Author: Sara Palmer

  • The Holy Spirit’s New World Order

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 14

    The Holy Spirit’s New World Order

    Jason Byassee

    Vancouver School of Theology, Vancouver, British Columbia

    It is a commonplace observation about American political life that evangelicals and Pentecostals pushed Donald Trump into the White House. There would be no such thing as either evangelicals or Pentecostals were it not for the second chapter of Acts. And yet, I propose, Acts 2 is profoundly good news for those who seek liberation from empire, whether American or any other sort. How can that be? First, a mathematical and religious marvel: before the year 1906 there were zero Pentecostals on the planet. Now we are well on our way to one billion Pentecostals. With the collapse of mainline and magisterial Protestant churches, there may be no Christians but Catholics, Orthodox, and Pentecostals within a few generations. Whether you think these are happy developments or cause for lament, we must notice first that they represent impressive growth and important shifts in the religious landscape of the globe. In 1906 at Azusa Street in Los Angeles, a revival broke out which saw the sorts of miraculous signs and wonders emerge in the same way they first did at Pentecost in Jerusalem with the descent of the Holy Spirit: people spoke in tongues, healings occurred, multiple races melted together into one people, a form of life was born that would become a critical irritant in the greater body politic. That Pentecostals very quickly divided on race lines just as sharply as the rest of early 20th century America is not surprising, nor is it that those first Pentecostals’ descendants lined up to shill and vote for Trump. The miracle is that something different occurred, however briefly. We can assume empire’s crushing hegemony. When, since Adam and Eve fell and Cain murdered Abel, have human beings not sought to rule over and dominate one another? What is surprising is that there is ever an interruptive logic to that of empire. Of course, modern-day Pentecostals were not totally without precedent in the church’s history between the original Pentecost and 1906. Take, for example, the miracle of the African-American church. Make no mistake: Christianity was imposed on the daughters and sons of Africa as a slave-religion. Many an African American intellectual has rejected Christianity outright as an inherently and irredeemably racist faith, and who could blame them? Many of those denied access to education presumably did the same in their own ways. But enslaved and oppressed people heard something when they heard of Jesus—this one who was despised, rejected, beaten, and lynched. He is one of ours, they realized, and we are his. They saw his figure in the stories from Isaiah of one whose suffering brings redemption. They debated, and more often than not practiced, Jesus’ command to love the enemy. And most importantly for our present purposes, they practiced Christianity in ways that made their white overseers nervous. There is still something in me, as a white southerner, that feels deeply uncomfortable in the midst of black worship. What are these Africans doing with their bodies, their voices? This is no accident. Their forebears always practiced Christianity in their own way, in ways that made my forebears nervous. They said, in effect, “We don’t like this white Christianity, but we like this Jesus; he is one of us.” My white discomfort shows that something more was being said:


    Page 15

    “You do not control our bodies in worship. We will do with them what pleases us and frightens you.” I don’t want to overplay what we might describe as the political significance of black church worship. Generous estimates say that only some 10% of black churches participated in the Civil Rights Movement. Black churches can be just as given to quietism or even cooption by empire as white ones. Again, that is not surprising. What is surprising is that the logic of empire is ever interrupted, however episodically. Pentecost is a windfall, an infusion, a deluge of language.1 The original Pentecost is a miracle of communication. Jews from all over the world are in Jerusalem for the festival of Pentecost, celebrated 50 days after Passover. And though they come from all over the known world (including “from” some places listed in vv. 9-11 that no longer existed in the time of Acts!), they hear the disciples bearing witness in their own languages. Modern Pentecostalism more often expects adherents to speak in glossolalia, ecstatic utterance, a sort of private prayer language that sounds to others like babbling. Ancient Pentecostalism speaks of those who receive the Spirit as suddenly speaking intelligibly in a language they have never learned. There is a place for glossolalia in scripture and church practice, but it does not stem from Acts 2. The miracle here is suddenly hearing one’s heart language, learned at one’s mother’s breast, spoken by strangers far from home. It is a miracle of “intimacy,” according to Willie Jennings, whose commentary I draw on throughout here.2 Language is an intimate thing learned with exacting difficulty, in a way that makes grown adults feel childlike, reaching out to children as their teachers and only learned finally with determination and love. Pentecost signals something crucial about Christianity: ours is a translatable faith. Andrew Walls, Lamin Sanneh, and others have pointed out the revolution here.3 Most faiths homogenize: read this language, speak this one, face this direction, eat these foods. Christianity has always been a faith that gives itself away in Holy Spirit-driven translation. This has often produced the worst version of ourselves as church, as in crusading or colonizing violence. But it has also produced the best of ourselves. For in translation, the giving culture’s power is relativized, and the receiving culture’s power is recognized. Those who receive the gospel anew do surprising things with it that the giving-away culture could not have guessed in advance. The “coming global Christianity,” in Philip Jenkins’s still apt phrase, will look very different than the European and North American Christianities that have preceded it.4 The results of this potent concoction cannot be guessed in advance. Evangelicals and fundamentalists suspect that heresies come from two academic fields: Old Testament and missions. Both come into contact with non-Christian cultures, whether ancient or contemporary, and realize goodness, truth, and beauty in those new friends. They come back out of the library or from the mission field shaken and asking impertinent and awkward questions of their previously more tidy faith. Maybe we don’t have all the answers; maybe they have some. They are not wrong to be shaken. The edges of faith are where Christianity has always renewed itself (Latin America, Asia, Africa). It seems to die in the middle (the Middle East, Europe, North America). Mainline liberals who don’t spend time with bible translators may be surprised to learn that this is a source of other-affirming generosity. Right now, in some remote village in Africa or Asia, some exquisitely determined translator is working feverishly to get the past participle of a verb in a local language just right so that her friends can hear


    Page 16

    the word of God in their own mother’s tongue. And right now, the same village is on some business executive’s map as she tries to figure out how to get those people speaking English so a fast food chain can sell her hamburgers. I’m pulling for the translator personally. The church has often forgotten this, of course. European enslavers and colonizers spoke as though only European languages could bear the freight of the hurricane, polyglot God. But those who receive the gospel know better. The God Who Speaks in Tongues speaks in their tongue also. How are those European-language speaking churches doing these days? How about in places to which they brought Christianity with them, sometimes intending it as a cudgel, horrified at times to see it become an illumination of a previously unseen way for newly dignified life among the colonized ? Jennings writes that the Spirit always sends people where they do not want to go.5 Many of those in the mission field went as those who would impose a foreign language. But some blessed few got lost in the new culture. They learned new sounds, the intimacy of new cadences. They lost their old name and gained a new one. Derisive words were used by their former companions—they “went native,” for example. For Jennings, no one can follow Jesus without betraying their own people, on the way to being forged into the Spirit’s new humanity.6 You see this among these first 3,000 followers at Pentecost. They are all Jews already. Yet Peter asks them to repent, believe something new, join to a new people. This is no conversion from one religion to another. It is the birth of a new people from one religion, Judaism, that is soon to invite all people to join from whatever religion, to the ends of the earth. Most people are not eager to betray their own family, language, religion, nation. The surprise is not that this happens so rarely. The miracle is that it happens at all. And it still does. Westerners are accustomed to assuming that freedom, democracy, the market are all good things that should be adopted by all peoples everywhere. If they have been misused, they should be properly applied next time, not abandoned. The church and the wider western culture used to think the same about Christianity. We have all been schooled now by centuries of counter-suggestion: missionary work is always vile, soul-crushing, other-annihilating cultural and often literal genocide. We have bit too hard on this. What human endeavor is not marked by Adam’s sadness, Eve’s sorrow? The miracle is that the Holy Spirit is birthing a new humanity right in the middle of the old. All people are invited into this new people who speak like other people. The church, especially in its Pentecostal expression, bears witness that the way things are is not the way things have to be. God is capable of doing a new thing. God is, in fact, doing a new thing right now. It’s called “church.” Ethnic and national identities dissolve in the waters of baptism. Demarcations of wealth and power are ground down and crushed in bread and wine. We in the church have no right to keep this good news to ourselves. If we want empires to quake as they once did in our presence, we should go and tell. And if we western Christians will not, someone else will. They already are. Pentecost is also a miracle of property. The way that the Spirit-drenched disciples show their new identity is by sharing all things in common (2:43-45). Most English translations obscure this miracle. For example, the NRSV that I like to use ends a sentence with a period at the end of verse 43. But the Greek does not. The particle hina indicates the reason why signs and wonders were being done by the apostle. It


    Page 17

    should read, “Awe came upon everyone . . . for all who believed were together and had all things in common.” Awe from the outside comes from common possessions on the inside. In fact, there is no wall between this “inside” and “outside,” for how else could “outsiders” see and stand amazed? The thousands in Jerusalem knew their Bibles enough to know that a sign of the promised land is that there is no needy people among the Jews (Deut. 15:4). All on the edges, the margins, the outs of society are those most cared for, catered to, loved. The church could stand to learn a thing or two here. The best proof of the truth of Christian faith is the quality of the discipleship of those who hold it; the best disproof is, alas, the same. The book of Acts shows the mutual sharing of property as a keystone that holds the arch of all other Christian practices together. And how have we done practicing what the disciples practice in Acts 2? Not so well. There are some blessed counter-examples. Monks and nuns have held their property in common, often owned by their orders (which can become quite wealthy, unfortunately). Outbreaks of new monasticism have also taken place outside of Catholic or Orthodox communions in which believers read texts like Acts 2 and decide to put this revolution into practice. In the church, when we give our offerings, some portion of that goes to missions, doing good at home and far away in ways that I hope approximate Acts 2, however distantly. A pastor friend speaks of the church’s “tenminute hippie phase” where we actually tried to hold all things in common. But then her congregation creatively steps into this part of Pentecost. They gather unwanted goods once a year at Pentecost and sell them online, raising money to help the neediest in their midst.7 Is it any wonder more needy people keep turning up at her church? Not because they get stuff or money, but because they have something to contribute, to sell, to turn into needed cash for others. These are partial, occasional examples that could be multiplied, but hardly add up to a scale that the author of Luke-Acts might have imagined. It’s hard enough for a biological or extended or ecclesial family to hold some things in common. No wonder we so quickly fall back into private property. How well is it working out for us to assume that the point of life is acquisition? To buy into our culture’s claim that we will be judged on our accumulation of money and goods and by no judge other than that? Our rapacious economic practices brook no dissent and understand no one opting out, seeking to live by other rules. But what if there is a more humane way to be and to treat our neighbors? The sharing of possessions at Pentecost suggests there might be. C.S. Lewis imagines hell as a place where everyone gets what they want when they want it.8 This consumerist “success” means each person there needs neither God nor neighbor. Their only perceived need is to keep their accumulation of stuff safe from other people—so they keep moving to bigger and bigger palaces farther and farther away from others. Hell as suburbia. They could leave, but choose not to. There are no locks on the door of hell except on the inside. Heaven, by contrast, is marked by limitless, boundless, endless sharing, not only of food and other goods, but of delight, of God. Late capitalism’s insistence that we are only as good as our material acquisition is not only poor practice for eternity—it’s no way to be human now. Luke tells us that about 3,000 people are baptized into this new humanity on the first Pentecost (2:41). Impressive. Though you do have to watch out for preacher numbers, especially when they’re nice and round—those of us who talk for God


    Page 18

    for a living have a tendency to round up! This response to Peter’s sermon contrasts markedly with some other sermons elsewhere in Acts, for example when Paul speaks at the Areopagus in Athens in Acts 17, and only two converts can be scrounged up. 3,000 is an impressive figure, meant to evoke the thousands to whom Jesus spoke and with whom he broke bread. But then something truly amazing happens—something I didn’t see until reading Brandon O’Brien’s book The Strategically Small Church 9 These thousands do not all stay in Jerusalem. They do not form the First Pentecostal Megachurch with thousands on the rolls. No. They go home. Back to every obscure corner of the Mediterranean from which they came. They start countless mini-churches. They scatter like seeds with little promise of taking root, though some do. This is a Pentecostal habit that our churches, especially in North America, would do well to notice: the biblical pattern is not one of hunkering down, growing giant megaliths, with oceanic parking lots and pyrotechnic entertainment. Pentecost’s vision is lots of mini-churches rather than a mega-one. The church has had a vexed relationship with empire ever since the penning of this text, the curling of tongues around these new sounds. We speak of a new sort of kingdom on the way, one that relativizes and displaces all existing kingdoms. Rulers of this world are like Pharaoh, like Caiaphas, like Caesar: murderers and fools. The rightful king of the world is the man on the cross, risen from the grave, and one day every knee will bow. In a remarkably short amount of time, the Roman empire went from sporadically persecuting Chr istianity to joining it. After the sort-of conversion of Constantine, the empire began showering largesse on the church, not just lifting persecution, but giving us money, buildings, favor, power. Folks flocked to join. It felt and looked like the kingdom—all people streaming to Zion to worship Israel’s God. But it was not. It was an empire using Christianity to shore up its power. Many Christians objected, moving into the desert to practice Christianity with the rigor of the martyrs and confessors and apostles. That the empire was Christian made it no less an empire. Constantine himself murdered wives and children (his own!), and his conversion was seen then and has been since as rather too convenient. He figured the church would glue his fractious people together whether the content of our faith was true or not. We’ve often been pretty good at that. We’ve been less good at being the community Peter envisions in Acts 2. We’ve done it by fits and starts, in certain places and at certain times. N.T. Wright compares God’s elect people Israel to a firetruck racing off to fight a deadly fire. Unfortunately the truck itself falls into a ditch. Now it must be wrested free from its predicament in order to go and fight the fire—the rescuing people need rescue.10 So it is with Israel in scripture. It is the people through whom God means to repair the world, to make right what we have made wrong. But unfortunately, it has fallen into the very mess it has been sent to repair. We understand this as church because we have too! God must drag us from the mire, put us back on a right path, in order to accomplish the end God desires through Israel and the church: the repair and renewal of all things in heaven and on earth. God’s purposes will not be thwarted or frustrated—they will be fulfilled—however pitifully we, God’s people, enact God’s purposes for us and all humanity. But if we did enact God’s Acts 2 intentions a little less pitifully, wouldn’t the empire sweat a little? Ours is no longer an empire with Roman eagles on its shields. It is an empire of a global market, instantaneously moving trillions of dollars around


    Page 19

    the planet, creating new wealth, new poverty, devouring everything in its maw. It is the beast of the book of Revelation—then Rome, now our market. Try to absent yourself from it. Go ahead: you can’t do it. Friends tried to turn off their electricity for a season of penitence in Advent. They did well—burning candles, storing food only as long as you can without refrigeration, heating water over gas for bathing. But then they went out. And got a babysitter. And didn’t feel they could let her sit in the dark, so they turned the switch back on. It is very, very hard to go back on the material comforts of empire. Just imagine turning in your shoes for some you make yourself. But wouldn’t it be fun, no, delightful, no, human, to try to make Caesar sweat a little? To have the church be the new humanity that scripture imagines? Sustained on nothing other than the bread and wine that is our Lord, surviving off nothing other than one another’s and God’s generosity, performing signs and wonders that others notice and request and join in performing, praying constantly in the temple and far beyond, with day by day the number of those being saved growing and growing? Could it happen again? The surprise is not that it rarely happens—it is that it indeed has happened at all. We can be sure the Holy Spirit has done more with less promising material.

    Notes 1 I am reliant throughout this essay on Willie James Jennings’ remarkable book, Acts: A Theological Commentary on the Bible (Louisville: Westminster, 2017), xv-40. 2 Ibid. 27-30. 3 Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1996), Sanneh, Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2009). 4 Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 5 Jennings 11. 6 Ibid. 9. 7 “Ancient liturgy for scruffy hipsters with smartphones: A profile of Nadia Bolz-Weber and House for All Sinners and Saints,” New Media Project (Oct. 18, 2011): http://www.cpx.cts.edu/newmedia/findings /case-studies/house-for-all-sinners-and-saints/article. 8 C. S. Lewis The Great Divorce (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2015). 9 O’Brien The Strategically Small Church: Intimate. Nimble, Authentic, Effective (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2010). 10 Wright Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 38.

    Easter 2017

  • The Resurrection in the Pearly Gate Pub

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 27

    The Resurrection in the Pearly Gate Pub

    George W. Stroup

    Trinity Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia

    Perhaps it was only a dream. But then dreams are sometimes more than just “only/’ After all, according to Scripture, some of them can be messages. In any case, it was almost Easter, I had a sermon to write, and I found myself yearning for one more conversation with two old friends I had not seen in a while. And then there I was, standing in front of an establishment that looked for all the world like a pub in Frodo’s Shire. It even had a green door and a brass knob in the middle. The sign above the door read “The Pearly Gate Pub/’ and two smaller signs on the door read “All Are Welcome’’ and “We Never Close/’ I entered and immediately spotted them, sitting in a comer by themselves, drinking beer, absorbed in deep conversation. Chris Beker and David Bartlett.1 Both of them professors of New Testament, at one time my faculty colleagues in different institutions, and, more importantly, close friends.

