possession”, where he wondered if the idolatrous and hateful nature of political discourse among Christians could be considered “demonic” or “evil.” He says:
Politics is demonic because it is the belief that we can save ourselves, that its up to us to get it right and, if we don’t, the Apocalypse is upon us. This, as best I can tell, is the only reason that can explain why politics is so hot, hateful, unthinking, and fractious. There is a demon/idol/false Messiah turning us against each other, driving the deepest wedge I know of between the People of God.
If Wink is to be believed, it is the task of the church to confront both the “invisible pole” and the “physical pole” of evil and demonic power. We do this, according to Paul in Eph. 3:7-10, by simply being the church. The “invisible pole” of the church is the Holy Spirit, which works in and through us to bear the “physical and outward poles” of fruit in the world: Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. The church is a living counter to evil in both its invisible and visible manifestations by simply “being the church.”
It is convenient for us to make the demonic and evil congruent with the pop-culture renderings of it. There it is. We can see it. It is ugly. It is grotesque. It is obvious. We don’t necessarily want to be troubled with the difficult task of discerning where the forces of evil and the demonic have crept into our own lives through the variety of avenues it might access our souls. Politics is simply one example among many.
But if I may, I might offer a word of encouragement. There is a simple measuring stick for discerning such things. While we may not possess the spiritual insight to see the “invisible forces” of evil and the demonic at work among us, we can always keep a keen eye toward the fruit.
“Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these… but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control.” (Gal. 5:19-23; NRSV)
Evil and the demonic rarely take the forms rendered to us in pop-evil. A much more frightening concept, perhaps we abide with evil and the demonic a bit more intimately than we wish. Perhaps we should pray for discernment and humility as we strive toward the kingdom of God in all its fullness.
After the Epiphany: “The Present Form of This World Is Coming to Nothing” January 17, 2012
Posted by joejames in 1 Corinthians, Christian Mission, Epiphany, Eschatology, Liturgical Year, Liturgy.add a comment
1 Corinthians 7:29-31
7:29 I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none,
7:30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions,
7:31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.
“The time has grown short for us to do that to which we were called, which is to proclaim Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and to devote ourselves to Christian love, agape. This urgency can give us a healthy dissatisfaction with those structures of the world that hinder God’s coming reign, and spur us to devote ourselves wholeheartedly to changing those structures as a part of our participation in God’s work in the world.”
Ruthanna B Hooke, Feasting on the Word Commentary, Year B, Volume 1
“We Shall Overcome” January 16, 2012
Posted by joejames in Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr., Nonviolence.2 comments
Folk Wisdom January 15, 2012
Posted by joejames in Folk Music, Folk Wisdom, Practical Christianity, Proverbs.add a comment
This morning, at Southside, we launched our Winter 2012 Church-wide series – “Practical Christianity.” We are studying the book of James through worship and doing application of James through Life Groups. We felt it might be overkill to study James also in our Adult Bible Classes, so in the interest of “Practical Christianity” we are studying the Proverbs of Israel.
I have to admit, I find the Proverbs difficult, and to be honest, overly simplistic. In other words, I find relating to Proverbs challenging. Not a fault of scripture, no doubt, but still the Proverbs are hard for me.
However, I discovered something in preparation for this study. Folk Wisdom. Here is what the introduction to Proverbs says in the “New Oxford Annotated Bible” (an incredible resource and study bible) about the authorship of Proverbs:
The book of Proverbs is traditionally attributed to King Solomon (1:1; 10:1; 25:1), who ruled in the mid-tenth century BCE. Although he had a reputation for wisdom (1 Kings 4:29-34), it is unlikely that this is more than a general attribution to lend authority to the collection. The proverbs in the main section (10:1 – 22:16) have the character of folk wisdom, generated in an oral culture and passed down over many generations. At some point in the pre-exilic period they were collected and written down, a process that may have taken place at the hands of sages or scribes at the court of a king such as Solomon or Hezekiah (715 – 687 BCE), who is mentioned in 25:1. Later sections, such as chapters 1-9, were probably added by scribes in the attempt to bring the collection together.
