Who is my neighbor? is the question asked by the Christ in the parable of the Good Samaritan. While today the term "good samaritan" brings positive connotations, in the time of the Christ, this was not the case. The Samaritans were known as an offshoot of Judaism; the Shomronim as they are known in Hebrew, believed their mode of worship was the one, true religion of the Israelites prior to the Babylonian exile. Their ancient lands were known as Samaria.They believed that they alone were indeed the "true keepers of the Mosaic law."
At one time they numbered in the millions, later they were reduced by politics and other forms of suppression. Their numbers dwindled by the early Common Era; the advent of Islam further reduced them. However the Samaritans never were completely extinguished. Today they are counted in modest numbers in the West Bank and Gaza areas, possibly numbering less than 100 individuals there. With the advent of the Samaritan schism, the Jews no longer associated with them. They saw their methods as corrupt, contemptible. The process was a long, one. It is easy to point to a single source, but more likely it is multiple factors which led to the Bible writers in the early Common Era to view them negatively. Some bible historians such as Wayne Brindle of Grace Theological Seminary point out that their exact origins remain unclear.
Who, then, is our neighbor according to the telling of this story, the Good Samaritan? If, we, like most Jews of the time period, consider Samaritans less good, then may they be ignored? May we then according to the telling of the story by bible writer Luke pass him, who is in need, by? Luke recounts a man, beaten and robbed who lies in the road. Many pass him by for many reasons or none at all. A Samaritan passes, stops and assists the man.
The Christ points out that it was a Samaritan who helped this man, who showed him the mercies of the Lord (Even though many at the time disliked him because he was a Samaritan). He also asks his readers, who will find the kingdom of heaven? He concludes that in the tradition of Israel, all who love their neighbor as them self will see the Kingdom.
Who is the neighbor? The neighbor, answers Thomas Merton, with consideration: that while the Creator may be good, not all men can be so perfect. Is there a place "where one should draw the line?" Merton asks. He notes this question is a matter of classification. It is also a judgement. To the average man these questions often occupy the mind, but to the Christ they were not relevant. He knew not to judge, lest you be judged, and that one must not classify or be classified.
Because love is free; it is not dependent upon other factors. "It loves for loves' sake." If love contributes to a being, then that being develops and grows; love both gives and receives. If it demands to receive, and only to receive, before it gives, then it is not love. So then the parable as told by Luke is the mystery of mercy, or misericordia.
Showing posts with label jesus the christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jesus the christ. Show all posts
Monday, May 14, 2012
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Love and Betrayal in Community
Fellow thinker of Maritain, French theologian, Emmanuel Mounier wrote in his book, Personalist Manifesto that "Capitalism reduces a person to a state of servitude irreconcilable with the dignity of a man; it orients all classes and the whole personality towards the possession of money; the single desire of which chokes the soul." He advocated for the idea 'incarnation,' that persons are necessarily composed of both body and spirit, that the spirit lives both within and without, that it finds its expression in community with others; vocation, that which fulfills ones' deepest spiritual longings.
It is this idea of community that strikes the heart of most
persons in their daily lives. While many easily think of community as their town or city, there are many more communities to which one associates: the school, the gym, the prayer hall, the job, the family and the home are a few examples. Taking the family, the smallest unit of community experienced by most on a day to day basis as an example, there is indeed a strong and central community existing in family whether it includes a marital relationship and children, or any such constitution with or without child.
Recalling the biblical writing John 21:15-19 where the Christ asks his disciple, Simon Peter, "Do you love me?" To which Peter replies, "Yes Lord, I love you." Jesus answers him saying, "feed my sheep... follow me." As part of the community of the Christ, Simon Peter affirms his love and devotion to the way of the Christ in this exchange. Later it is he who betrays the one he loves.
How can this happen? How does this happen in any of our lives? When is it a betrayal? When I say so, or when another in the community says so? Is betrayal a lack of everyday use of a person's help and labor in the ways that Personalist thinkers decry? Is this then betrayal as the Christ might see it? All these questions may arise in a community relationship, even one so small in size as two persons, and it isn't always so easy to sort it out and discern the truths for each individual.
Is betrayal between a community as small as two persons something like, "you didn't walk the dog, like you promised!" Or is the idea of betrayal something like, "you failed to tell me something and now I'm humiliated. I don't trust you!" Is trust necessarily a part of betrayal? Did the Christ place trust in his disciple? Was there an acceptance of one another at the level of the incarnation, as Mounier calls it? Are communities indeed composed of individuals who are both body and spirit, and if so, what if the persons themselves are not clearly aware of their (bodily-spirit) incarnateness? What then of betrayal; what could it possibly be based upon?
For example, if, in my community, we are agreed to conduct ourselves in a simple way without ostentation, and one of the parties goes out and buys electronic gadgets which then are used to distract or emotionally remove themselves from the community, but do not clearly recognize the effect of their actions, is this a betrayal? What if one, for their well being and for the truth which lies in their own heart, takes actions which affect the other(s) in the community negatively, is this betrayal? What is the other(s) responsibility to the common good of the community, even one deemed an offender?