    Chris: George, it has been a long time! What are you doing here? George: Well, the sign said “All Are Welcome/’ This place doesn’t look like a private club. Chris: They even welcome foreigners here! As you know, I am a stranger to these shores. David: Not only is it open to all, but the beer is free! And Baptists can drink here without worrying about the consequences. George: Free at last! Free at last! Why are you sitting over here by yourselves? David: We meet every day to discuss topics in the Bible that continue to inte rest us. Other folks in here are more interested in sports or politics and leave us to ourselves. Chris: Unless there is a Red Sox game on television, and then I take a break from talking to David. George: If I may interrupt just for a moment, I’m working on a sermon for Easter Sunday—on the resurrection, of course—and hoped you might give me some help. David: You and I have been talking about the resurrection for more than fifty years. You know what I think. What is there left to say? Chris : And on this topic surely your hope is—shall we say—misplaced? That is, your hope should not be in us, but elsewhere. George: Yes, I know. You keep reminding me that resurrection hope is finally hope in the triumph of God. But I’m more worried about defeat in the pulpit on Easter Sunday. Chris: What exactly is the problem? George: Well, several things. First, no offense, Chris, but most of the people I know are more interested in what happens to them after they die than they are the triumph of God. Second, they think when they die that is the end2 or that resurrection is something that happens to them immediately afterwards. Third, those who do believe there is more to life than death believe that resurrection is about the immortality of their souls. As the Westminster Farger Catechism puts it, when we die, our souls are immediately received into heaven, where we wait for the resurrection of our bodies.3 And, finally, they think resurrection is about an escape from this world to a better


    Page 28

    one, one in which the pub is always open and the beer is always free! Our physical body and our life in this world is like life in a prison, and our souls yearn to escape, to be set free. Chris : I wonder how the soul enjoys cold beer if there is no body to drink it? (Pun intended.) Anyway, the pub is always open and the beer is free, but there’s also the choir practice and the endless singing. David: I actually enjoy the choir practice and the singing. Chris not so much! Chris : As I have told you many times, George, all of these problems are easily dealt with if we simply understand the confession “God raised Jesus from the dead,” as Paul does, as God’s apocalyptic triumph over all things. Jesus’ resurrection is, to use Paul’s expression, the “first fruit” of what is yet to be—namely, the resurrection of all things, including the dead. When we die, to use Paul’s words, we sleep, we rest in Christ and in God’s everlasting arms, and we wait with the rest of creation forthat “day of the Lord” when everything will be transformed and God will be all in all. We are not raised a disembodied soul but, as Paul puts it, a transformed, spiritual body. Resurrection is not an escape from this world but a transformation of it, a transformation not only of human beings but of all creation. George: I know, I know. I have heard all of this many times before, but there still seem to me to be some problems. David: Such as? George: To begin with, in your interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection, Chris, you seem to privilege what Paul says in I Corinthians 15 4 Granted, it is probably the earliest written description of the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection in the New Testament, but does that alone make it normative for all other New Testament texts? And, second, if we privilege I Corinthians 15, does that mean the confession “God raised Jesus from the dead” must be interpreted apocalyptically? Does Easter faith affirm both that God raised Jesus from the dead and Paul’s modification of Jewish apocalyptic? If I believe God raised Jesus from the dead, must I also believe in Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation? Chris .׳You raise two issues. On the question of the proper interpretation of the resurlection , it does seem to me that the four issues you have raised are more clearly and directly addressed by Paul than by any other text in the New Testament. And on the question of the relation between resurrection and apocalyptic, the core or coherent theme of the gospel as Paul understands it—the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ—is unthinkable apart from Paul’s modification of Jewish apocalyptic. Apocalyptic is not just simply the husk within which we have the good news about resurrection. What Paul means by resurrection is inseparable from his apocalyptic worldview. George: So, any interpretation of what Christians mean by the resurrection of Jesus Christ will be incorrect if it is not understood in terms of Pauline apocalyptic? That seems odd to me. I don’t have to understand the world the way Paul does in regard to slavery. Why then must I understand Jesus’ resurrection in terms of Paul’s apocalyptic worldview? Chris: Because slavery is not a part of Paul’s interpretation of the core content of the gospel. Resurrection is, and I Corinthians 15 indicates, that for Paul, there are correct and incorrect interpretations of what it means to say “God raised Jesus from the dead.” George: And I gather Paul’s understanding of apocalyptic has a specific meaning and


    Page 29

    what you refer to as certain essential features or “coordinates.” Chris .׳Yes, the imminence of that day when God will raise all the dead and transform all things and the cosmic scope of resurrection are both apocalyptic coordinates. I reject all interpretations of Paul’s gospel that reduce it to only a present reality or to anthropology. George: And you think that Paul’s apocalyptic gospel will help me with my Easter sermon? Chris .׳Yes, and I think the proof of that is the issues you raise—the assumption that resurrection is only about what happens to us when we die, that it is only a present reality, that it affirms the separation of body and soul and the immortality of the latter , and that it is an escape from this world. These are terrible misinterpretations of the gospel. We see the errors in these interpretations when we look at them through a Pauline lens more clearly than when we use other New Testament perspectives. Paul cannot imagine the resurrection of Christ apart from an apocalyptic interpretation of the general resurrection of the dead. The one entails the other. David: I wonder, though, if there are not good reasons for refusing to make one perspective or “voice” in the New Testament normative in relation to the others.5 We should listen carefully to Paul, but should we not also listen to other interpretations? For example, if we look at the four gospels, they differ in how they tell the Jesus story and, not surprisingly, they differ in their interpretations of resurrection. That is because they are written in different contexts and to churches facing different kinds of issues. Would it not be better to let them speak to us from their different perspectives rather than attempting to make Paul normative for them? Chris .׳Why would that be “better”? David: Chris, you describe Paul’s theology as an interaction between situational contingency and a coherent center or core.6 The latter takes the form of a symbolic structure in which the Christ-event, specifically Christ’s death and resurrection, is articulated in the language of Christian apocalyptic. Might not the synoptic gospels and John have important things to say to us about Jesus’ resurrection that we do not find in Paul? Chris .׳Such as? David: I think there is a good chance that the creed Paul quotes in I Corinthians 15:3-7—what he says was handed over to him and he has handed over to the Corinthians —presupposes the empty tomb, but at best the empty tomb is implicit in that creed and in Paul’s theology.7 It is possible Paul knows nothing about the empty tomb tradition. It is, however, explicit in the gospels, and I wonder if the empty tomb does not tell us something important about the resurrection that is missing in Paul? Chris .׳What do you have in mind? David: Two things. First, Jesus’ resurrection cannot be proven, but the Gospels do provide evidence for it. Resurrection is a matter of both fact (or evidence) and faith.8 The tomb is empty. The body is not “where they laid him. ” That “fact” is open to multiple interpretations, but in the gospels, it is a fact. Resurrection faith is not unfounded wishful thinking. Second, the empty tomb stories conclude with a promise—that Jesus awaits the disciples not only at the end of history, but (depending on which gospel) also in Galilee or Jerusalem. And that means that the resurrection is not just about what happened on “the third day,” but about what continues to happen in the lives of believers and in the worship of the believing community.9


    Page 30

    Chris: Well, the tradition of Jesus’ appearances is just as much “fact” as the empty tomb. It is a fact that various people claimed to have encountered Jesus following his death. I do not see what the gospels and the empty tomb tradition have to add to Paul’s interpretation. David: Resurrection hope is not just about what happened on the third day or what happens on “the day of the Lord,” but what happens in the interim as well. Chris .׳Let’s take Mark’s gospel as an example. It is sometimes described as “the Pauline gospel.” Yet there are important differences between Mark and Paul. Paul is a theologian of the cross while Mark is more a theologian of the sufferings of Christ.10 Christ’s passion is for Mark the paradigm for Christian discipleship. Discipleship means denying oneself, taking up one’s cross, following Jesus, and participating in his suffering. It is the cross that both judges and triumphs over the world. Mark has no need of the confirmation of the resurrection, which perhaps explains why Mark’s gospel ends the way it does (that is at 16:8, with a preposition). So,what does Mark add to our understanding of the gospel that is missing in Paul? David: What is missing from Paul and surely important for understanding the gospel is the significance of Jesus’ journey from Gailee to Jerusalem, what Jesus says and does that leads him to the cross, the material that makes up the bulk of the synoptic gospels and that provides a basis for an interpretation of discipleship. Might that not give Paul a fuller description of the gospel and help him with some of his inadequacies? Chris .׳What do you mean by Paul’s inadequacies? David: Well, you admit that Paul focuses primarily on the internal life of the church and does not address the gospel’s implications for social institutions and life outside the church.11 You describe him as a social conservative. Although he advocates a transformation of values within the church in regard to Jews, slaves, and women, you write, “Paul is not really willing or able to challenge the social structures of his society.”12 You also admit it is often said, regrettably, that social conservatism and apocalyptic enthusiasm seem to coincide. Although Pauline hope should mean the church will “strain itself in all its activities to prepare the world for its coming destiny in the kingdom of God,”13 that has not often been the case. Might not Paul’s gospel be more concerned about the transformation of this world if it emphasized the church’s call to follow Jesus in what he said and did by embodying the kingdom of God? George: And that does raise a related issue. To what extent do you find Oscar Cullmann ’s analogy from World War II of D-Day and V-Day helpful for interpreting the relation between the already and the not yet of resurrection? After the Allied invasion of France, D-Day, to use David’s categories, was a fact, but the war was not yet over. The end of the war seemed likely, it was something for which the Allies yearned and hoped, but it was not yet a reality. Does that illumine resurrection hope? Chris .׳Yes and no. It’s closer to Paul’s understanding of resurrection than those interpretations that limit the reality of the resurrection to its present significance—that is, to the already, the now. But some forms of already/not yet, including Cullmann’s, remove the not yet to a remote, distant future in which it cannot have any significance for the now. Cullmann “allows a Christocentric salvation-history to displace eschatology .”14 The consequence is that if the “not yet” does not impinge on the “already” and create an urgency, a sense of imminence, then Christian hope dissolves into private spirituality and a surrender to the powers and principalities of this world. George: Therefore, the contribution of the already/not yet interpretation of apocalyptic


    Page 31

    is that it holds Jesus’ resurrection in dialectical tension with the resurrection of the dead. If that tension is dissolved, Christian hope is either hope only for the now, the already, for this life, or hope only for the not yet, for a future so distant that it seems to have little relevance for the present. Chris .׳In Cullmann’s analogy, “A D-Day without an impending V-Day loses its character of D-Day. Likewise, a D-Day that is celebrated as if it were V-Day loses sight of the reality of things because it ignores God’s plan of cosmic redemption and is caught in an overheated spiritualistic illusion, ‘ as if the day of the Lord has come. ’ ”15 That’s what the Corinthians did. The D-Day/V-D-Day analogy is helpful only so long as it maintains a dialectical tension between the two and affirms the imminence of what is not yet. David: That raises what might be the most difficult issue in an apocalyptic interpretation of resurrection—the “delay” of the parousia, the day of the Lord, Jesus’ “second coming,” the resurrection of the dead and the transformation of all things. Chris .׳I admit “the strongest argument for rejecting a future apocalyptic is undoubtedly the ongoing process of history itself.”16 Paul’s apocalyptic gospel “runs up against the frustration of chronological time…, the stubborn duration of time.”17 David: What then are we to do? Chris .׳A future apocalyptic is an inherent part of Paul’s gospel. However, we can no longer expect the imminent arrival of the kingdom in the same manner that Paul did because “the appointed time,” which for Paul had grown “very short,” has for us grown “very long.”18 We cannot give up the apocalyptic coordinates of imminence or cosmic-universal significance, but the emphasis now must be on “the coming actualization of God’s triumph,” and that means we must “work patiently and courageously in our world in a manner dictated by the way of Christ—the way from suffering to glory.”19 David: LInless I am mistaken, your appeal to the “way of Christ” sounds like it might be an interpretation of resurrection that would make room for the synoptic gospels’ emphasis on what Jesus said and did in his embodiment of the kingdom of God. Chris .׳Time for another beer. George: Finally, I do note that the two of you agree on at least one important point. David: And what is that? George: You put it well, David. You note that Paul makes a distinction between the final authority of the Son and that of the Father. For Paul “the grand conclusion of the work of Jesus Christ is the glory of God the Father.”20 And you seem to say much the same, Chris: “The climax of the history of salvation is not the resurrection of Christ and his present glory (cf. John) but the impending glory of God.”21 I’ll get the next round.

    Notes lOn the topic of the resurrection, see J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Fortress Press, 1980), Paul’s Apocaly tic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God (Fortress, 1982), The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paid’s Thought (Augsburg Fortress, 1990), and Suffering and Hope: The Biblical Vision and Human Predicament (Eerdmans, 1994); see also David L. Bartlett, Fact and Faith: Coming to Grips with Miracles in the New Testament (Judson Press, 1975), What’s Good About This News?: Preaching From the Gospels and Galatians (Westminster and John Knox, 2003), and Christology in the New Testament (Abingdon, 2017). 2 Bartlett, Christology, p. 86.


    Page 32

    3 Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A. ), 7.196. 4 Beker, Paul the Apostle, pp. 163-181. 5 Bartlett, Christology, pp. 158-9. 6 Beker, Paul the Apostle, pp. 11-16. 7 Bartlett, Fact and Faith, p. 96. 8 See Bartlett, Fact and Faith, 9 Bartlett, Christology, p. 21. 10 Beker, Paul the Apostle, p. 201. 11 Ibid., p. 319. 12 Ibid., p. 323-4. 13 Ibid., p. 326. 14 Ibid., p.356. 15 Ibid., p. 177. 16 Beker, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel, p. 96. 17 Ibid., p. 114. 18 Ibid., p. 115. 19 Ibid., p. 117. 20 Bartlett, Christology, pp. 89-90. 21 Beker, Paul the Apostle, p. 363.

  • Pentecost as a Challenge to the Roman Empire’s Values and Ethos

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 2

    Pentecost as a Challenge to the Roman Empire’s

    Values and Ethos

    Raj Nadella

    Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia

    Multiple Languages as a Challenge to Rome ’s Ethnocentrism Luke’s story of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-41) that takes place in Jerusalem challenges several of Rome’s imperial values and ethos. Luke suggests that the uneducated apostles spoke in other languages on the day of Pentecost and that the many Godfearing Jews who were gathered in Jerusalem that day were surprised to hear them in their own native languages.1 This story of people speaking in other languages and being understood by everyone is depicted as a fascinating and unlikely phenomenon, akin to a miracle. On a less explicit level, Luke seems to suggest that this phenomenon was potentially a threat to Rome’s imperial worldview and political propaganda. I grew up in the Southern part of India and spent considerable time in several major cities in South India. A common phenomenon in those cities is that multiple languages are often spoken simultaneously by different groups of people. Many people living in these big cities have the capacity to communicate in at least two or three languages that are distinctly different from their native language. Even in instances wherein the different linguistic groups do not understand each other’s language but rely on a common language, each language finds acceptance in the public square, whether it is spoken by many or few. Given this background and life experience, my first encounter with the story of Pentecost caused me to wonder why the reality of people being able to communicate across cultural and linguistic differences would have seemed implausible and even threatening to the Roman empire. The Roman empire is known to have perpetuated the notion that effective communication was unlikely to be possible in contexts where multiple, vastly different languages were in currency. It attempted to impose a unitary language as the lingua franca throughout the empire.2 Although administrative convenience and efficient communication were the stated reasons for introduction (and imposition) of such a common language, it appears that the real reason was political. It was the empire’s hegemonic move aimed at promoting one language as the normative at the expense of the rest and the introduction a specific vision of identity.3 The empire sought to promote a monocultural identity tied to a single language and saw the presence of multiple languages as a problem that needed to be resolved. In the story of Pentecost, Luke is recalling the image of wind and fire in the context of multiple languages being spoken and, more importantly, understood by everyone who was present in Jerusalem. A possible implication of this story is that Luke is associating multi-lingual communication with the presence of the divine. Luke’s comparison of the presence of multiple languages and ethnicities to fire and violent wind takes on a new meaning in light of the extreme devastation caused by the recent wild fires in California and the destructive winds during recent hurricanes. Luke’s readers would have known that fire and wind are two vital elements of nature that are powerful and crucial to sustaining life, but that fire and wind can also be deeply destructive if they are not put to good use and nurtured carefully. Luke’s


    Page 3

    point in using the imagery of fire and wind to characterize heteroglossia—multiple languages—might be that diversity in terms of languages or race and ethnicities can work either way too. Diversity can be put to good use with care and attention but can also be dysfunctional when not celebrated and appreciated fully. The Roman empire learned it the hard way. It was Rome’s mishandling and a superficial celebration of diversity that, in part, brought the empire down. Rome invested a great deal of time and resources promoting a monolithic culture and undertook an extensive propaganda insisting that smooth and efficient functioning of the empire necessitated promotion of linguistic and cultural homogeneity at the expense of marginal languages and identities. The story of Pentecost showcases a seemingly impossible phenomenon in which communication across disparate languages happens smoothly and people(s) of diverse nationalities share a space—literally and figuratively—with little difficulty. In doing so, Pentecost undermines Rome’s case for cultural and linguistic homogeneity. One of the central ideas that underlies Pentecost, one that was also at the center of vernacularization during Reformation, is that God can be expressed in multiple languages (2:11). And precisely because God is often expressed in multiple languages, no single language can articulate the divine fully. Similarly, no single identity can capture or express the fullness of humanness. Luther recognized vernacularization as a necessary precondition for a fuller realization of life in the spirit. For him, accèssibility was an essential aspect of democratization of the Church and for dismantling spiritual elitism. In this way, both Pentecost and Reformation decenter and deprivilege the dominant language and identity and affirm humanity in its various expressions. Prior to the Reformation, the Church’s approach to vernacular languages was influenced by the story of Babel that saw multiple languages as a manifestation of God’s judgment. Reformation allowed people to move past that paradigm and embrace vernacular languages in the spirit of Pentecost. Just as Pentecost reversed Babel, the Reformation took theology and scriptures to marginal languages. But it also brought those marginal languages to the center of theological discourses, with the result that the vernacular languages and identities are no longer tokens at the table, but essential elements in theological discourse. Luke tells us that when the uneducated Galileans spoke, everyone heard them in their own language. When did these Galileans learn so many languages? The Greek word used for multiple languages is heteroglossia: heteroglossia is about each seeking and acquiring an ability to speak the language of the other and about making an effort to enter the spaces of the other. It is equally about seeking and acquiring an ability to understand the other. In enabling people to speak in other tongues (2:4), the spirit makes them cross linguistic boundaries and learn, on a deeper level, languages whose presence and worth they would not have acknowledged hitherto. Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian literary theorist, argued powerfully and eloquently that languages are rarely just languages. They represent worldviews, ideologies, and cultures. They represent the histories and stories of communities as well as the communities and their identities. In his view, languages are “specific points of view on the world, forms for conceptualizing the world in words, specific world views, each characterized by its own objects, meanings, and values.”4 Bakhtin also talks about the centripetal and centrifugal proclivities within any given language or linguistic system. These proclivities are shaped by various social


    Page 4

    and political forces in their contexts. As he put it, “thus at any given moment of its historical existence, language is heteroglot from top to bottom: it represents the coexistence of socio-ideological contradictions between the present and the past, between differing epochs of the past, between different socio-ideological groups in the present, between tendencies, schools, circles, and so forth, all given a bodily form.”5 Bakhtin argued in a related context that “languages do not exclude each other, but rather intersect with each other in many different ways.”6 An extension of this notion is that profound and fuller communication can happen only when multiple languages are spoken. Living in the oppressive Stalinist regime, he also suggested that authentic truth not only accommodates divergent perspectives but actually requires more than one perspective. Whereas the empire saw presence of disparate worldviews represented by multiple languages as a problem, the story of Pentecost reflects a political phenomenon that challenges Rome’s centripetal approach to languages, especially in the margins of the empire. But the story also highlights the divine role in attenuating Rome’s hegemonic way of dealing with marginal identities and relegating them to non-existence. Seen this way, Pentecost is a theo-political phenomenon that offered people theological, linguistic, and epistemological imagination to envision relationships between different languages in entirely new ways. The story of Pentecost envisages a scenario in which communication across languages happens easily, and people(s) of diverse nationalities and ethnicities co-exist with little difficulty. In doing so, the story challenges Rome’s monocultural ethnocentrism and attenuates its imperial propaganda that smooth and efficient functioning of the oikoumene necessitated promotion of linguistic and cultural homogeneity.