I find the little bit about folk wisdom to be incredibly compelling. I love folk music. Derek Webb, a singer/songwriter from Nashville that I follow, introduced be to a interesting definition of what folk music actually is. “Folk music is music of the people on the street.” Folk music is not necessarily a “sound,” rather it is a brand. Folk music tells the story of the plight of the common man on the street. In this sense, folk music can take on many styles (rap, hip-hop, country, rock, etc.) and remain firmly in the category of “folk.” One thing, however, that all folk music has in common is something we might call “poetic practicality.”
The collection of Proverbs (in particular Proverbs 10:1 – 22:16) are so unique, because they don’t require (necessarily) the narrative of Israel to understand them. However, understanding the narrative of Israel highlights the poignancy of the Proverbs, because we understand that we are listening to the wisdom of men and women who have lived with Israel’s troubled and tumultuous history. It is not unlike sitting on the back porch after a hard days work and listening to your grandmother and grandfather talk about life – what works, what doesn’t. Folk wisdom.
Now the proverbs have my full attention. When I read them, I am transported back in time. It is sometime in Israel’s history – perhaps during the Babylonian occupation. I am young. I am complaining about how hard life is. My grandparents are with me. They can see through my complaints. They have walked the line. They know what mistakes I am about to make. They want to share with me the wisdom of the ones who have already lived it. Someone has an instrument, perhaps something like a guitar. They play a folk song that reinforces our identity, our common struggle as common people. In the stories, in the wisdom, in the proverbs, I find life. There I discover how to pursue “wise dealings, righteousness, justice and equity” (Proverbs 1:3, NRSV). The only question is, will I heed their advice?
What the Bible Really Says: Matthew 5:3-12 January 12, 2012
Posted by joejames in beatitudes, Clarence Jordan, Glen Stassen, Gospel of Matthew, Interpretation, Kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven, Matthew 5:3-12, N.T. Wright, NRSV, Translations, What the Bible Really Says.2 comments
Let’s start with the New Revised Standard Version:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs in the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
First, the word “heaven.”
Matthew makes famous the phrase “kingdom of heaven.” In the other gospels, the kingdom that Jesus proclaims is typically called “kingdom of God.” We all bring assumptions with us to scripture. When a person of the Western world reads “heaven” we assume it means “a place far away in the sky.” To be certain this idea is foreign to the New Testament and the Jewish mind. “Heaven” in Jewish thought is that place where God is. It is not until the development of Greek philosophy that we come to understand “the place where God is” as a distant and removed place, far from earth and humanity. (This is called deism).
So… what does that matter? It matters! The reward of God’s kingdom is not something that we only hope to receive after death. It is something promised to begin now, and come in fullness at the final restoration and redemption of “all things.” The temptation is to read the beatitudes and think, “If I am poor in spirit (or just “poor” in Luke’s gospel), then after I die I get to go to heaven.” This is not what Jesus (and Matthew) mean. Jesus himself has just announced in Matthew 4:17 that the kingdom of heaven is “at hand” or “near.” It is now! And the reward comes with it… now!
Now the phrase “kingdom of heaven.”
If heaven is not some distant and removed reality, but something that is “breaking into” our world now in the person of Jesus, then “kingdom of heaven” is God “moving into the neighborhood.” The Jews have waited centuries for the promised Messiah (king). The Messiah is to be the one to usher in the reign of God in this world. This is why Jesus taught us to pray “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Brian McLaren has suggested, tongue-in-cheek, “perhaps we should amend the Lord’s Prayer to fit our theology. So we might say “Your will be done in heaven as it is in heaven.”
This simple word study, clears up our understanding of what is meant by Matthew (and Jesus) when they say “kingdom of heaven.” It is not something distant, future, or removed. It begins now in and through Jesus the Christ – the king of this announced kingdom. Clarence Jordan thought of it as a “movement” or an “order.” The kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, is the “free movement” or “free order” of God’s reign over all things. So where the “movement of God” is, there the poor and poor in spirit will be blessed. Where the “order of God” exists, there the mournful are blessed with joy. Jordan’s rendering of the beatitudes help capture the “here-and-now” sense in which the original hearers of the Sermon on the Mount would have had.