In love, is not the common good served through the effort to understand and accept each and all? In this community, is there a place for forgiveness, the charity of love? May we, when we think our life is the worst, find one possible example, be it the Christ on the cross, Martin Luther King or Gandhi, perhaps? They were killed by those who disliked them or their message. Who betrayed them?
It is this idea of community that strikes the heart of most
persons in their daily lives. While many easily think of community as their town or city, there are many more communities to which one associates: the school, the gym, the prayer hall, the job, the family and the home are a few examples. Taking the family, the smallest unit of community experienced by most on a day to day basis as an example, there is indeed a strong and central community existing in family whether it includes a marital relationship and children, or any such constitution with or without child.
Recalling the biblical writing John 21:15-19 where the Christ asks his disciple, Simon Peter, "Do you love me?" To which Peter replies, "Yes Lord, I love you." Jesus answers him saying, "feed my sheep... follow me." As part of the community of the Christ, Simon Peter affirms his love and devotion to the way of the Christ in this exchange. Later it is he who betrays the one he loves.
How can this happen? How does this happen in any of our lives? When is it a betrayal? When I say so, or when another in the community says so? Is betrayal a lack of everyday use of a person's help and labor in the ways that Personalist thinkers decry? Is this then betrayal as the Christ might see it? All these questions may arise in a community relationship, even one so small in size as two persons, and it isn't always so easy to sort it out and discern the truths for each individual.
Is betrayal between a community as small as two persons something like, "you didn't walk the dog, like you promised!" Or is the idea of betrayal something like, "you failed to tell me something and now I'm humiliated. I don't trust you!" Is trust necessarily a part of betrayal? Did the Christ place trust in his disciple? Was there an acceptance of one another at the level of the incarnation, as Mounier calls it? Are communities indeed composed of individuals who are both body and spirit, and if so, what if the persons themselves are not clearly aware of their (bodily-spirit) incarnateness? What then of betrayal; what could it possibly be based upon?
For example, if, in my community, we are agreed to conduct ourselves in a simple way without ostentation, and one of the parties goes out and buys electronic gadgets which then are used to distract or emotionally remove themselves from the community, but do not clearly recognize the effect of their actions, is this a betrayal? What if one, for their well being and for the truth which lies in their own heart, takes actions which affect the other(s) in the community negatively, is this betrayal? What is the other(s) responsibility to the common good of the community, even one deemed an offender?
In love, is not the common good served through the effort to understand and accept each and all? In this community, is there a place for forgiveness, the charity of love? May we, when we think our life is the worst, find one possible example, be it the Christ on the cross, Martin Luther King or Gandhi, perhaps? They were killed by those who disliked them or their message. Who betrayed them?
Monday, August 23, 2010
The World of Jesus' People
"Thus...Rome established or supported friendly kings... thereby governing through subsevient agents in lands where Rome itself did not choose to rule... Friends of Caesar." Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity by Jacob Neusner
The ruler of the Bible,Herrod and his sons, were local Jews selected by the Romans to rule. Developing the region as they wished for political and economic gain, Roman rule brought changes to the land of the biblical Jesus. They built new cities, ports, aqua ducts, roads; they divided the territory into taxing districts, collected the rents and public due from the populace by means of an established and efficient bureaucracy.
Not regarding Roman rule as wholly legitimate, Jews of the period regarded the taxation imposed upon them as robbery, writes religious historian, Jacob Neusner in his book, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Furthermore he writes, "No Gentile (non Jew) could ever take valid, legal possession of land [since it was ultimately deeded from God in the Jewish mind]; even if a Gentile bought land from a Jew, Gentiles held it as sharecroppers."
Many people, Neusner writes, received a religious education, rich and poor alike. "This education centered on religious learning, was sufficiently broad to impart civilizing and humanizing lessons." Typically Jews of the period learned about their forefathers, such as Moses, Abraham and Jacob. Their tradition was sufficiently old so as to take a look backward into history and observe those peoples of history who no longer existed.
They were instructed about their obligations to the temple, the poor, children and widows, to care for the sick and to bury the dead. God was there for the Jew to be the One Lord, that they should not regard any other, nor idolize as had been done in days long ago. The Jews of the time of the Christ learned to do justice, love mercy and its practice, and mostly to walk humbly with their God.
Thus to these ancients, a comet, a flood, an earthquake or a scientific calculation all conveyed truths equally. They did not readily discriminate among them. Yet socially they were widely stratified. Among the residents of the city Jerusalem, there were those of great wealth, merchants, scholars and men of the Temple. Apart from these were the skilled trades, the money changers, the bankers and the tax collectors. In the countryside, land owners took p residence, with shepherds near or at the lowest rank.
Also present in the countryside were centers established by groups who purposefully separated themselves from the wider society.