    Peter Invites People to Turn Their Backs on the Empire At end of Peter’s preaching, people who were gathered in Jerusalem asked him and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter instructed that they “repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Peter’s use of the words “repentance” and “baptism” reminds readers of another key figure at the beginning of Luke’s gospel who issues a similar call to his audience. Luke tells us that John the Baptist went around the Jordan “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). John’s ministry was about preparing and about making straight his paths. There too, the crowd asks John the Baptist, “What should we do then?” John suggests that “anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” And he exhorts tax collectors not to collect any more than required (Luke 3:15-16). There is a parallel between John’s ministry and Peter ’s ministry, as both preached a baptism of repentance. Both offered a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Both had remarkable success with crowds. John is calling on the religious and political elite from Judea and Jerusalem to repent. Metanoia, the Greek word for repentance, literally means taking on a new mindset. It has the connotation of making an aboutturn and changing course. John was informing his audience that participation in the new kingdom requires a new worldview and a transformed mindset. It also requires them to turn their backs on everything in which they have been complicit and from which they might have been benefiting. Seen in this light, John, and similarly, Peter


    Page 5

    are inviting the audience to abandon the empire and to turn their backs on it. In the story of Pentecost, Peter’s exhortation to people to turn their backs on the empire should be interpreted also vis-à-vis its subsequent literary context. Luke tells us that immediately after this call for repentance for people and exhortation to “save yourselves from this corrupt generation,” three thousand people were baptized and added to the Church. We learnt that, as an expression of their baptismal commitment and membership in the Church, “all the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. ”7 Such sharing is consistent with the call John had given (Luke 3:11-12), but it would also have been counter-cultural within the context of Rome’s ethos and socio-economic structures. In a political and economic context where people generally subscribed to zerosum worldview—the notion that one loses when another gains—and consequently had the proclivity to hoard goods, the early Christian practice of sharing possessions was radical. It ran contrary to the ethos of the empire, and its success among early Christian communities as an alternative economic paradigm potentially undermined the empire’s ability to promote zero-sum worldview throughout the empire. Rome also promoted paradoxical economic structures with the result that there was excessive wealth at the top and abject poverty at the margins of the empire, especially in the colonies. The empire justified such structures by arguing that prosperity at the top was made possible by poverty at the bottom. Rome’s new propaganda suggested that in order for privileged communities to maintain their quality of life, those at the margins would have to sacrifice their dignity, basic necessities, and even life itself.8 From a Roman viewpoint, there is a causal connection between the two layers.9 Prosperity for the elite was achieved by subjecting those at the margins to abject poverty and by denying them their dignity and right to live their lives in accordance with their own vision and values. When one interprets the story of Pentecost within this political and economic context, Peter is not only inviting people to turn their backs on Rome’s problematic worldview but is also exposing its oppressive economic structures. He is exhorting them to adopt a radically new mindset in their interactions with others. Within the synoptic gospels, Jesus performs the economic miracle of feeding thousands of people. In Acts 2, the believers themselves perform a great miracle of sharing. By imitating Jesus’ example and adopting an ethos of sharing, the believers are modeling discipleship. More importantly, the story of people sharing their possessions directly challenges oppressive economic practices and moves people away from a worldview that convinced them their welfare can only be ensured at the expense of others.

    Peter Exposes the Myth of Rome’s Invincibility Having persuaded his listeners that the real power lies with Jesus who is “both Lord and messiah” (2:36-37), Peter issues a bold invitation to them to abandon the empire and repent (“turn around”). He manages to convince thousands to turn their backs on the empire and its ethos and shift allegiance to this new empire so that they may live. In highlighting how Jesus, whom Rome crucified unlawfully, defied the power of the empire by rising from the dead, Peter calls attention to the limits of imperial power. The notion that a marginal Galilean would have triumphed over the empire


    Page 6

    would have been deeply threatening to the empire, but Acts 2 (and rest of the book) suggests that Rome’s grip on power was shaky precisely because it was abusing it. Acts thus becomes a defiance of the power of the empire whose power has its limits. Within the current political context, there are at least two factors that resemble the socio-economic phenomena that are depicted in the story of Pentecost. First, as many have highlighted, the current administration’s attempts to “make America great again” often has the tone of concentrating power in the hands of the dominant racial group. It can have the effect of positioning one group as the normative and thereby marginalizing all the other groups. Lately, such attempts have been taking the form of increased White privilege and stringent policies against immigrants, refugees, and Muslims. It appears that the political administration has been operating with the assumption that diversity is a problem and that in order to safeguard interests of the dominant community it is fine, and perhaps even necessary, to disregard the basic rights of oppressed communities such as immigrants, Muslims, and African-Americans . Any prophetic preaching within this political context needs to challenge such a zero-sum worldview and attenuate the administration’s attempts to perpetuate the privilege already enjoyed by the dominant community. Will the LInited States, that tried to model itself akin to the Roman empire, learn from the latter’s mistakes, or will it repeat the same mistakes and reap the same disastrous consequences? The second factor pertains to the administration’s economic policies such as the massive tax cuts that have been shifting wealth from the margins of the society and concentrating it into the hands of a few. The administration has been perpetuating the notion that its economic policies aimed at enriching the rich are in the best interests of everyone. If Peter or John the Baptist were to preach in this context, they would likely expose the fallacy and inefficacy of such policies that shift wealth to the top as immoral and unsustainable. They would also preach in a way that energizes people to turn their backs on the empire’s economic platform and agenda. No doubt the current American empire would feel threatened by such preaching, but that is often what preaching does.

    Notes 1 Within the context of first-century Palestine, “Galilean” was often a code word for “uneducated” or “unsophisticated. ” 2 Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “The Roman World” in Susan Alcock and Robin Osborne, eds., Classical Archeology (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 376-378. 3 Ibid. p. 380. 4 Mikhail Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992), 291. 5 Ibid, 292. 6 Ibid, 291. 7 Luke 2:44-45. 8 Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher, Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principóte (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 338-339. 9 The scene depicted in the lower tier occurs in places such as Germany and France. 10 John Dominic Crossan, Roman Imperial Theology, in In the Shadow of the Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Response (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press), 67-68.

  • The Healing Power of Forgiveness

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 7

    The Healing Power of Forgiveness

    Isaiah 53:3-5

    Anthony Thompson Holy Trinity Reformed Episcopal Church, Charleston, South Carolina

    Forgiveness! In order to understand what forgiveness entails, you have to know first who you are. Not who you are in or to the world, but who you are in the eyes of God. In Romans 3:10, the word of God says, “There is no one righteous, not even one; All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” And Isaiah told us in 53:6 that “we all like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way….” All of us are sinners, and sinners need to be forgiven so we can be healed, so that we can be made whole again and have peace with our family, our neighbor, our nation, peace within ourselves, and most important of all, peace with God. King David committed the sin of adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers. After David sinned, his life and the life of his family were never the same: (1) Murder was a constant threat in David’s family (13;26-30; 18:14, 15; 1st Kings 2:23-25); (2) his son Absalom rebelled against him and publicly slept with David’s wives (15:13; 16:20-23); (3) David’s first child by Bathsheba died (12:18). That sin disrupted David’s life and the life of his family and his kingdom. The pain and guilt were too great to bear. In Psalm 51:3, David said, “And my sin is ever before me. ” Sometimes he couldn’t eat, sometimes he couldn’t sleep, sometimes David couldn’t think right or do anything right. The guilt and shame he felt was always a burden on his mind. Sin is a burden. It is a disease that eats at the heart of all mankind. Sin is hate. It is racism. It is discrimination. It is violence. It causes division in your life, your family’s life, your church, your community, and the nation! The eighth chapter of St. John talks about a woman caught in the act of adultery by the Jewish leaders. According to the law they were ready to stone her to death. But Jesus showed her love and compassion. Jesus forgave the woman. He said to her, “Go and sin no more. ” Imagine how she must have felt when the burden that she bore for so long was lifted. She now had peace with herself and peace with God! She was healed from the inside out. And if you want to rid yourself of all the guilt that is heavy on your mind, if you want healing in your life, your family life, your church life, your community, and your nation, it all begins with a simple act of asking God to forgive you. Whatever is in your past, whatever you have done wrong and somebody keeps throwing up in your face, you need to know that God was standing at the window, and he saw the whole thing. God has seen your whole life, the good and the bad, and he wants you to know that he loves you and that you are forgiven. 1st John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” You have been forgiven! God is just wondering when you will forgive yourself. Forgive yourself and let your healing begin! Isaiah predicted almost 500 years before it happened that Jesus would suffer and

    Fent 2018


    Page 8

    die on the cross for your sins and mine. And he said, “By his stripes we are healed.” Do you really understand what Isaiah meant when he said, “By his stripes we are healed”? On the way to the cross, they battered his face. Soldiers whipped him and whipped him with a whip three feet long with several strands weighted with lead balls or pieces of bone that tore flesh from his body. Following his scourging, Jesus was literally a dead man walking. They put a crown of thorns on Jesus’ head, and the blood streamed down and around his face. A beam weighing about 100 pounds was tied over Jesus’ bloody shoulders. They nailed his wrists and feet to the cross. And if that was not enough, they pierced his side with a spear that ruptured the sac surrounding his heart, and the blood and water ran down his body. Jesus never sinned, yet he died in our place, “took our pain and bore our suffering.” And before dying, Jesus prayed, “Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.” If somebody had done all that to you, would you be able to forgive them? Don’t answer that! Listen to what God said about this !

    Forgiveness is Two-Fold In St. Matthew 6:14, Jesus says, “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” If you want God to forgive you, you have to “forgive those who trespass against you.” You may think that revenge is sweet, but in Romans 12:17 it says, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” Forgive and forget! The more you plot and wish them harm, the more harm you bring into your own life. The more you hold on to your anger, the more miserable your life will be. By contrast, repaying evil for evil hurts you just as much as it hurts your enemy. In Galatians 6:7 it says, “For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” It is better to forgive and forget. Letting go of anger at those who wronged you is a smart route to your forgiveness from God. Even if your enemy never repents, forgiving him/her will free you of a heavy load of bitterness. God will forgive you, and you will begin to heal.

    Forgiveness Fleals Isaiah 53:5 tells us that Jesus “was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his stripes we are healed.” Sin is the barrier that divides and conquers us. It separates a wife from a husband, a child from a parent. It separates families, churches, communities, and the world from each other. But forgiveness is the cure when Christ died on that cross and prayed, “Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.” He destroyed those barriers, removed those walls that people, families, communities, and the world build between themselves. Because of Christ’s death, our hostility against each other has been put to death. “By his stripes we were healed.” We can come together as families and begin to heal today. But like Christ, each one of us has to start with an act of forgiveness. Only forgiveness can bring about healing in our lives, our families, our communities, and the world. I know it can! I know, because one day I forgave a young man who killed my wife and eight other people at Emanuel A.M.E. Church. Dylann Roof, the young man who killed my wife Myra and eight other people at Emanuel, was going to a bond hearing. I


    Page 9

    didn’t want to go. I didn’t have Dylann Roof on my mind. All I could think of was did Myra suffer. Why wasn’t I there for her? I didn’t want to go the Bond Hearing, but my children wanted to go and would not go unless I did. So I went for them. I told them, “Keep your mouths closed. Don’t say anything.” And when we got there, I sat with my head down. I wanted it to be over so I could go back home. Then God intervened. He whispered in my ear, “I have something to say.” I got up immediately. I learned from a previous experience back in 2010 that when God speaks, you listen and do what God says, and it will turn out all right. So I listened and said what God told me. I said, “Son, I forgive you, and my family forgives you. You need to repent and confess, and give your life to the One it means most to. You are in a lot of trouble, but if you do that, no matter how much trouble you’re in, you will be all right.” You see, God’s love was about me forgiving Dylann like God, for Christ’s sake, forgave me! And after I did that, I experienced God’s love! I experienced a “peace that passeth all understanding.” God’s love freed my heart of the burden of bitterness and anger. God’s love assured me that he is in control, that he had prepared a place for Myra, and that he was going to bring me and my family through this, day by day! I know without a shadow of doubt that acts of forgiveness can heal you, heal your family, your church, your community, and our world, right now ! I know because it is healing me. And not only is it healing me, but the City of Charleston is healing! The community was united. People from all walks of life, from every race and creed united and helped in every way they could to console each other, to be there for each other. The state of South Carolina is healing. Our governor, legislators, and senators had a change of heart, and the confederate flag came down. Our nation’s capital is healing. When President Obama came to the late Rev. dementa Pinckney’s funeral (one of the nine), he for the first time talked about racism! In Charleston, SC, the first state that seceded from the union because they wanted to keep slavery, people are now talking about racism. Shortly after the Emanuel massacre, I spoke at a predominantly white aristocratic church concerning the scripture “Ye are the light of the world.” The lesson emphasized that as children of the light, we need to ask forgiveness, confess, and repent. After I completed the session, a middle aged white woman stood up and said, “Rev. Thompson, I am not sure how anybody else may feel.” Then she paused and started looking around. As she continued to speak, she seemed a little fidgety. She said, “I was taught racism. I saw family members practice it. They told me that I was better than black people.” She said, “And as I got older, I realized that it was wrong. However, I could not bring myself to do the right thing because of my status, my friends, and others I knew to be racist.” Then she said, “But after I heard you and the other family members forgiving the young man who killed your wife, I admitted my racism, confessed, and repented of it. She concluded with this statement: “I ask God to forgive me, and I repented of racism! Now I am asking you to forgive me.” Forgiveness brings healing! When you get a cut in your hand, it splits the skin, leaving a gap where blood seeps out. The blood will continue to flow until you bring the skin back together. And in order to bring the skin back together, you will need to put a band-aid on the cut. And as you pull the band-aid to the other side of the cut, it will bring the skin back

    Lent 2018


    Page 10

    together to stop the bleeding and begin the healing. Forgiveness is like a band-aid. When you forgive someone who did you wrong, your wound and their wound will heal. When you forgive someone, it pulls you and that person back together, it pulls you and your family back together, it pulls you and your community back together, and it begins to heal your relationships with other people. But more importantly, it pulls back to God. Forgiveness heals your relationship with God. And “with God all things are possible.” We are so quick to pass judgement when we catch other people in sin. We act as if we never sinned. How can a sinner pass judgement on a sinner? It is God’s role to judge, not ours. Our role is to show forgiveness and compassion. Maybe there is someone in your family, church, community, or on your job that you need to forgive. Maybe you have a gay daughter, son, or relative who is waiting for you to ask them to forgive you for the wrong you have said and/or done to them. Maybe you have a drug addict son, daughter, or relative who is waiting for you to forgive them and show compassion. Maybe you have a father or mother that you never knew or who left you, and you are running around in life being angry, when all you need to do is forgive them to begin healing and gain peace. What are you going to do? In the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, it says that Jesus “was crushed for our iniquities . He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter.” Yet he never raised a hand to get back at us; Jesus “never said a mumbling word” against us. Jesus suffered our pain, died for our sins, then said, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And that is all God asks of you and me. So keep that band-aid as a reminder that your life can be healed, somebody else’s life can be healed, and your relationship with God can be healed through a simple act of forgiveness. Ask God to forgive you so that you can begin to heal. Ask the person whom you have done wrong to forgive you. Then go out and forgive the person who did you wrong. There is a healing power in forgiveness! Heal your family. Heal your community. Heal your nation. In Ephesians 4:32, he says, “And be ye kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.”

  • The People’s Choice: How Can the Stories of the Kings of Israel Shed Light on the Politics of Today?

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 25

    The People 5 Choice: How Can the Stories of the Kings

    of Israel Shed Light on the Politics of Today?