This is how Jordan translated the passage:
“The spiritually humble are God’s people,
for they are citizens of his new order.
“They who are deeply concerned are God’s people,
for they will see their ideas become reality.
“They who are gentle are his people,
for they will he his partners across the land.
“They who have an unsatisfied appetite for the right are God’s people,
for they will be given plenty to chew on.
“The generous are God’s people,
for they will be treated generously.
“Those whose motives are pure are God’s people,
for they will have spiritual insight.
“Men of peace and good will are God’s people,
for they will be known throughout the land as his children.
“Those who have endured much for what’s right are God’s people;
they are citizens of his new order.
“You all are God’s people when others call you names, and harass you and tell all kinds of false tales on you just because you follow me. Be cheerful and good-humored, because your spiritual advantage is great. For that’s the way they treated men of conscience in the past.
Now, the word “blessed.” Notice that Jordan neglects something important – the word “blessed” (though it is implied). I am not ready to let it go, however. I love that word. Still, there is a problem with it. The problem is that it is a “religious” word. Should we be left to think that the beatitudes are only about religion? Certainly not! The beatitudes encompass all of life. The comprehensiveness, breadth, and depth of these 9 short verses is part of what makes them incredible and beautiful.
“Blessed” is not a religious word. The God of the bible is not relegated to that realm of human experience we name “religion.” The God of the bible cares deeply about every dimension of our existence. So, “blessed” is a word that simply names God’s pouring out of grace. One could easily say “Graced are those who are poor and poor in spirit.”
N.T. Wright deals with this very subtly in his rendering in the new translation “The Kingdom New Testament”
“Blessings on the poor in spirit! The kingdom of heaven is yours.
Blessings on the mourners! You’re going to be comforted.
Blessings on the meek! You’re going to inherit the earth.
Blessings on people who hunger and thirst for God’s justice! You’re going to be satisfied.
Blessings on the merciful! You’ll receive mercy yourselves.
Blessings on the pure in heart! You will see God.
Blessings on the peacemakers! You’ll be called God’s children.
Blessings on people who are persecuted because of God’s way! The kingdom of heaven belongs to you.
Blessings on you, when people slander you and persecute you, and say all kinds of wicked things about you falsely because of me! Celebrate and rejoice: there’s a great reward for you in heaven. That’s how they persecuted the prophets who went before you.”
Glen Stassen says that one of the primary indicators of God’s “gracing” people or “blessing” people is joy. So he translates the beatitudes like this:
“Joyful are those who are poor and humble before God, for theirs is the reign of God.
Joyful are those who are deeply saddened to the point of action, for they will be comforted.
Joyful are those whose wills are surrendered to God, for they will inherit the earth.
Joyful are those who hunger and thirst for restorative justice, for they will be filled.
Joyful are those who practice compassion in action, for they will receive God’s compassion.
Joyful are those who seek God’s will in all that they are and do, for they will see God.
Joyful are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Joyful are those who suffer because of restorative justice, for theirs is the reign of God.
Joyful are you when they criticize, persecute, and slander you, because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in God. For in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.”
Notice how Stassen neglects the word “heaven” in his rendering. This is intentional, as he worries that his readers will assume (as so many have with Matthew’s gospel) that the “heaven” spoken of in the beatitudes is a distant, future, hoped for reality, something removed from the here-and-now. So he changes the word to “God” (as in, kingdom of God) to match Luke’s rendering.
Stassen also goes to great lengths to flesh out the “who” of who is being spoken of. In other words, “who are the pure in heart?” Stassen says, they are the ones who “seek God’s will in all that they are and do…” Stassen does not guess at this. It comes after extensive exegetical work to determine how the original audience of Jesus’ sermon and Matthew’s gospel would have understood what was being said. That is why exercises in translation, indeed in preaching, are so important. New ways of saying the same thing, aid us in hearing it afresh.