    I Samuel 8

    Elizabeth McGregor Simmons Davidson College Presbyterian Church, Davidson, North Carolina

    Shortly after it was announced that the preachers at our church would be conducting a summer worship series entitled “The People’s Choice,” based on topics suggested by congregants, the pastors received the following email:

    I’ve always been intrigued by the story of Saul and his reign as king of the Israelites. First off, that God agreed to appoint a king mystifies me, and then that He chose a man who would fail to follow His commands via Samuel, causing God to seemingly admit making a mistake and turning to David as Saul’s successor. Perhaps there was no mistake, but simply an example of an individual not following through on a mission, promise, etc. Human failure as it were. Does God lead individuals to rule in today’s world? Is all of our political landscape unfolding just as it should? Is there a lesson woven into the writings in Samuel that we can apply to our world today?

    This topic was scheduled for July 30, 2017, months earlier. At the time of the scheduling, no one had any way of knowing that it would be the sermon topic on the Sunday morning following a particularly tumultuous week, politically speaking. What we could predict is that we would be reflecting upon God’s appointing of the first king of Israel amid widespread disillusionment about political leadership. In 2015, Ketchum Leadership Communication Monitor (KLCM) conducted a global study which polled 6,509 people in 13 countries across five continents for their views on effective leadership. Here is some of what they found: 90 percent of Americans believe the nation is facing a crisis of leadership. According to the Global Disillusionment Index, China is the least disillusioned with its leaders, Spain is the most disillusioned with its leaders, and the United States has an average amount of disillusionment. In the United States, seven percent of the population have confidence in Congress, 29 percent have confidence in the presidency, and 30 percent have confidence in the Supreme Court. In the interest of full disclosure, 25 percent of the population have confidence in religious leaders. (At least we beat Congress!) Each of you will have to decide for yourself whether it is of great comfort or little comfort to know that things haven’t changed much in the more than 3,000 years that have elapsed since Saul was anointed as the first king of Israel. The first question voiced in the email was this: Does God lead individuals to rule? Before attempting to answer the question, it seems right to take a quick glance at a bit of historical background to Saul’s being chosen as king and how the unfolding of events described in I Samuel 8 signaled a reversal of politics as usual in the ancient world. In the ancient world, kingship was viewed as being initiated from the gods above. Let’s take as an example the great king Hammurabi, who ruled over Babylonia


    Page 26

    for an astonishing 42 years (1692-1650 BCE). There is a famous stele which you have probably seen. The deity Marduk is sitting on the throne; Hammurabi is standing , humbly receiving the scepter from the enthroned god. This image expresses the standard understanding of kingship in the ancient Near East. The gods created the institution of monarchy so that their will would be executed on earth through earthly rulers which they would appoint. I Samuel 8 presents a radically different origin of political rule. Rather than “descending from above,” the biblical text describes the origin of Saul’s kingship as “rising from below.” Striking about this ancient story is how it is permeated by an overwhelming sense of sadness, not only on Samuel’s part, but on God’s part. Samuel was troubled because of the people’s request for a king. In a moment so tender that it almost breaks your heart, God comforts Samuel by emphasizing that it was the people’s decision. It is not you who have been rejected, but me, God says. This is not a God whose power descends from above, but a God who grants people the gift of freedom—the freedom to make good decisions and the freedom to make bad decisions. God self-limits God’s own power and authority, one might say. Twice, God instructs Samuel “to listen to the voice of the people.”1 So, to answer the first email question, No, God does not appoint people to rule. Rather, God grants human beings the free agency of making decisions and then bearing the consequences of those decisions. Now let’s take a closer look at what the people were looking for in a leader. The people’s desire for a king is clearly driven by powerful fear and a hunger for security. The elders do not even discern that having a king “because everybody else is doing it” is in principle dangerous or alien to God.2 But Samuel sees it and gives voice to God’s stern warning to the people. It is as prescient and true a description as there could ever be about what imperial power does. Unchecked, the powerful will take from the weak; the center will take from the margins. Imperial power has a voracious appetite for your land, for your children in times of warfare, for your livelihoods. Is this what you want?3 In your heart of hearts shaped by the gracious love of God, is this what you really want? And this, ultimately, I believe, is that question that I Samuel 8 poses for people of faith as we consider our role as citizens, as believing people who are not at leisure to withdraw from questions related to public life. The choice that the people of Israel faced is ever before God’s believing people. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions bears witness to this. More often thannot, these confessions, creeds, and catechisms are documents whichindicate costly choice by those who penned them, documents which indicate that when fear for the future and hunger for security are tugging at our hearts, God’s people will be guided by the principle that public power is not for taking advantage, but for sharing and giving.4 Perhaps the most dramatic example of this in the Book of Confessions is the “Theological Declaration of Barmen.” “The Barmen Declaration” was approved on May 30, 1934. In this document, a minority within the Evangelical Church of Germany reconstituted itself as a “Confessing Church.” The idolatry of the “German Christians” in giving an ultimate commitment to the state rather than God was declared to be error. Jesus Christ, as attested in scripture, was proclaimed as the one Word of God and Lord of all life.5 One of the events leading up to the “Barmen Declaration” was Adolf Hitler’s


    Page 27

    decision to summon 40 prominent church leaders to meet with him. At one point, Hitler declared to Martin Niemoller, “You leave the care of the Third Reich to me, and you look after the church.” As the assembled clergy were leaving, Niemoller turned and addressed Hitler, “Herr Reichskanzler, you said just now, T will take care of the German people.’ But we too as Christians and as churchmen have a responsibility toward the German people. That responsibility was entrusted to us by God, and neither you nor anyone in this world has the power to take it from us.’ ”6 When we lay the choice of the people of Israel and the choice of the members of the Confessing Church of Germany alongside each other, we are offered a stark contrast and, I would say, an instructive contrast, as we, Christians, people of faith, the church of today, seek to be those who, as we deal with our own fears about the future and yearning for security, are granted the frightening gift of freedom by our God whose moral center lies not in taking advantage, but in giving and sharing. In an essay about the intersection of faith and politics that was written by Don Shriver way back in the 1980’s, he wrote, “You will never know that truth or the error of any connection of faith and politics unless you subject yourself regularly to the combined disciplines of prayer, Bible study, church-going, conversation with friends [and I would add, people with whom you do not agree], and participation in collective political activities.”7The combination of these disciplines in our lives heightens the odds that the choices we make at the intersection of Religion Avenue and Politics Boulevard will be faithful in not taking advantage, but in giving and sharing. Together we will remember Paul’s words in Romans 13, that civil authority is to be “God’s servant for the people’s common good.” Together we will remember that legal and court systems are to be procedurally just and fair. The biblical prophets regularly rail against corrupt court decisions and systems, in which the wealthy and powerful manipulate the legal processes for their own benefit and put the poor into greater debt or distress. The prophet Amos was speaking directly to the courts when he said, “Hate evil, love good, maintain just in the courts. ” Together we will remember that governmental authority is to protect the poor in particular. Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah (Yes, there were some good kings!) said, “He defended the cause of the poor and the needy, and so all went well.” And we will remember and pray Psalm 72 for our political leaders: “Give the king your justice, O God….May he judge your people with righteousness and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.”8 Is there a lesson woven into the writings in Samuel that we can apply to our world today? Perhaps the answer is actually a question, a question addressed squarely at you and at me: At the intersection of Religion Avenue and Politics Boulevard, as people of faith and as citizens, will we lean into the choice which is grounded in God’s moral principle of not taking advantage, but of giving and sharing?

    Notes 1 Roger Nam, “Commentary on I Samuel 8: 4-11 [12-15] 16-20 [11:14-15],” www.workingpreacher. org, June 7, 2015. 2 Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 65. 3 Eric D. Barreto, “Scandalous Leaders, Scandalous Power,” www.huffingtonpost.com, June 1, 2016. 4 Brueggemann, 69. 5 Jack Rogers, Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to The Book of Confessions (Philadelphia: Westminster


    Page 28

    Press, 1985), 190. 6 Ibid., 187. 7 Donald W. Shriver, “A Political Lifestyle and Agenda for Presbyterians in the Nineteen-Eighties,” Reformed Faith and Politics, edited by Ronald H. Stone (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1983), 186. 8 Jim Wallis, “Caring for the Poor is Government’s Biblical Role,” www.sojo.net, August 30, 2012.

  • Unfinished: A Sermon For Easter

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 22

    Unfinished – A Sermon For Easter

    Robert E. Dunham

    Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Mark 16:1-8 (NRSV)

    At the beginning of Ron Rash’s novel Above the Waterfall, the county sheriff Les is approaching his retirement day, just a few weeks away. Les might have hoped his last weeks on the job would be routine and uncomplicated, but instead he finds himself dealing with an escalating conflict between the owner of a local fishing resort and a cantankerous elderly neighbor suspected of poaching. Other unfinished business lurks, too, especially out in the backwoods hollers, where crystal methamphetamine labs have become as numerous as the moonshine stills of another era. Les has seen the effects of crystal meth—the skin sores, the rotting teeth, the paranoia, and the dissolute social fabric. After one particularly disturbing meth bust that makes him almost physically ill—aware, as he is, that the world he inhabits is getting darker and more difficult—Les gets into his squad car and sits behind the wheel, when all of a sudden he has a flashback to his childhood.

    I had been bad to sleepwalk as a kid. There were times, for some reason always in the summer, Γ d make my way out of the house and end up in the yard. Lolks back then, at least country folks, didn’t see the need for a porch bulb burning all night. Γ d open my eyes and there’d be nothing but darkness, like the world had slipped its leash and run away, taking everything with it except me. Then I’d hear a whip-poor-will or a jar fly, or feel the dew dampening my feet, or T d look up and find the stars tacked to the sky where they always were, only the moon roaming. I turned onto the main road and drove back toward town, all the while remembering what it had felt like when the world you knew had up and vanished, and you needed to find something to bring that world back, and you weren’t sure you could.1

    The odd ending of Mark’s Gospel, all cloaked in fear and darkness and uncertainty , evokes something of the same ethos. Mark says the women who visited the tomb were startled by the news they encountered there, perhaps feeling as though the world they knew and had begun to count on “had up and vanished,” leaving them looking for anything familiar—some sign from heaven to reorient them. As readers of Mark, we may long for an ending that strikes a major chord, that ties all the loose ends together and sends us forth with confidence and assurance, full of alleluias. But there is no major chord at the end of Mark. If Mark truly concluded his record of the Gospel of Jesus Christ at verse 8 as the scholarly consensus contends, we are left in an unfinished fog. The final verses of Mark’s Gospel are reminiscent of some of the well-known musical compositions that were never completed—left unfinished because the composer either ran out of inspiration or died before reaching the conclusion. As with


    Page 23

    the gospel, over time other composers have attempted to finish, say, Franz Schubert’s Symphony No .8inB minor, more commonly called The Unfinished Symphony, or J. S. Bach’s The Art of the Fugue, or Gustav Mahler ’s unfinished Symphony No. 10. Some of the attempts have been interesting, but none of them were completely satisfying because, well, they weren’t the real deal. Indeed, music critics seem to agree that the most memorable performances of unfinished works have been those in which the orchestra or solo performer simply stopped playing where the composer stopped writing. Such endings were almost always jarring, but they always had the ring of authenticity to them. I feel the same way about the ending of Mark’s Gospel. Scholars largely agree that Mark ended his gospel, for whatever reason, right there at verse 8, and the remaining eleven verses are but unsatisfactory later attempts to give the Gospel a more polished ending. There is no question that verse 8 seems unfinished. A young man in a white robe has just told the women that Jesus is not in the tomb, that he has been raised, and that he has gone before them to Galilee—back to their hometowns and their ordinary lives—and there they will see him. He tells them to go and spread the news to the others. But in Mark’s ending, the women run away, for fear and amazement has seized them, and they say nothing to anyone, because they are afraid. It is a jarring end to the story, and we may not know what to do with the lack of resolution. Tom Long notes,

    In his commentary on the Gospel of Mark, the late Donald Juel tells the story of one of his students who had memorized the whole of Mark in order to do a dramatic, Broadway-style reading before a live audience. After careful study, the student had decided to go with the scholarly consensus regarding the ending. At his first performance, however, after he spoke that ambiguous last verse, he stood there awkwardly, shifting from one foot to the other, the audience waiting for more, waiting for closure, waiting for a proper ending. Finally, after several anxious seconds, he said, “Amen! ” and made his exit. The relieved audience applauded loudly and appreciatively. LIpon reflection, though, the student realized that by providing the audience a satisfying conclusion, his “Amen!” had actually betrayed the dramatic intention of the text. So, at the next performance, when he reached the final verse, he simply paused for a half beat and left the stage in silence. “The discomfort and uncertainty within the audience were obvious,” said Juel, “and as people exited…the buzz of conversation was dominated by the experience of the non-ending.”ב

    “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. ” Of course, that non-ending is not really the last word. We know it’s not the way the Easter story ended… in the end. If it had truly ended there, we wouldn’t be here surrounded by lilies on this bright Easter morning. But I wonder if perhaps that was not Mark’s intention…that others would finish the story he left unfinished. Back in the very first verse of his Gospel, Mark said that what he was presenting was “the beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). Quite possibly, verse 8 of chapter 16 was the end ofthat beginning… and the rest of the story was yet to be told. It would be up to


    Page 24

    the disciples, and in the long run up to us, to decide how the story ends, even if we know that ultimately the author of this great love story is God. Remember that Mark’s Gospel was written not for the first disciples nor for us, but more likely for the church in Rome that Mark knew around 70 C.E., when telling the good news meant risking one’s life, and it wasn’t clear at all how the Christian story might end. A pastor friend says, “In the midst of war and rumors of war, [those early Christians] could not know how their life or death would play out, how their fidelity or betrayal would play out, how the future or dissolution of the Christian community would play out… any more than we know for ourselves.”

    Which is why [said Don Juel] the ending of Mark is not an ending at all: it is “the beginning of the good news,” the beginning of the Lord’s appearances , the beginning of the kerygma, the beginning of hope that will not die—not because of our faithfulness, the strongest of which fails in the end—but because of the power of God that cannot be domesticated or buried or fled or contained. We know [that is true] from the epilogue—the epilogue… of our own presence here.3

    Decades ago I learned from studying Spanish, and later from Latin and Greek, that other languages have something known as an imperfect tense. Present tense we English speakers understand. What other languages call the aorist we know as past tense. But English lacks an imperfect tense to describe action that has begun and is continuing. And that is a shame, because the Easter liturgy is truly written in imperfect tense—call it “Easter imperfect” if you will—for it tells the ongoing story of how the message of the empty tomb is being lived out in the lives of those who believe. That is the tense that we live in these days, and part of our task is to help finish the story. We resist that unfinished quality of Easter in our lives, longing, as is natural, for completion and closure. I think of the people with whom I have had conversations in recent months and the glimpses I got of such Easter imperfect in them. There is that young couple I married, who wrote me a decade later to say they had been slogging desperately through the husband’s chemotherapy searching for a cure, only to be battered by a compounding progression of bad news. I am in touch with another young couple, soon to be married, who are anguishing over the tension they are experiencing as one of them now discerns a call to serve in a profession that was not previously part of either of their plans. I had lunch with a middle-aged man whose expertise as a scientist has always been valued and wanted, but who finds himself now suddenly adrift and unemployed and full of anxiety following an unexpected force reduction in his workplace. I spoke one afternoon with a young confirmand, eager and anxious all at the same time about the step she is getting ready to take and where it might lead her if she takes her vows seriously. In countless ways on countless days, people have spoken to me in a kind of Easter imperfect tense, voicing their hope in God’s good news, but struggling with its unfinished quality and all the questions that remain. One question that keeps coming back to me is this: How do we live into the unfinished ending, the unfinished Easter, of Mark’s Gospel? Christine Chakoian says it is important to realize that the Easter story is a story of calling, open-ended and ongoing. It is the call that came first to the women at the empty tomb, scaring them half to death. It is a call that comes also to us, even all these years later, a call to


    Page 25

    go and tell that the tomb is empty, that the power of death has been broken, and that Jesus is out there ahead of us in Galilee, that is, out there where we live, where we go to school, where we make a living, where we struggle to be faithful. He is there. Go and tell. She says:

    We don’t have any more control over [this call] than the women who first heard it and weren t sure they wanted to deal with it either. If we’d really rather identify with the courageous and loyal pillars of faith, it’s really too bad, because these are the best Mark has to offer. And maybe there’s grace in being called [along] with those who fail…and maybe it doesn’t even matter, because there is work to be done, and this ongoing, [unfinished] call hangs in the air, awaiting a response from anyone who hears. And we, of course, are the ones who hear it now.4

    What do we hear? That death no longer contains him. That life, not death, has had the final word. That the power of God cannot be domesticated or buried or fled or contained. That he goes before us, and if we seek him, he will meet us there. In light of that good news, our job, Brian Blount contends, is to finish the story. The idea sounds outrageous, I know… that we could dare to finish this story that God has begun; after all, it is God’s story. But Blount is right in saying that it is part of God’s pattern to enlist human agents to enact the divine cause. He says,

    God breaks in at [Jesus’ ] baptism, but then solicits Jesus to act. God breaks through at the transfiguration, speaks to the disciples, but steps away and waits for them to respond. God… whispers a word of instruction to the thr ee women, [knowing all the while] that they’ 11 be too frightened to deliver it. At the end, and beyond the end, when Jesus goes off searching for human representation in Galilee, God establishes yet again the desire to make and use human disciples. [God keeps looking for people who are] willing and able to overcome their fear of this good news and thereby finish the story… Jesus started. That is why Mark writes this Jesus story in the first place: to let would-be disciples know that God is searching for them, to finish it.5

    That you and I are here on this glad morning, celebrating Christ’s resurrection and hearing this story from Mark, is testimony to the faithfulness of God on the one hand and to the faithful efforts of Christians on the other—of men and women who have responded to God’s call in all the centuries since that day the stone was rolled back and Christ left his tomb behind and headed for Galilee in search of human help. We are here because of all those who have gone before us, seeking in their time and their place to finish the story Jesus started, not by bringing it to closure—that is God’s work! — but by remaining open to God’s call in their lives and following Jesus where he led them to go rather than just sleepwalking into the darkness. And that is how we finish Mark’s story, too—by our willingness to meet Christ in the Galilees of our own lives and to continue the ministry he began, by standing boldly in the face of death, speaking good news to the poor, feeding the hungry, binding up the brokenhearted, breaking down the dividing walls of hostility, and doing


    Page 26

    all those things we learned from this One who still goes before us and who calls us still—this One whom death could not constrain. We believe this day what we say to one another: “The Lord is risen. He is risen indeed. ” That’s still the good news of this day, even in Mark’s telling of it. It’s more unsettling than satisfying in some ways, more challenging than cheerful, more muted than a satisfying major chord. But maybe that’s how Mark meant it to be. Perhaps he intended to unsettle us so that we would get up and go despite our fears, despite our reservations. In that sense, it’s not the end of the story. It is, in fact, our story’s beginning. The Christ is still searching for others to help compose the ending. We won’t finish the story, I reckon, not completely, which is in and of itself a grace. But the ending we will write, if our faith allows, may just have the ring of authenticity. By God’s grace, it may.

    Notes 1 Ron Rash, Above the Waterfall (New York, Harper Collins, 2015), 73. 2 Thomas G. Long, “Dangling Gospel (Mark 16:1-8),” Christian Century, 123:7 (April 4, 2006): 19. 3 Donald Juel, A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994), as cited by Christine Chakoian, unpublished paper, 2003. 4 Chakoian, 2003. 5 Brian K. Blount, “Is the Joke on Us?” in The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God: Essays in Memory of Donald Harrisville Juel, Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Patrick D. Miller, eds. (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 28.

  • What If Jesus Meant All This Stuff

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 20

    What If Jesus Meant All This Stuff

    Acts 2:1-21

    Mark Ramsey

    Macedonian Ministry, Atlanta, Georgia

    On a rocky sea coast where shipwrecks were frequent, there was a ramshackle little lifesaving station. It was just a hut. There was only one boat, but the handful who worked at the station were a devoted lot who kept constant watch. With little regard for their own safety, they regularly went out into a storm if they had any evidence there had been a shipwreck along the coast. Many lives were saved, and soon the station became famous. As the fame of the station grew, so did the desire of others to become associated with its excellent work. They raised money for new boats, more training, more crews. The hut, too, was replaced by a comfortable building, which could adequately handle the needs of those who had been saved from the sea. And, since shipwrecks don t happen every day, it also became a popular gathering place—a sort of local club. As time passed, the members became so engaged in being together that they had less interest in lifesaving. They did, though, enjoy sporting their lifesaving badges. As a matter of fact, when some people actually were rescued, it was kind of a nuisance because they were dirty and sick and soiled the carpeting and the furniture. Soon, the social activities of the club became so numerous and the lifesaving activities so few that there was a showdown at a club meeting, with some members insisting they return to their original purpose. A vote was taken; those voting for lifesaving were a tiny minority and were invited to leave the club and start another. Which is precisely what they did, a little down the coast. They did so with selflessness and daring in saving lives, and after a while, their heroism made them famous. Their membership was enlarged, their hut reconstructed, and you might guess how it went from there. If you happen to visit that area today, you will find a number of exclusive clubs dotting the shoreline, each of them justifiably proud of its origin and its tradition. Shipwrecks still occur in those parts, but nobody seems to notice much.1 Were it not for Pentecost, this could have been what happened to the first followers of Jesus Christ. If not for the persistent, expansive wind of the Spirit that invaded the locked rooms of the post-Easter disciples, the church might have become little more than a clubhouse for insiders. Do you remember where you were or what you were doing the day following Easter? Had anything changed? In the Gospels, even though we have these postEaster appearances of Jesus, his followers don t really stop long enough to enter a whole new life. A slightly remodeled life, perhaps, but like all of us, it appears they don’t like their routine disrupted—even as we seem to feel, without question, that something crucial is missing. Something more is urgently needed. Living in our world today, what most people are yearning for is not a slightly remodeled version of what we already know. Folks today, in and out of the church, are begging for nothing less than new life. But, there’s always a temptation to live much of life on automatic pilot, so there can be an implicit assumption for us who are seeking to follow Jesus that Easter really doesn’t change much at all. The National Transportation Safety Board recently weighed in on actual automatic


    Page 21

    pilots—the ones that are on airplanes—by saying that when it comes to “automatic pilot,” “humans are not good monitors of highly automated systems for extended periods of time.” “We want to acknowledge,” one veteran pilot noted, “that you can’t expect someone to be extremely vigilant for seven or five or even three hours. No light comes on to tell you that you’re being complacent.”2 Pentecost moved Easter out into the world and deep into our lives, where “automatic pilot” is just no way to live. Easter’s promise and urgency gets co-opted all the time. Jesus gets turned into whatever people seem to need Jesus to be, no matter how far away it is from the life of grace and hope that Jesus lived for and died for. One follower of the Easter Jesus recently put it this way:

    The other night I headed downtown for a stroll with some friends from out of town. We walked along the river, where there are street performers, artists, musicians. We passed a great magician who did some pretty sweet tricks like pour change out of his iPhone, and then there was a preacher. He wasn’t quite as captivating as the magician. He stood on a box, yelling into a microphone, and beside him was a coffin with a fake dead body inside. He talked about how we are all going to die and go to hell if we don’t know Jesus. Some folks snickered. Some told him to shut the hell up. A couple of teenagers tried to steal the dead body in the coffin. All I could do was think to myself how I wanted to jump up on a box beside him and yell at the top of my lungs, “God is not a monster.” Maybe next time I will.

    Shane Claiborne, the one recounting all this, reflected on the experience: ‘The more I have read the Bible and studied the life of Jesus, the more I have become convinced that Christianity spreads best not through force but through fascination. But over the past few decades our Christianity, at least here in the United States, has become less and less fascinating. We have given the atheists less and less to disbelieve. And the sort of Christianity many of us have seen on TV and heard on the radio looks less and less like Jesus.”3 Pentecost…is the gift of fascination. Renewing, enlivening, delighting. We seem to have lost the power and promise of God’s gifts of wonder and fascination in a world of management and survival, fear and division, coarse public dialogue and dulled expectations of beauty and hope. Pentecost gives the gift of fasciation and stops cold all attempts by those who want to turn God into a monster. Jesus really did mean that the way of love is the way of life. Jesus really did intend for peace to rule and justice to prevail. The triumph over the cross was a triumph over everything ugly we do to ourselves and to others. It is the final promise that love wins.4 Pentecost is the promise that the Spirit of the Risen Christ shows up every time Easter is about to be co-opted or manipulated or corrupted. It is the voice of Pentecost that says, “Not that way… this way… not for your own aims… but for God’s sake!” A colleague recently commented,

    I saw the expansive Acts 2 reach of God in the great mosaic at the church in Monreale, Sicily—a wonder of the medieval world. There, presiding over


    Page 22

    a dazzling array of jewel-like depictions of the story of our salvation is Christ Creator of All. Having seen photographs of that mosaic, I expected to be bedazzled by the Byzantine otherness of Christ, Christ the Judge of Humanity. And yet the Christ I saw was Chr ist of the wide embrace, hands outstretched, reaching out from his majesty as if to encircle the whole church, the whole creation. All the stories of scripture told with such vitality and wonder in the mosaics of Monreale are vignettes of this grand vision of a God who is stubbornly determined to embrace all of humanity. Leaving the church at Monreale, a street vendor held up a trinket with Christ’s picture stamped upon it. “Don’t you want to take a little Jesus with you, mister?” he asked. But no, I realized… we don’t take Christ with us—Christ always takes us places.5

    The Spirit of the Risen Christ given to us on Pentecost is the Spirit that reinforces that yes, Jesus really did mean everything he lived for and died for. That Pentecost Spirit also propels us into the world. And this holy Spirit of propulsion may drive you into the streets to set things right; it may cause you to leave the comforts of home for the next challenge, or it may drive you to return to the home where are those who have known you longest and know you best. You may be propelled to Washington D.C. or to Raleigh or Austin or Atlanta or to city council chambers or neighborhood gatherings. Then again, you may find yourself holding the hand of one at a bedside or folding your hands in prayer or accompanying a friend to an A A meeting. The Spirit of Pentecost can propel you to raise your voice or to learn to listen with a keener ear than you’ve ever known before. Whatever it is for you, make no mistake, God is speaking, and God is telling us that Jesus really meant all the things he lived for and died for. In The Spiritual Life Of Children, Robert Coles writes about Ginny, a young girl from a poor family who is bright, articulate, imaginative, and has a keenly developed spirituality. Ginny recounts, for example, that her uncle, who was wounded in Vietnam, is still nervous and upset and prone to frequent crying. Ginny wonders how God must have felt during the violence of the war. “If my uncle cries now,” she reflects, “God must have cried, too. God must have wept, don’t you think?” One day, Ginny was walking home, and along the way, she encountered an elderly woman who seemed lost and confused. Ginny asked the woman if she needed help, and the woman, in relief, responded, “If you could, that would be wonderful.” Ginny discovered that the woman had been walking to visit her daughter but had gotten disoriented. Although Ginny was late for her home chores, she sensed that getting this troubled stranger safely to her destination was the chore she most needed to be doing. So she traveled with her, talked gently to her, listened to her as the woman spoke of the pain of her life, and guided her to her daughter’s house. When they arrived and Ginny started to leave, the woman grasped her arm and announced that God had sent Ginny to her and that later she would pray a prayer of thanks to God for having Ginny there. On the way home, Ginny wondered what it would be like to be old. She wondered if when she were old and in need, God would send some kid like her to help. “Maybe God puts you here,” Ginny thought, “and gives you these hints of what’s ahead, and you should pay attention to them, because that’s God speaking to you.” Will Willimon has told about his days as a Methodist bishop in Alabama:


    Page 23

    One of my churches served breakfast to close to 200 homeless people every morning. I was there awhile back, and on my way in, I noticed a man in the kitchen washing dishes, up to his elbows in dishwater. I recognized the man as a lawyer, a member of the largest, most affluent suburban congregation the city. “I think it’s wonderful you are here, washing dishes for the homeless,” Willimon said to him. “Good for you,” he mumbled, not looking up from his work. “Have you always enj oyed ministry with the homeless ?” Willimon asked. “Who told you I enjoyed working with the homeless?” The lawyer asked. “Have you met any of the homeless out there? Most of them are crazy, or so addicted or messed up that nobody, not even their family, wants them home.” “Well, I, er, I think that makes it all the more remarkable what you are here doing,” Willimon responded. “How did you get here?” The man looked up from the dishwasher and replied: “I’m here because Jesus put me here. How did you get here?”6

    Jesus really did mean all that he lived for and all that he died for. And just to make sure we understand that, at Pentecost we are given the Spirit to propel us into those places we may not go on our own. At Pentecost, we learn that there’s no ignoring Easter power; there’s never the option to simply “add a little Easter” to our lives in the presence of the Spirit of the Risen Christ. We cannot follow Jesus and casually pass by all Pentecost does to sing Easter’s song in all times and in all places. Two years before Duke Ellington died in 1972, Yale University held a gathering of leading black jazz musicians in order to raise money for a department of AfricanAmerican music. Aside from Ellington, the musicians who came for three days of concerts, jam sessions, and workshops included Eubie Blake, Noble Sissle, Dizzy Gillespie, Charles Mingus, Max Roach, Mary Lou Williams, and Willie (the Lion) Smith. During a performance by a Gillespie led sextet, someone evidently unhappy with this presence on campus called in a bomb threat. The police attempted to clear the building, but Charles Mingus refused to leave, urging the officers to get all the others out but adamantly remaining onstage with his bass. “Racism planted that bomb, but racism ain’t strong enough to kill this music,” he was heard telling the police captain. “If T m going to die, T m ready. But T m going out playing ‘ Sophisticated Lady.’ ” Once outside, Gillespie and his group set up again. But coming from inside was the sound of Mingus intently playing Ellington’s dreamy thirties hit, which that day became a protest song, as the performance just kept going on and on and getting hotter . In the street, Ellington stood in the waiting crowd just beyond the theatre’s open doors smiling—as Mingus filled the space with passion and protest and hope and life.7 Pentecost keeps playing the song of Easter, and plays it with such passion, such fascination, such protest, such joy… that it just keeps going on and on, getting hotter and hotter. It catches us up in its wake and moves us into what Jesus cared about most: a day, a life filled with hope and love, at work bringing peace into the world, engaged in opening up the spigots of justice so it can roar down like an ever-flowing stream. Jesus really did care about all the things he lived for and all the things he died for.


    Page 24

    And now, the Spirit of the Risen Christ has shown up and filled us up with new life, the very thing for which the world is desperate. Easter’s power just keeps going on and on and on; it’s getting hotter and hotter. And you and I have got to get going!

    Notes 1 I have seen this story in several forms and cited from many sources over the last may years. 2 Christine Negroni, “As Attention Wanders, Rethinking the Autopilot,”The New York Times, May 18, 2010. 3 http://www.esquire.eom/features/best-and-brightest-2009/shane-claiborne-1209#ixzz0ofmZhteS . 4 Ibid. 5 William Willimon, Pulpit Resource, Logos Productions, May 23, 2010. 6 William Willimon, “Life With Laity,” Journal for Preachers, Pentecost 2009. 7 Claudia Roth Pierpont, “Black, Brown, and Beige: Duke Ellington’s Music and Race in America,” The New Yorker, May 17, 2010.

  • Ahead of Us

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 14

    Ahead of Us

    Mark 16:1-8

    Joanna M. Adams

    Atlanta, Georgia

    You cannot see them until a slender ribbon of gold appears over the hills. Then, there they are, silhouettes against the sky. Three moving figures, three women walking swiftly, three pairs of hands, each carrying something. You see determination in every step they take. Mark tells us who they are: Mary Magdalen, a long-time follower of Jesus, Mary the mother of James, and Salomé, another female disciple. He tells us they travel in the early morning light of the first day of the week, the day after the Jewish Sabbath, which required abstinence from work or travel. Now that a new day has come, they are on their way to perform a necessary, yet heart-rending task. Their destination? A tomb in the garden of Joseph of Arimathea, a righteous Jew who had asked Pilate for the body of Jesus of Nazareth after Jesus had endured the ignominy of a tortured, gruesome death on a hill outside Jerusalem called Golgotha. His crimes? Alleged blasphemy against the religious establishment and charges of sedition by the Roman Empire. The women’s mission is to anoint the body of Jesus. Now that the sun is rising, you can see what they are carrying: a bowl, a basket, a jar. Mark reveals that the containers hold the spices needed to deal with the body, now three days in the grave. Odor would be a problem by now, as well as decay. No time to tarry. Our narrator does not burden us with details in his spare account, but a bit of background information might be illuminating. First, Salomé and the two Marys are not Jerusalem residents. They live in the region called Galilee and had come to the capital city for the Festival of Passover along with many thousands of others who made that annual pilgrimage. To their horror, however, the festive week had ended with unimaginable loss and sorrow. They had followed Jesus throughout his ministry and believed him to be the long-awaited Messiah of the Hebrew people. His teachings had altered their lives. His love for them and for all people was like nothing they had ever experienced. It was a love and power that was not of this world, as if that love had come from another realm, indeed, from heaven itself. On Friday, the women witnessed Jesus’ death on the cross. Today, they are about the grim business of the post death ritual. They are close enough now for you to hear most of what they are saying to one another. Though Mark does not include all they must have said, I imagine they would have spoken of practical things. Women tend to do that at times of death and loss. Who will make sure the flowers have been placed properly in the chancel at the church? Who will be at the house when guests come to pay their respects? Did you remember to put the sign-in book in the narthex? And above all else, what about the food? I remember when the matriarch of a church I served died. After the interment, a great crowd of friends and family gathered at the home for what turned out to be a genuine post-funeral feast—congealed salad, tossed salad, potato salad, baked


    Page 15

    beans, broccoli casseroles, cherry pie and brownies, coconut cake and lemon squares. Then, there was the chicken—stewed chicken, fried chicken, chicken made into a pie. Chicken salad, chicken nuggets, chicken baked, and chicken grilled. There must be something about chicken that sooths the grieving heart. Who presided over the buffet table and the kitchen? Who filled glasses with iced tea and put out the lemon and sugar and Splenda? The women did. It was and is the way of things. A way of loving for us. For us, a way of loving. The women on the way to the grave had taken care of all the needed details except one. What on earth were they going to do about the stone that sealed the mouth of the tomb? They had seen Joseph use all the strength he had in his body and then some to put it in place, to keep the grave robbers out. May we pause for a second? I want to ask a question. Where are the men? Is Peter, the upon-this-rock-I-will-build-my-church Peter anywhere around? How about James and Andrew? Surely a couple of brawny former fishermen could solve the stone problem in a heartbeat. The likelihood is that deep grief has overtaken them. Fear of harm of arrest would also have kept them away. So, it came to pass that only the three women are ascribed the role of “custodians of the crucifixion.”1 Lest I pat the two Marys and Salomé on the back too enthusiastically, let’s remember that they, like the men who had followed Jesus, were themselves grieving deeply. Like the men, they were sure that he was dead and gone. They had been there when he had breathed his last. They had been there when he was buried in the tomb. Their plan was practical. Wipe and wrap. Rub and pour, pay respect. They brought funeral spices, not expectations. Now, back to the problem of the stone. What are they going to do? Have you ever tried to open a combination lock without the combination? Have you ever tried to lift a king size water bed? Some things are just too much for mere mortals to do. God knows that, which is why, when the women arrive at the tomb, they see that “the stone, which was very large has already been rolled away.” Is there a message for us here? I think so. When something is impossible for human beings to accomplish, remember that nothing is impossible with God.2 That rolled away stone is surprise number one. Surprise number two is the sight of a young man dressed in white (which indicates that he is an angelic heavenly messenger) sitting inside the tomb. In other circumstances, an angel sighting might really perk a person up, but here the fellow is an unsettling sight, and the women are alarmed. “Be not alarmed,” the man says to them. “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised. He is not here. Look, there is the place they had laid him.” Those words give voice to the central claim of the Christian faith: “He has been raised.” Imagine yourself standing where the women stood when this glad news was announced. Would you have been glad, sad, incredulous, dismayed? “He has been raised.” Would you have taken the fellow’s word for it? Would the absence of Jesus’ body make a believer out of you? In I Corinthians, a letter composed before any of the gospels were put together, the Apostle Paul maintained that “if there is no resurrection from the dead, then Chr ist has not been raised…and if Christ has not been raised, then my preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain….If for this life only we have hoped, we are of all people most to be pitied.”3 So far in this Easter story, though, there is not much resurrection