Finally, I would point out how the various translators I have quoted, all translate the word “righteousness” as “justice.” Interesting, right? They do this because the beatitudes are derived from Isaiah 61, where righteousness is a theme. Hebraic righteousness and Hebraic justice are interchangeable themes. There are two types of justice in Jewish theology. Retributive justice (retribution for wrong doing), which belongs to God; “‘It is mine to avenge, I will repay.’, says the Lord.” And then there is Restorative justice (justice that rights the wrongs of injustice. This is the sort of justice that God’s people are called to exercise. It is plastered on nearly every line of the prophets, and more than alive in the mind of Jesus – perhaps most clearly seen in his eschatological discourses (Matthew 25:31-46, for example). Those who “hunger and thirst” for restorative justice will be satisfied. Beautiful.
The beatitudes are beautiful and relevant, especially when we recover the real meaning, as some of these translators help us do.
_________________________________
For a biblical understanding of “kingdom of God” read these:
“The Divine Conspiracy” by Dallas Willard
“Simply Christian” by N.T. Wright
“The Challenge of Jesus” by N.T. Wright
For a biblical understanding of “heaven” in Matthew read these:
“Surprised by Hope” by N.T. Wright
“Brazos Theological Commentary: Matthew” by Stanley Hauerwas
For a better understanding of the beatitudes & the Sermon on the Mount:
“Living the Sermon on the Mount” by Glenn Stassen
“The Message of the Sermon on the Mount” by John Stott
“The Sermon on the Mount” by Dale Allison Jr.
Christmas: The Season January 2, 2012
Posted by joejames in Christmas.add a comment
“… But Christmas Day is not the whole of the Christmas season. The full scope of Christmas is only experienced in the feasts of the holy family, Mary the mother of God, the Epiphany, and the baptism of Jesus. It is to these other layers of the birth of Jesus that the Christmas season points us. It is not simply the birth of the Child that the season celebrates; it is the awareness of the ongoing work of God within Him, the foundation of our own hope for liberation that marks our lives and lifts our hearts. We are not left wondering, with John the Baptist, whether this is the ‘one who is to come’ (Luke 7:20). We can watch His growth into God, more and more, every step of the way…. Each of the feasts of Christmastide is another star on the horizon of the soul, confirming what our hearts already know: God is with us.”
Joan Chittister, The Liturgical Year: The Spiraling Adventure of the Spiritual Life
Christmas: The Meaning of Incarnation December 31, 2011
Posted by joejames in Christmas, Incarnation, Richard Rohr.3 comments
The human journey is not about becoming spiritual beings nearly as much as becoming fully human beings, which is actually much harder. We are already spiritual beings from the moment of our conception; we just don’t know it yet. The Bible tries to let you in on the secret, by revealing God in the ordinary. That’s why so much of the text seems so mundane, practical, specific and, frankly, unspiritual! (Most Catholics stopped reading the Bible for this very reason, and many New Agers do the same.)
We have created a terrible kind of dualism between the spiritual and the so-called non-spiritual. The principle of Incarnation proclaims that matter and spirit, sacred and secular have never been separate. Jesus came to tell us that these two seemingly different worlds are and always have been one. We just couldn’t see it until God put them together in one body that we call Jesus (see Ephesians 2:11-20). And YOU are also that Body! Now you are ready to face a new year with confidence and joy.
Richard Rohr, Things Hidden: Scripture As Spirituality
Advent & Christmas: The Question of the Year December 21, 2011
Posted by joejames in Advent, Christmas.add a comment
“Advent and the Christmas season show us life in its essence. In it, we are brought face-to-face with life stripped down and effulgent at the same time, simple and radiant at once. Here in the Child is promise and meaning, purpose and potential. ‘I’m bringing you,’ the angel says, ‘good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day… a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (Luke 2:10-11). The question with which the liturgical year confronts us at the beginning of the season, then, is a direct one: what does the life of Jesus now mean to us? How is this life affecting our own? Are we ourselves living both the promises and the potential?”
- Joan Chittister, The Liturgical Year: The Spiraling Adventure of the Spiritual Life