    Page 16

    evidence to go on. Remember the words of the poignant and beautiful African American spiritual “Were you there when they crucified my Lord?” I personally was not there, but there were many witnesses to the crucifixion. “Were you there when they nailed him to the tree?” Yes, witnesses. “Were you there when they laid him in the tomb?” Eye witnesses to the burial as well. “Were you there when God raised him from the grave?” No. You and I were most definitely not there, and neither was anyone else. The most important of all occurrences in heaven and on earth takes place out of human sight and without a sound heard by any human ear. One New Testament scholar puts it in this striking way: “God and God alone raised Jesus from the dead, and in doing so, God altered the rules of the “[women’s] known world.” Ours too.4 As does Mark, none of the other three gospel accounts tells how God did it. In one gospel, there are two angelic beings; in another, a pile of used grave clothes lies in the corner, but there are no descriptions of what specifically occurred. To be human, that is to be mortal, is to lack the capacity to know what God and God only knows. I have come to believe that the how question is not nearly as important as the who question. “Resurrection was an event transacted between God the Father and God the Son, by the [life-giving] power of the Holy Spirit.”5 God ’s doing, every bit of it. The story is told of a seminary professor who was fond of asking his students this question: “If the town reprobate was buried in a plot in the cemetery, and the town ’s most upright citizen were buried right next to him, and God came along and said, ’Get up, ’ which one would get up first?” The professor would pause and then say, “Neither, of course, for only God raises the dead.”6 “We know nothing about what happened,” Richard Lischer writes. “Whether the earth was shuddered or was still. Whether the night was warm or cool. We do not know what he looked like when he was no longer dead. Maybe he burst from the tomb in glory, or maybe he came out like Lazarus, blinking his eyes and unwrapping his shroud…. All of which is to say that proof of Jesus ’victory over death is much less likely to be found back there in the cemetery than it is out there in the world, which according to the Easter story, is now alive with the risen Christ.”7 “Go tell the disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you,” said the man in white. “No need to spend any more time here. You, Peter, and the rest of the disciples will find him out there, alive in the world.” The women left the tomb, but the whole experience had rendered them speechless and terrified. This is a story looking for a happier, more complete ending, isn’t it? Sometime in the 3rd century, CE, editors of the Scriptures did attach a wrap-it-all-up ending that was cheerier, which leaves open the question of what to do with the original ending. Consider this, that the incompleteness is an invitation to you and to me and everyone who has encountered the story across the centuries. We are called to do what the women failed to do, which was to bear witness in word and deed to the living presence of Christ the Lord. It is not just that he has risen but that he is risen.8 The Risen Lord empowers us in the present and goes ahead of us into the future. These days, anxiety and cynicism have a way of pulling at us to give up, shut


    Page 17

    up, and sign off, but the Risen Lord will have none of it. “Have you forgotten that I have overcome the world? Don t let the forces of darkness get the best of you. Give the best of yourselves to my purposes of love and justice and peace.” Remember that thin ribbon of gold that began to be visible over the dark hills outside of Jerusalem? That was the dawn of a new day, when a new set of unknown and unimaginable possibilities were released into this world. Yes, things still appear to be in a mess, but appearances can be deceiving. In a memorable Easter sermon, William Sloan Coffin maintained that Easter is about the victory of seemingly powerless love over loveless power. In the end, even the power of the Roman Empire could not withstand the force of the powerless love of God, embodied in the person of Christ. God took on the identity of a vulnerable human being who emptied himself, taking on the form of a servant, and ended up enduring death, even death on a cross.9 The power of powerless love rolled the stone away. The power of powerless love raised Jesus from the dead, and now the Risen Lord is out there. Will we be able to see him? Of course, we will. He will come to us, as he did to those who followed him long ago, during times of doubt and fear. When we gather with the community of faith, he will be made known in the breaking of the bread. When shadows fall, and death is close at hand, he is there, giving comfort through acts of human kindness and the reassurance of life everlasting. He will be with us in the person of a stranger, as someone who is hungry and thirsty, as the undocumented and forgotten, as one who has no home and lives on the streets, as one who lives close at hand in our homes every day. I think of a young advertising executive who came every Tuesday night to help at the foot clinic of the night shelter our church provided. This was not a task for the faint of heart. The volunteer would fill a basin with warm, soapy water and wash the feet of the guest, who likely had walked all day in secondhand shoes. There were always bunions, corns, and sores to treat. Last came a foot massage with Vick’s Vapor Rub as the ointment, followed by the gift of a pair of clean white socks. (The whole process makes me think of the women who came to wipe and wrap, rub and pour, and pay their respects.) One evening, I asked the well-turned-out young volunteer, “Why do you come every week?” “I figure I have a really good chance of running into Jesus here,” he said. Then, there was the father, who, one evening, got to horsing around with his daughter before supper. They chased one another around the dining room table, playing tag. He laughed, she giggled. When they sat down for dinner, he looked across the table at the smiling face of his daughter and said right out loud, “Surely, the Lord is in this place.” Jesus lives today. May we go from this place with Easter eyes to see him, Easter hearts to love him, Easter ethics to serve him.

    Notes 1 Serene Jones, Feasting on the Word, Year B, Volume 2, (WJK Press, Louisville, KY, 2008), p.354. 2 Luke 1:37. 3 I Corinthiansl5:13-14.


    Page 18

    4 Gail R. O’Day, Feasting on the Word, Year B, Volume 2, (WJK Press, Louisville, KY, 2008) p.357. 5 Richard Lischer, “We Have Seen the Lord,” Christian Century, 3/17/1999, p.307. 6 William J. Carl III, “Something Happened,” Journal for Preachers, 1986, p. 13. 7 Ibid., Lischer. 8 David L. Bartlett, “Jesus Ahead of Us, Not Behind,” Christian Century,3113191, p. 291. 9 Philippians 2:5-11.

  • On Brueggemann, Money, and Possessions

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 32

    On Brueggemann, Money, and Possessions

    Brent A. Strawn

    Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

    I was both pleased and privileged to serve as one of the endorsers of Walter Brueggemann’s recent book, Money and Possessions 1 As a starting point for the present essay, let me repeat that blurb, which appears on the back of the book’s dustcover :

    Who else could write this book but Walter Brueggemann? For decades, his work has touched on the topics of money, possessions, and power that he takes up here extensively and directly in his inimitable, incisive, and insightful way. All the trademark qualities of his scholarship are on display once again: his gifts with language; his ability to comprehend, categorize, thematize, and interpret a stunning range of texts; his unmatched canonical dexterity across both Old and New Testaments; and his eye on present-day sociopolitical and theo-ecclesial realities. We have become accustomed to Brueggemann’s ways (and books) among us, but this volume will easily stand out among the best in his large and most impressive oeuvre. The opening chapter alone left me in awe.

    This paragraph, while perhaps a bit long as “blurbs” go, is rather brief given the significance of Money and Possessions, and so I again felt both pleased and privileged to be invited to say more about Brueggemann’s remarkable book in this essay. If I may, and in something akin to a preaching mode, I would offer that my endorsement relates to what follows on analogy with the way a text relates to a sermon based on the same. What follows below is not exactly a sermon, of course, but if it is not entirely homiletical, then it is at least, I hope, expositional: not only of my blurb but of Brueggemann’s book, providing preachers an entrée into this work and its great utility for the crucial, indeed indispensable task of preaching—especially for preaching that matters in the real world, which is, in our time and place, a world ruled by Almighty Dollar, another worthy epithet for that apparently omnipresent and omnipotent god, Mammon. Still further, if my “sermon” at points deviates from my text—or put more generously—moves beyond it…well, preachers will recognize, I suspect, that that is often the case with many sermons with respect to their initial, inspiring textual origin!

    Who but Brueggemann? Certainly Walter Brueggemann needs no introduction to the readers of this journal. Not only is Journal for Preachers closely associated with Columbia Theological Seminary , Brueggemann’s academic home prior to retiring, but his own work has appeared in the pages of this journal numerous times—by my count, no less than forty or fifty times. That figure alone would surpass many scholars’ total for an entire academic career, but for Brueggemann it is just a drop in the bucket. His publications are far too numerous to recount here,2 but it is not just the quantity of his publications that makes Brueggemann well-known; it is also and more importantly their quality—still


    Page 33

    further, their gravity. As Richard Horsley nicely puts it in his foreword to Money and Possessions, “He is surely the most widely admired and appreciated biblical scholar of this generation. His books on biblical theology have decisively shaped the thinking of a whole generation of teachers, students, ministers, and laypeople.”3 Brueggemann has made this impact through a host of impressive publications—book-length and otherwise. Among the former, one thinks immediately of his breakthrough works The Prophetic Imagination, The Message of the Psalms, and Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy :4 This trilogy is imposing: again, most mere (scholarly) mortals would dream of only writing one book that could have the kind of impact each of these three has had, and to underscore the point even further, there are still other, equally well-known books from Brueggemann’s pen that might have been mentioned alongside or in lieu of these.5 Despite this most impressive (and massive) oeuvre, I believe that Money and Possessions will endure as one of Brueggemann’s most significant works for at least two reasons, both of which are mentioned, though not enumerated in quite this way, in my endorsement above—namely, (1) that “for decades, his work has touched on the topics of money, possessions, and power” especially given his ever watchful “eye on present-day sociopolitical and theo-ecclesial realities”6; and (2) “his unmatched canonical dexterity across both Old and New Testaments which allows him “to comprehend, categorize, thematize, and interpret a stunning range of texts.”7 These factoids and factors prompted me to ask, as did Horsley, “Who else could write this book but Walter Brueggemann?”8 But astute readers (and preachers) will go further, adding these two items together for a calculus that is nothing short of a great gift to the task of preaching and the life of faith: Money and Possessions is a one-stop shop on one of the most important topics—perhaps the most important topic—of and for our times, written by one of the most gifted interpreters of our time. The latter point, Brueggemann’s scholarly status, seems uncontroversial, not to mention incontrovertible; but the former, the importance of money and possession, needs further explication.

    Brueggemann on Money and Possessions in Money and Possessions Brueggemann offers exactly that sort of explication, and from the very beginning —indeed, already on the very first page of his own preface to Money and Possessions :

    The purpose of this book is to exhibit the rich, recurring, and diverse referenees to money and possessions that permeate the Bible. While we might conventionally assume, as we do in practice, that economics is an add-on or a side issue in the biblical text, an inventory of texts such as I offer here makes it unmistakably clear that economics is a core preoccupation of the biblical tradition.9

    So, first and foremost, the subject matter at hand is important because, as Brueggematin himself testifies, “I have, in ways that have surprised me, come to the conclusion that the Bible is indeed about money and possessions and the way in which they are gifts of the creator God to be utilized in praise and obedience.”10 Of course, matters are never so simple as “praise and obedience”—not in the case of the Bible or in


    Page 34

    Brueggemann’s analysis thereof, nor in the human experience of money and possessions . And so, he immediately qualifies matters: “Money and possessions are of course intensely seductive, so that they can reduce praise to self-congratulations and obedience to self-sufficiency.’’11 Another intriguing if not complicating factor—beyond the sheer mass of biblical material, which Brueggemann admits to finding a bit overwhelming12—is the fact that “the economy, in ancient faith tradition, merited and received much more attention than is usual in conventional church rendering. ’13 Right from the start, therefore, we are faced with what is the central conundrum of the book—a kind of interpretive but also existential dyad (such formulations are quintessentially “Brueggemannian”),14 or rather, set of two dyads:

    1. The Bible (and life) is everywhere about money and possessions, but we are loath to talk about that (especially in church!). 2. Money and possessions are to be used faithfully in praise and obedience, but they are frequently employed to the contrary and only for the most selfish of ends (including in church).

    On the first dyad, Money and Possessions can be seen as a means to let the Bible have its fulsome say about these matters, especially to those who belong to the church and are tasked with its leadership and care. In this way, the book begins a conversation —or better, proves to be a crucial facilitator or first speaker in a long overdue interlocution about money and possessions and (and within) the church. Certainly, Money and Possessions could be used, at the very least, to fund an extensive sermon series on these matters or as a resource for individual sermons on the same (hopefully more than just on the once-a-year “Stewardship Sunday”). But Money and Possessions would also repay longer engagement: as the basis for an extended small group study, whether led by clergy or not. On the second dyad, Money and Possessions is important because, as Brueggemann stresses throughout the book, this is the very stuff of life, well-being, flourishing, survival. And, insofar as the God of Scripture cares about these matters—matters of money and matters of possession—those who claim to care about this God, worship this God, even love this God must pay deathly close attention to these matters lest their claims prove, in the end, to be nothing but lies because the tale of the money shows otherwise. It is not surprising, then, to find Brueggemann advocating certain positions when it comes to the Bible’s say about money and possessions and how these intersect with the real world of life and survival. He insists he did not set out to advocate, but was instead content to report about the texts. What he found, however, was “that the texts themselves pressed in the direction of advocacy. ”15 Of course Brueggemann is well aware, since he is a responsible interpreter, that not all of the texts drive in the same direction; he knows that there are, as it were, counter-traditions that are not as easily received,16 but he is also clear as to where the primary testimony or weight of Scripture lies.17 It is with “a decisive either-or” that pits God vs. Mammon.18 And so, again, we find another Brueggemannian dyad—another kind of either-or: “an economy of extraction, whereby concentrated power serves to extract wealth from vulnerable people in order to transfer it to the more powerful” vs “an economy of restoration that pivots on debt cancellation. ”19 This latter dyad, no less than the other


    Page 35

    two delineated earlier, is operative throughout Money and Possessions, even if that operation is sometimes under the surface. Also operative throughout the book, though rarely explicitly, are the six theses about money and possessions that Brueggemann identifies in his introduction, which is subtitled “A Material Faith. 2° ״As I said in my endorsement, this chapter left me in awe; in my judgment it alone is worth the price of the book and should be read and reread as a substantive primer on what the Bible says on these matters. The six theses are as follows:

    1. Money and possessions are gifts from God. 2. Money and possessions are received as reward for obedience. 3. Money and possessions belong to God and are held in trust by human persons in community. 4. Money and possessions are sources of social injustice. 5. Money and possessions are to be shared in a neighborly way. 6. Money and possessions are seductions that lead to idolatry.

    Brueggemann proceeds to unpack each of these theses, even if only briefly. So, for example, with regard to the first thesis, the proper human response to God’s gifts is gratitude, and a practical effect of this thesis is to resist all temptation to self-sufficiency or autonomy, lest, in forgetting the giver, the gifts themselves are distorted destructively.21 Or, in the case of the second thesis, the Bible shows that God “is not indifferent to human conduct. ”22 Obedience brings us in sync with God and God’s created order with the result being a life that will flourish. Brueggemann also makes clear that these theses stand in marked contrast “to the conventional wisdom of the ancient world and…the uncriticized wisdom of market ideology. ”23 So for example, the first thesis “contradicts market ideology in which there are no gifts, no free lunches; there are only payouts for adequate performance and production.”24 Or the third thesis, that money and possessions are held in trust from God, “contradicts the pretention of market ideology that imagines, not unlike Pharaoh with his Nile, that ‘my money is my own; I earned it and can do with it what I want. ’ ”25 Or again the sixth thesis, which acknowledges that money and possession can be idolatrous seductions, “contradicts the market view that money and possessions are inert and innocent neutral objects. ”26 “We live,” Brueggemann insists at the end of his introduction, “in a society that would like to bracket out money and possessions (politics and economics) from ultímate questions. The Bible insists otherwise,” which means that “biblical testimony invites a serious reconsideration of the ways in which our society engages or does not engage questions of money and possessions as carriers of social possibility. ”27 “The Bible talks relentlessly about economics,” he continues, “about the management and distribution of life resources so that all the neighbors can live an ‘abundant life’…. That abundant life, however, includes all the neighbors, human and nonhuman. That inclusiveness requires a recharacterization of the body politic as an arena for the performance and embodiment of the will of the creator God, a will that contradicts much of our preferred, uncriticized practice. ”28 That is how the opening chapter ends; I am still in awe. The remaining chapters of Money and Possessions then walk through the Bible, in canonical order, hitting on the main texts that Brueggemann deems most pertinent to


    Page 36

    the discussion, even if, as he himself notes, there are others that might be discussed.29 Brueggemann begins with what he calls “Israel’s Core Narrative: No Coveting!” (chapter 2), which covers a good bit of the Torah besides the Tenth Commandment proper, before moving to “Deuteronomy: The Great Either-Or of Neighborliness” (chapter 3); “Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings: The Contest” (chapter 4); “1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah: Empire and Extraction” (chapter 5) ; “The Psalms: Torah, Temple, Wisdom” (chapter 6); “Proverbs and Job: Wise Beyond Smart” (chapter 7); “The Prophets: Wealth Ill-Gotten and Lost, Wealth Given Again” (chapter 8); “The Five Scrolls: Scripts of Loss and Hope, Commodity and Agency” (chapter 9); “The Gospels: Performance of an Alternative Economy” (chapter 10); “Acts: Community amid Empire” (chapter 11); “Paul: Life in the Land of Divine Generosity” (chapter 12); “The Pastoral Epistles: Order in the Household” (chapter 13); “The Letter of James: The Deep Either-Or of Practice” (chapter 14); “The Book of Revelation: The Ultimate Alternative” (chapter 15). Obviously this recounting of the chapters is only a listing, and doesn’t begin to suggest the provocative insights that Brueggemann raises, though three things should be mentioned, the first two of which are clear already from the table of contents. First, and simply put, there is a lot in the Bible about money and possessions ! As already noted, Brueggemann admits to a selective presentation, but his coverage is extensive—and this is not only due to Brueggemann’s interpretive skill but due to the riches of his text-base. Put differently, the table of contents alone suffices as robust witness that the Bible indeed is preoccupied—obsessed may not be too strong a word—with money and possessions. Second, Brueggemann feels free to engage the New Testament and does so in no less than five chapters. Therefore, the coverage is broad in terms of Brueggemann’s treatment of money and possessions and in terms of the Bible’s own treatment of the same. Since I am not a New Testament scholar, I am certainly not the best evaluator of these five chapters, but in my judgment they are every bit as lucid and insightful as those on the Old Testament, even as it is clear that Brueggemann depends a bit more on secondary literature when he treats the New Testament materials. Third, true to Brueggemann’s concern for the here-and-now and his keen awareness of present-day sociopolitical (as well as theo-ecclesial) realities, one finds throughout these chapters frequent and poignant connections between the Bible and today’s world. Here are but three brief examples:

    • In speaking of the golden calf episode in Exodus 32, Brueggemann states, “It does not require much imagination to transpose the bull of gold to the icon of Wall Street, with its ‘bullish’ markets, to see the allure of money that may distort neighborly covenantal relationships.”30 • On the biblical laws against bribery, “an act that permits economic leverage to skew neighborly justice,” Brueggemann writes, “the tradition knows about the ways money corrupts neighborly practices of justice. It is but an extension of the abusive power of money noted in these verses to connect this regulation to the recent court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This Supreme Court ruling has permitted those with immense wealth to distort democratic processes in the United States by the undue impact of money that is on offer in exchange for preferential


    Page 37

    consideration on government policy.”31 • On the description of the monarch in 1 Samuel 8, Brueggemann notes, “It is the verb ‘ take’ that dominates the description. Monarchy will be a confiscatory regulatory agency that will tax the produce of the peasants… every aspect of productive agricultural life… .The term [for the king’s ‘justice’ in this text, Hebrew mispat] suggests more than ‘way, custom or practice’ ; it asserts that the coming monarchy will regard confiscatory practice as justice, as the proper and right deployment of wealth and possessions.”32 Brueggemann is clear that the proper modern-day analogue, at least here in the United States, is not some sort of caricaturized “big government” paradigm but is instead to be found far more extensively, and insidiously, in terms of globalized business replete with their major, multi-national corporations who would, if permitted, be more than happy to charge for water because every foodstuff “should have a market value” and because everything “has a price.”33

    Where to Now? I trust that this brief overview of Money and Possessions is enough to demonstrate its great utility for present-day preaching, present-day theologizing, and present-day practice. I have no caveat emptor nor caveat lector to enter here, apart from the wish that the lector (of this essay) become an emptor and that buyers of the book, in turn, actually read it!34 But what should preachers do, specifically, once they have secured a copy of this book and digested it for themselves? This question is just another way to ask another—the perennial “where do we go from here” which is not entirely unrelated to still another, “Will this preach, and if so, how?” I certainly don’t have all of the answers to these questions. Excellent exegesis—and Money and Possessions is nothing if not that—should eventuate in excellent practice(s) that is both nimble and prudential. As a means of pointing toward such practice(s), I want to lift up one of Brueggemann’s more trenchant remarks in the book and refleet on it. Here is the arresting judgment he enters: “Given such an economic map that receives many variant articulations in the Bible, it is simply astonishing that the church has willingly engaged in a misreading of the biblical text in order to avoid the centrality of money and possessions in its testimony.”35 Brueggemann immediately specifies how this misreading has been achieved— namely, “by focusing on individual destiny (and sin), by spiritualizing and privatizing evangelical testimony (among both liberals and conservatives), and by offering hopes that are otherworldly.”36 A pernicious dualism that permits a too-easy bifurcation between the spiritual and the public underwrites much of this, to be sure, but Brueggemann also notes that this “deceptive misreading is aided and abetted by a lectionary that mostly disregards the hard texts on money and possessions. ”37 Alongside the guilty lectionary we might, or rather must, also implicate preachers and liturgists who are often complicit in these crimes—crimes that are, as Money and Possessions repeatedly shows, against God, against our neighbors, and against God’s good gifts of earth and food. Mea culpa! Nostra culpa! So, again, what to do? Brueggemann’s attention to the deficiencies of the lectionary is instructive, I would suggest, as it gestures toward concrete and liturgical ways that our many and churchly infidelities in the matter of money and possessions might


    Page 38

    begin to be rectified. So, as a way of reflecting on Brueggemann’s critique of church and lectionary, I’d like to offer a bit more exploration of the problem before offering a more concrete suggestion toward better practice(s). Elsewhere, I too have noted several serious deficits in the well-rounded biblical “diet” that the lectionary, generously interpreted, intends to offer us.38 In my own study, the demerits in question had to do with the extent of the Old Testament readings more generally; for Brueggemann, the problem is with the absence of important texts that deal with money and possessions more specifically. Ways to move forward, in either case, include the crafting of new lectionaries, the cultivation of bold liturgists (and preachers) who will read parts that are otherwise only “recommended” (by means of the ominous parentheses) or that are left out (censored?) altogether, and alternative practices such as lectio continua or targeted preaching or teaching that attends explicitly and extensively to the troublesome (to us and our pocketbooks!) texts about money and possessions found in Holy Scripture. If the church is suffering from a problem that is caused (at least in part) by the lectionary, it seems easy enough to fix the issues with the liturgical instrument—assuming the preacher or teacher in question is bold enough and brave enough to do so. We need far more of those types of leaders these days. For too long, they have been in far too short supply. This last remark circles back to Brueggemann’s accusation of intentional misreading on the part of the church. The question at this point is a direct one: How have we who are tasked with the theological and thought- (and practice-) leadership of the church been not only participants in such misreading but willing purveyors of it? In The Old Testament Is Dying, I wondered if the lack of Old Testament preaching (among other things) was not only a sign of its decline but a direct contributor to the same.39 Similar worries obtain in the case of Brueggemann’s dataset. The lack of preaching, teaching, and even hearing the many biblical texts about money and possessions is, in this light, not only evidence of misreading Scripture but also (and perhaps more fundamentally and problematically) proof of a systemic underlearning of Scripture—one that allows Christians, especially of the more well-off sort, to blissfully spiritualize, bifurcate, and dualize what the Bible insists is irreducibly material, unified, one. Even more troubling, insofar as faithful action is a primary way that Christians manifest their proper acquisition of the language of Scripture—namely, by putting it into practice—any and all failures to perform the Bible’s covenantal economics is a sign of inadequate language learning, proof that Christians have, in fact, not learned the language of faith but are fluent in another mother tongue instead: the language of a rapacious, consumeristic, and militaristic economy. The situation is dire, the stakes are high, the task is urgent. The concrete suggestion I would offer in closing is one that underlies much of Brueggemann’s argument in Money and Possessions, but also in much of his entire published corpus. It is simply this: that Israel and the church are to be different.4° They and we are to manifest a different kind of economics, an alternative economy, a way of relating to money and possessions that will, at least as presently construed, be utterly alien to Wall Street and Main Street alike.41 The church must practice a different and better way. Otherwise, the ekklesia will disappear and end up as one and the same with the world that it was (and is!) called out from.42 Practicing a different and better way is, of course, far easier said than done. How can a church practice better economic relations? Beyond a “Good Samaritan”


    Page 39

    fund, a soup kitchen, or clothing drives—none of which should be downplayed in importance (not at all!)—what other things could a church do to manifest “another way” with money and possessions? It’s difficult to imagine the majority of churches getting into the business of low- or no-interest loans to the needy, for example, though that isn’t a bad idea, especially for the more affluent of congregations. But barring that or countless other specific ideas that could be entertained and enacted, I suspect a primary way that the church will practice an alternative economics is through its people: the people who make up the church and who go off to work on Monday at various businesses of various sorts; who control, to greater or lesser degrees, money and possessions of their own and vis-à-vis others; and who are impacted—in no small measure—by their preachers. They are impacted negatively by preachers who misread or underread so as to misinform and malform their flocks with regard to the urgent materiality of biblical faith. But they are impacted positively by bold preachers who are not afraid to say what needs to be said. Well, that last part may not be true. I suspect that even bold preachers are deathly afraid to say what needs to be said, but, despite real risk, these types of leaders will not cower in fear before Almighty Dollar. They will not refuse to say what must be said just to keep the tithers placated and coming back and the income coming in.43 Bold preachers will not succumb to their lesser selves—as tempting and lucrative as that may be. They know the truth of Paul’s words as it pertains to their own people: “How can they call on someone they don’t have faith in? And how can they have faith in someone they haven’t heard of? And how can they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14; CEB). Let those with ears to hear, listen—and then proclaim. For clergy, that is, the test may well be how indebted (!) we are to Mammon such that we avoid saying what the Bible says repeatedly and clearly for fear of some sort of (economic) reprisal by the congregation (or community). For laity, the test may not be only about how well they heed the call to an alternative economics uttered from an emboldened pulpit, but also about how well they reshape their businesses and consumptive practices accordingly.44 Either way, on either side, we have to admit that, of late, in the present-day either-or struggle between God and Mammon, God is losing. Perhaps Brueggemann’s Money and Possessions can make a difference.

    Notes 1 Walter Brueggemann, Money and Possessions (Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016). In his preface, Brueggemann attributes the title of the book to “the sober Presbyterian series in which the book is placed,” adding that if it had been published elsewhere, it might have been better titled Follow the Money or It’s the Economy, Stupid (xix). 2 For a good portion (though not all!) of the published work, seethebibliographiesincludedinTodLinafelt and Timothy K. Beal, eds., God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 321-40; Walter Brueggemann with Carolyn Sharp, Living Countertestimony: Conversations with Walter Brueggemann (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 165-99; and Walter Brueggemann, From Whom No Secrets Are Hid: Introducing the Psalms, ed. Brent A. Strawn (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 177-88. 3 Richard Horsley, “Foreword,” in Brueggemann, Money and Possessions, xi-xvii (xi). 4 See Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (2d ed. ; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001 [original: 1978]); idem, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), idem, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). 5 E.g., many will be most familiar with Brueggemann’s commentaries: Genesis (Interpretation; Atlanta : John Knox, 1982); “The Book of Exodus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The


    Page 40

    New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1: General and Old Testament Articles, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, ed. Leander E. Keck et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 677-981; Deuteronomy (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001); First and Second Samuel (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1990); Isaiah (2 vols.; Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998); A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); and, with William H. Bellinger, Jr., Psalms (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 6 I will never forget how Brueggemann once told me over a meal that the most important book he read on the Bible was José Miranda’s, Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1974). Brueggemann cites this volume in Money and Possessions, 74-75. 7 The second item is also lauded by Horsley, “Loreword,” xi. 8 Cf. Horsley, “Loreword,” xi: “Who other than Walter Brueggemann could undertake a survey of attitudes toward money and possessions in the books of the Bible as a whole?” 9 Brueggemann, Money and Possessions, xix. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.: “At times I have been almost overwhelmed by the richness of the material.” 13 Ibid. 14 Lor some of Brueggemann’s “cadences,” see Brent A. Strawn, “On Walter Brueggemann: (A Personal) Testimony, (Three) Dispute(s), (and On) Advocacy,” in Imagination, Ideology and Inspiration: Echoes of Brueggemann in a New Generation, eds. Jonathan Kaplan and Robert Williamson, Jr. ; Hebrew Bible Monographs 72 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 9-47. 15 Brueggemann, Money and Possessions, xx. 16 See, e.g., Brueggemann’s treatment of Exod 21:20-21 which is explicitly offered so as to “not romanticize the significance of the Sinai regulations” (ibid., 28). 17 See, e.g., ibid., 28-29 where Brueggemann adjudicates amidst Exod 22:21-24; 22:25-27; and 21:20-21 (see previous note) and concludes that “the testimony of the absolute prohibition [i.e., against coveting] stands. It is, I propose, the core confession of Israel concerning money and possessions that are to be kept in the orbit of neighborliness intended by YHWH.” 18 Ibid., xx; see also 35-54. 19 Ibid., xx. 20 Ibid., 1-13. 21 Ibid., 2-3. 22 Ibid., 3. 23 Ibid., 9. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., 10. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., 12-13. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., xix: “If I have offered a fair exhibit of these texts, then the reader can continue the i of making judgments about the meaning and relative importance of each text… .It is of course true that otherinterpreters m well select different texts or make different interpretive moves about them.” 30 Ibid., 8. 31 Ibid., 51. 32 Ibid., 62. 33 See, e.g., ibid., 270 and passim ,׳the citations proper are taken from Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, former CEO of Nestlé, and concern precisely the sale of water (see ibid., 277 and n. 17). 34 To be sure, I did (as other readers will) find things to quibble with here and there. So, despite his excellent points about how coveting (Hebrew hmd) includes both desire and seizure, I am not yet entirely convinced that the interior affect state should be downplayed so as to trump up the external action. Both may well be involved, perhaps even in most instances of hmd, but the inclusion of additional verbiage which often makes clear the act of seizing and taking suggests that hmd itself may, at least at times, be less than an external action and mostly concern interiority. This is hardly a lightening of the load; if accurate, it suggests that not only are external acts like stealing forbidden, but interior affect states that lead to such activity are also prohibited—a stunning kind of commandment if ever there was one,


    Page 41

    but a situation that should be familiar to readers of the Sermon on the Mount. Similarly, on ibid., 174, Brueggemann states that the prophetic concern with “justice and righteousness” (Hebrew mispät and sëdâqâh) is a “tag phrase… for economic covenantalism.” Perhaps so, or to some degree (at a minimum), but I understand this phrase to be about still yet more—though certainly not less. In my judgment, mispät alone, especially in certain prophetic contexts, suffices to index economic covenantalism with sëdâqâh evoking much that would fall in the realm of worship, religiosity, and piety. I do not mean to bifurcate these matters as I think the force of the prophetic word-pairing is precisely to keep together what modern Christians—on both ends of the ideological spectrum—have been prone to separate. Such a holistic interpretation is also what Brueggemann is after, especially in his strong emphasis on the non-dualistic nature of biblical materiality when it comes to God and money and possessions; hence, my nuance here may be truly slight and ultimately moot. 35 Ibid., xxi (my emphasis). 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Brent A. Strawn, The Old Testament Is Dying: A Diagnosis and Recommended Treatment (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), esp. 48-56. 39 Ibid., 56-58. 40 See Brueggemann, Money and Possessions, passim, but, as two examples, see 6: “remembering God is not an intellectual act; it is a practical act of managing money and possessions differently”; and 9: “It is this force of contradiction at the heart of the Bible that makes our study so demanding and difficult and which for the same reasons makes it urgently important.” 41 See, e.g., ibid., 48 on the how the practical effect (if not also intent) of a law like that found in Deut 24:10-13, 17 “is to make collateral so inconvenient that it is not demanded in the first place.” 42 Cf. Brueggemann’s remarks on Israel’s potential disappearance into Canaan’s predatory economic practice (ibid., 40, 42). 43 Cf. ibid., 10: “As any serious church leader knows, the one and only thing that is off-limits for comment or critique is the money system and its military support that undergird the illusionary well-being of our society.” Note also 12: “the Bible is inimical to the sentiment heard by so many courageous preachers, ‘Stick to religion and stay away from politics and economics. ’” 44 Ibid., xxi: “The recovery of the economic dimension of the gospel… will require a rearticulation of much that passes in our society for serious Christian faith.” This, too, is no easy task and one notes, in recent studies, attention being paid to how the church has failed businesspeople exactly at the point of helping them live their faith in the marketplace. See, inter alia, Joleen M. Forrest, “Do, Love, and Walk: A Study for Faith and Leadership” (D.Min.; Candler School of Theology, 2017) with literature (online at: http://pitts.emory.edu/files/dmin/Forrest_2017DMinProject.pdf; accessed 11/10/17).

  • Pentecost as Resistance to Monoculture: On the Inclusive,Hospitable, and Prophetic Community Imagined in Acts 2

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 7

    Pentecost as Resistance to Monoculture:

    On the Inclusive,Hospitable, and Prophetic Community

    Imagined in Acts 2

    Matthew L. Skinner

    Luther Seminary, Saint Paul, Minnesota

    At Pentecost, dreams begin to materialize. Vision expands. Salvation spills over the horizon like a breaking dawn, and that horizon’s width extends as far as one can see. That salvation, like Pentecost itself, is a divine act. At Pentecost God reaffirms a commitment to a wide-ranging presence and activity. Without the Pentecost narrative , the book of Acts might read like a story about daring heroes, the virtues of persistence, or a young institution’s rollercoaster ride toward survival and expansion. Careful attention to Acts 2 reminds us that the book instead aims to tell about God’s determination to transform the world—precisely through and around and sometimes even in spite of the communities of believers who experience and live out God’s salvation . You cannot talk about salvation in Acts without talking about community. Salvation, according to Acts, is much more than a message to share or a doctrine to embrace. Salvation is experienced and manifested—in the Pentecost narrative and also beyond—as believers gather. They are different people united by God’s Spirit in hospitality, worship, charity, and evangelism. These communities understand that salvation is available to anyone, “everyone who calls on the name on the Lord” (2:21 ) ; they know that truth in their bones. There are enough angles into Acts 2 to fill sermons for several months, but the one that seems especially urgent in the current cultural moment is the narrative’s particular ways of depicting the communal identity of the people who experience God’s salvation. This community, which Acts begins to call “the church” in 5:11, embraces difference. It understands itself as, to use an anachronistic term, a multicultural society. The ligaments of the Holy Spirit hold together many kinds of people, not by stripping away their differences but by welcoming and valuing them. The setting in which the Spirit bursts onto the scene and the ways in which the Spirit makes its presence known through multiple languages reveal that the good news will not belong to one kind of people. No single cultural framework or uniform mode of expression can finally define the gospel or establish a core Christian culture. The church’s core is Christ, and nothing else. As a result, the story of Pentecost instructs believers in all times to regard hegemony and hierarchy as not simply counterproductive but hazardous to the church’s ability to bear witness to Christ. The current age presents numerous challenges when we think about difference, belonging, and cultural identity. Some far-reaching issues in the American context include the newness created by local and national demographic shifts, ongoing oppression stemming from the poisonous effects of racism, backlash against groups that settle or provide sanctuary to refugees, mainline denominational declines in membership, white supremacy’s ability to worm its way into Christian theology, and weaponized “America First!” language. The Pentecost narrative provides crucial guidance to churches in these divisive days. Preachers have much to gain from interacting with


    Page 8

    it as they lead congregations to dream anew about who they are, why they exist, and what ministry they should perform. The story, like the rest of Acts, reminds us that the confession “Christ is Lord” has a way of shaking up the status quo and its primary stakeholders.

    Pentecost We minimize the scope and power of the Pentecost narrative when we speak about nondescript notions of “unity” or refer in generic terms to the gospel’s “universal” reach. In Acts 2 we find a more specific and more generous story. It sets more before us than only the quotation from Joel 2:28-32 with its references to the Spirit coming to “all flesh” and salvation’s availability to “everyone.” Two additional details—the ethnic indicators describing the crowd that gathers (2:5, 7-11) and the astonishing linguistic abilities of the Spirit-empowered speakers (2:4, 6)—provide texture to the passage, allowing it to express thicker descriptions of the gospel’s boundless character and the church as a community of liberal welcome and broad inclusion. The good news of divine salvation is a pan-cultural message and a reality that forms pan-ethnic community.

    “From Every Nation under Heaven ” The first detail comes in the description of the crowd that hears Jesus’ witnesses speak. They are Jews who represent the fullness of the Jewish diaspora. The narrator declares that Jews “from every nation under heaven” (2:5) were present in Jerusalem. The term nation sometimes sparks misunderstanding. The Greek word is ethnos. In this context it does not necessarily refer to various geopolitical entities (like modern “nations” or “countries”) or citizenships. It is more helpful to understand the term as highlighting the audience’s various ethnicities—various ways of construing people’s identities and group-memberships based on a wide range of considerations that might include familial, linguistic, genealogical, regional, and cultural criteria.1 Acts provides additional specificity—and reminds us that the reference to every nation is obviously hyperbole—when the Holy Spirit’s audience begins to speak and names their identities and places of origin. In verses that make pronunciation-conscious lectors tremble before congregations on every Pentecost Sunday, the crowd identifies fifteen regions from three different continents: Partiría, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya (the parts belonging to Cyrene), Rome, Crete, and Arabia. On one hand, it is a peculiar list. It does not obviously duplicate other known lists of ancient nations or locations of Jewish populations, and its format is irregular. The list makes no mention of Greece, Macedonia, or other places that included thriving Jewish communities, so it is hardly a comprehensive catalog. The order of locations does not follow a clear sequence of directionality, although it comes close to clustering places according to their direction from Jerusalem. If the list conforms to a particular rationale—be it geographic, political, religious, or even astrological—that conformity is not strict and so no one can agree on what the rationale might be. On the other hand, the list need not be orderly or derived from identifiable sources to make its point. It is representational, not exhaustive, calling attention to Judaism’s wide geographical footprint and the sheer reality of the Jewish diaspora.2 More Jews lived away from Judea and Galilee at that time than lived in those regions. Although


    Page 9

    modem biblical scholarship has tended to overlook the fact, ancient Jews lived in various cultural settings and described themselves with a variety of national and ethnie terms.3 The Pentecost narrative implies that no single Jewish group represented the soul of Jewish identity; ethnic diversity and a sort of cultural diffuseness were themselves key aspects of that identity. The Spirit speaks to Jews in Jerusalem, but the Spirit speaks to all of Judaism at once including “residents of… Judea” (2:9). Acts takes Jerusalem, situated in the heart of Judea, and expands it. The city retains its specific symbolic significance for Jewish identity and God’s purposes, but the place actually encompasses an audience from all over. Jerusalem serves as the gathering point for the Spirit’s initial speech; it is not necessarily the place in which all must finally reside or to which all must conform, according to Acts.4 As Acts tells the story, one of the marvels of Pentecost is the church’s ability to address the whole of the multicultural Jewish diaspora (through its representatives) at once. The Pentecost narrative therefore contributes to a declaration that the good news about Jesus is pan-ethnic in terms of how it recognizes and fits within the diverse Jewish populations of its time. The gospel, with its particular origins along the fertile shores of Galilee, in the public spaces of the temple, at the desolate place called The Skull, and in an empty tomb in Jerusalem, is potentially good news for the whole Jewish diaspora. Acts seems to ask: What else would one expect from the Messiah to Israel? No one should assume that this widespread sense of community and belonging was a Christian innovation; a sense of a united identity among an ethnically diverse population was already present in the Jewish context in which the church came into being. It will take a few more chapters for Acts to confirm, when Peter meets Cornelius (10:1-11:18), that the gospel is likewise good news for all peoples, not only “Jews and proselytes” (2:10; cf. Luke 2:10, 30-31; 3:6).

    “In the Na ti ve Language of Each ” Leaving many observers dumbfounded, the crowd of 120 men and women (1:1315 ) who first receive the Holy Spirit speak in languages that the multiethnic crowds already know. Those shocking linguistic abilities provide a second key detail about the salvation the church will announce and embody. Everyone present understands “in the native language [dialektos] of each” (2:6). For a long time, Christians have linked the multilingual phenomena of Pentecost to the story of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9, even though interpreters cannot agree about whether Acts 2 offers clear terminological or thematic echoes of the Babel story, apart from the reality of numerous languages and the potential they might bring for confusion and separation, or for understanding and identity. LInless the list of various peoples and places in Acts 2:9-11 means to resemble the long table of nations presented in Genesis 10, the text of Acts 2, its format, and the ancient literary context present few compelling reasons to read Pentecost in light of Babel. Christian tradition nevertheless has done so, since at least the fourth century and still today when the lectionary appoints the Year C readings for Pentecost Sunday. Those impulses to link Genesis 11 with Acts 2 can have unfortunate consequences, however, especially when they imagine a movement from a problem to a solution, or from divine punishment to divine restoration. The most misguided interpretations are those that characterize Pentecost as a blessing that reverses a curse pronounced at Babel, as if the church expresses God’s desire to return to a world of linguistic


    Page 10

    uniformity and conformity, (re)creating a monolithic culture held together by “one language and the same words” (Gen 11:1). Obviously, that is not the story that Acts 2 tells, for no one is compelled or enticed to give up a former language to learn a new one. The Holy Spirit does not prompt Jesus’ followers to address the whole crowd in Greek, even though that was the closest thing to a lingua franca in that setting. Instead, all the languages belong. The church speaks to the diverse, multiethnic Jewish diaspora in a variety of dialects (2:6, 8). Presumably they heard “God’s great deeds” (2:11) described with regionally recognizable idioms, accents, and inflections. If so, that kind of communication in a multilingual context might allow for more than a clear understanding of a message; the experience can be magnetic and convey a sense of belonging. If you have traveled internationally and, after some time engulfed in another language system, suddenly you hear a stranger speaking your native tongue in a public venue, your ears may latch onto the voice and you may sense an interpersonal connection. Willie James Jennings grasps the theological significance of such an auditory connection when the Holy Spirit makes it:

    The Spirit creates joining. The followers of Jesus are now being connected in a way that joins them to people in the most intimate space—of voice, memory, sound, body, land, and place. It is language that runs through all these matters. It is the sinew of existence of a people. My people, our language: to speak a language is to speak a people. Speaking announces familiarity, connection, and relationality.5

    The problem, therefore, with treating Acts 2 as a reversal or correction of Genesis 11 is that it misunderstands the way in which the Pentecost narrative positively characterizes linguistic and ethnic differences. Exegetes who cling to a Pentecost-fixesBabel interpretation imply that those differences are problems that God eradicates through Christ. Acts does not support that claim. Rather, in the Pentecost narrative, ethnic differences are welcome and celebrated; they will be “a critical component of community, not…an obstacle in its construction.”6 It would be a mistake to pit this notion of diversity against a notion of unity, as if unity is rendered unimportant by Pentecost’s many dialects. Rather, the multiethnic fellowship Acts imagines is indeed marked by unity, but it is a unity founded on Chr ist that values distinctions among its members. As Joel B. Green describes the passage, “Unity is found at Pentecost, but not by reviving a pre-Babel homogeneity. With the outpouring of the Spirit, koinonia is possible not by the dissolution of multiple languages but rather by embodiment in a people generated by the Spirit, gathered in the name of Jesus Christ.”7

    Trajectories The dream of a multiethnic community held together in Christ only begins to come into view at Pentecost. The story of Acts 2 sets the larger narrative on a trajectory that continues to extend across a widening horizon. The church begins in Jerusalem as a diverse community but still a community composed entirely of Jews and proselytes . It takes time for this fellowship to expand its vision and reach the insight that Peter voices when he encounters the centurion Cornelius: “God shows no partiality” between Jews and gentiles but welcomes “anyone” from “every nation” (10:34-35).


    Page 11

    An important implication of this discovery is that gentiles enjoy full welcome without having to conform themselves to Jewish identity or observe Torah (15:1-35). No people groups within the church enjoy a superior value or special prerogatives. The church encompasses all the groups, creating with their distinctions a unity, a reality that Acts underscores with its focus on the hospitality that Jews and gentiles—as well as occupiers and occupied people—share as a piece of the community’s expansion (10:23,28,48; 11:3). If Acts 2 lay s the theological—or pneumatological—foundations for a church that eschews monocultural norms and forges unity without dissolving cultural or ethnic particularity, then we can infer that those foundations rightly support a larger and expansive structure. A church that refuses to abide by cultural or ethnic hegemonies in its membership and values should also reject other expressions of monoculture. Especially in the material from Joel, Acts 2 makes promises that God’s Spirit will not respect other interpersonal barriers, such as those based on gender, age, and class. Yet Acts is not long enough—or the narrative lacks the vision—to zero in on additional divisions or prejudices that the Spirit calls the church to refuse. For example, Acts includes nothing like a Peter-Cornelius discovery concerning the value of women’s roles in the church’s public leadership. Characters such as Tabatha and Priscilla may alert us that those avenues are there to explore, but the narrative shows no interest in following them to their destination. The church continues to realize Pentecost’s dreams for a Spirit-filled community, however, when it makes up for what Acts fails to make explicit. In other words, recognizing that those and other categories cannot become the basis for reckoning value or dignity among different people is equally vital if the church is going to bear authentic witness about God’s salvation.8

    Implications Two details of Acts 2—to whom the Holy Spirit speaks and how the Spirit speaks—therefore make Pentecost a story of widespread welcome and inclusion. This foundational scene characterizes the church’s testimony as summoning all to hear and experience God’s salvation and acknowledging that all are welcome around God’s table. As Peter says after preaching to the assembled crowd, “The promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls” (2:39). The Holy Spirit throws the doors open wide; Peter merely stands there and points the way in. That same Spirit gathers and sustains a community that connects and evinces the differences among its members. The people who gather at the beginning of Acts 2, with all of the various dialects, hairstyles, smells, attire, and dietary preferences that reflect their regions of origin, stick around for a while. It is crucial to note that the Pentecost narrative does not conclude with Peter’s preaching; it continues until the end of Acts 2, where we read a description of networked groups that live out their communal belonging in Christ. These multiethnic believers embody the gospel through mutuality, unity, and charity (2:43-47). We must resist the temptation to treat Pentecost with nostalgia, as if it belongs to an innocent and naïve chapter of our history, or as if it would not have been disruptive and even dangerous for the church to understand itself as a polychromatic and multilingual society. The propaganda of the Roman Empire frequently trumpeted Rome’s ability to


    Page 12

    effect social centralization and cultural homogenization, asserting that such developments gave evidence of the empire’s virtuous and irresistible might. The elites who benefited most from imperial society had a vested interest in promoting Rome as a centripetal force, assimilating various and other dispersed groups into a collective (and dominant) identity. A community that signaled its openness to a deliberately multiethnic and multilingual identity might have looked strange in such an imperial setting. In some places, the community’s neighbors might have found it threatening, especially if it empowered those in the fellowship who lacked power in the wider social context. Things are not so different today, particularly when elements in the wider population cling to their cultural capital out of fear that it is becoming diluted or stolen from them. Monoculture is boring, but that is not what makes it pernicious. Rather, it can deny the full dignity of all members of a community. At a national level, attempts to maintain a monoculture or preserve specific cultural privileges make dominance and control key aspects of our social dynamics. A monoculture denies freedom and wholeness. It insists that only specially credentialed people can set the terms for what all of us might hope for. At a congregational level, it denies people the opportunity to bear witness to the risen Christ out of their own particular identities and experiences. It urges a church to settle for an ethos of even-keeled tolerance instead of transformative hospitality. It scoffs at our boldest dreams about the future God will bring forth and calls them delusions. With all of the ethnic segregation in our denominations and congregations, Acts 2 calls the church to examine its assumptions about community and belonging. With all of the colonial residues in churches’ theology, liturgy, and educational practices, the Pentecost narrative calls the church to repentance. As Justo L. González observes: “[H]had there been an ‘Aramaic only’ movement in first-century Palestine, Pentecost was a resounding no! to that movement. And it is still a resounding no! to any movement within the Church that seeks to make all Christians think alike, speak alike, and behave alike. ”9 Thus, one enduring consequence of Pentecost is that the church’s identity is necessarily ecumenical, for in the church, God brings all kinds of people together into a single yet diverse community in which no one group needs to set aside its ethnic identity to dissolve into another’s. For believers, whose outlook is shaped by the prophetic dreams and visions of the Spirit, no one expression of personhood and culture occupies first place. That place belongs to Christ. The Pentecost narrative also shapes our visions of justice and advocacy in the public square, reminding us that justice is, as an aspect of the oikoumenë God desires, always pan-ethnic. In other words, justice refuses to let one group of people, however they might define themselves, suffer at the hands of or to the advantage of another group. The policies for which a congregation advocates, the benevolence it provides, the outreach it conducts in its neighborhood must all reassert the fundamental Chr istian claim that God calls a diverse array of peoples, neighbors both old and new, into a liberative coexistence in Christ. Churches that creatively embrace a Pentecost ecclesiology will inevitably offer a counter-narrative in a society that is addicted to assigning value and privilege based on various ethnic dividing lines. When the dominant cultural value is dominance itself, the multiethnic and hospitable church finds itself in a prophetic role. While not every congregation will embrace its prophetic vocation through explicit political


    Page 13

    activism, no congregation should overlook its commission to bear a distinctive witness , even if such generous ecumenism becomes divisive in the current climate. The present cultural landscape compels churches to tell a clear counter-narrative and to embody a distinctive set of values. It would take a team of sociologists to figure out how and when it became controversial or partisan to put an “all are welcome here” sign in front of a church or house, but suddenly that time is upon us. Congregations that boldly and without apology commit themselves to such a multiethnic identity and hospitality preach the gospel. That has always attracted attention.

    Notes 1 Comprehensive descriptions of ethnicity require many pages because they require navigating many debated points. Few would argue, however, with the basic claims that ethnic categories are socially constructed, changeable, and complex—and that they figure deeply in many construals of individual and group identity. Specific discussion of what ethnicity is easily provokes disagreement, which is not made any easier by the ways that considerations of “ethnicity” often steer into the highly problematic category of “race” and the insidious legacy of racialized theories. 2 Gary Gilbert sees Acts 2:9-11 as similar to lists of nations in Roman literature meant to declare Roman authority over the world, meaning that the events of Pentecost imply God’s superior authority. Gilbert also offers an overview of various hypotheses that interpreters have proposed concerning these verses (“The List of Nations in Acts 2: Roman Propaganda and the Lukan Response,” JBL 121 [2002]: 497-532). 3 CynthiaM. Baker, From Every Nation under Heaven’ : Jewish Ethnicities in the Greco-Roman World,” in Prejudice and Christian Beginnings: Investigating Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Early Christian Studies (ed. Laura Nasrallah and Elisabeth Schtissler Fiorenza; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 79-99. 4 It bears noting that the overall narrative of Acts may decenter Jerusalem and the city’s prominence in the church’s existence, but Acts never rejects Jerusalem’s value or condemns the city. 5 Acts (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2017), 28. 6 Eric D. Barreto, “Crafting Colonial Identities: Hybridity and the Roman Empire in Luke-Acts, in An Introduction to Empire in the New Testament (SBLRBS; ed. Adam Winn; Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 117. 7 In Our Own Languages’ : Pentecost, Babel, and the Shaping of Christian Community in Acts 2:1-13,” in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (ed. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 199. 8 See Demetrius K. Williams, “ ‘ Upon All Flesh’ : Acts 2, African Americans, and Intersectional Realities ,” in They Were All together in One Place? Toward Minority Biblical Criticism (SemeiaSt 57; ed. Randall C. Bailey, Tat-siong Benny Liew, and Fernando F. Segovia; Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 289-310. 9 Acts: The Gospel of the Spirit (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001), 39.