The Roman, Philo, describes these groups principally as the Essenes who went outside of the Polis seeking purity and hoping for eternity; the Sadducees, another group who lived outside the Polis, stood for strict adherence to the written word, and practiced conservatism in both ritual and belief as spelled out in the Torah.
Finally the much maligned group of the New Testament, the Pharisees were a group who lived as deliberate Separatists, avoiding contact with those outside their group. Together these groups formed what is now thought of as early monastic practice in which they lived, worked and worshiped together in community. The Pharisees in particular, writes Neusner, adhered to the writings of Jewish philosopher, Hillel, who wrote, "Do not separate yourself from the community."
Thus supposes Neusner, it was the Pharisees who actively fostered their philosophies within the larger society, both Jews and Gentiles alike, greatly able to influence large masses of persons. Some joined with the urban Pharisees and formed urban communes, living, working and carrying out the religious traditions under Pharisaical direction. These groups frequently lived and worked among those who did not know or hold their views. Teaching by example, was an early model followed by those disciples who would later come to follow the Christ; in just the same way, they remained in community at one another's side.
The ruler of the Bible,Herrod and his sons, were local Jews selected by the Romans to rule. Developing the region as they wished for political and economic gain, Roman rule brought changes to the land of the biblical Jesus. They built new cities, ports, aqua ducts, roads; they divided the territory into taxing districts, collected the rents and public due from the populace by means of an established and efficient bureaucracy.
Not regarding Roman rule as wholly legitimate, Jews of the period regarded the taxation imposed upon them as robbery, writes religious historian, Jacob Neusner in his book, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Furthermore he writes, "No Gentile (non Jew) could ever take valid, legal possession of land [since it was ultimately deeded from God in the Jewish mind]; even if a Gentile bought land from a Jew, Gentiles held it as sharecroppers."
Many people, Neusner writes, received a religious education, rich and poor alike. "This education centered on religious learning, was sufficiently broad to impart civilizing and humanizing lessons." Typically Jews of the period learned about their forefathers, such as Moses, Abraham and Jacob. Their tradition was sufficiently old so as to take a look backward into history and observe those peoples of history who no longer existed.
They were instructed about their obligations to the temple, the poor, children and widows, to care for the sick and to bury the dead. God was there for the Jew to be the One Lord, that they should not regard any other, nor idolize as had been done in days long ago. The Jews of the time of the Christ learned to do justice, love mercy and its practice, and mostly to walk humbly with their God.
Thus to these ancients, a comet, a flood, an earthquake or a scientific calculation all conveyed truths equally. They did not readily discriminate among them. Yet socially they were widely stratified. Among the residents of the city Jerusalem, there were those of great wealth, merchants, scholars and men of the Temple. Apart from these were the skilled trades, the money changers, the bankers and the tax collectors. In the countryside, land owners took p residence, with shepherds near or at the lowest rank.
Also present in the countryside were centers established by groups who purposefully separated themselves from the wider society.
The Roman, Philo, describes these groups principally as the Essenes who went outside of the Polis seeking purity and hoping for eternity; the Sadducees, another group who lived outside the Polis, stood for strict adherence to the written word, and practiced conservatism in both ritual and belief as spelled out in the Torah.
Finally the much maligned group of the New Testament, the Pharisees were a group who lived as deliberate Separatists, avoiding contact with those outside their group. Together these groups formed what is now thought of as early monastic practice in which they lived, worked and worshiped together in community. The Pharisees in particular, writes Neusner, adhered to the writings of Jewish philosopher, Hillel, who wrote, "Do not separate yourself from the community."
Thus supposes Neusner, it was the Pharisees who actively fostered their philosophies within the larger society, both Jews and Gentiles alike, greatly able to influence large masses of persons. Some joined with the urban Pharisees and formed urban communes, living, working and carrying out the religious traditions under Pharisaical direction. These groups frequently lived and worked among those who did not know or hold their views. Teaching by example, was an early model followed by those disciples who would later come to follow the Christ; in just the same way, they remained in community at one another's side.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Origin of Satan
"All converts understood that baptism washes away sins and expels evil spirits[from the body], and conveys to the recipient the spirit of God." The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels
In her book, published in 1995, The Origin of Satan, famed historian and author Elaine Pagels, perhaps best known for her work on The Gnostic Gospels, writes of a history in the West, of the developing idea of the 'Evil One,' the Satan. Exploring the solidifying development of the spirit, Satan, and his ways, Pagels delves into the Roman and Greek era and traces their thought to the more modern, current. Of Satan, she writes in the chapter, The Enemy Within, that for nearly two thousand years, most Christians have taken Saint Irenaeus at his word..." Saint Irenaeus is best remembered for his exhortations against the mockeries of the Devil, Satan.
Pagels examines in this chapter a text called, the Testimony of Truth which direct believers to asceticism. They are according to the Testimony to renounce all worldliness. "No one knows the God of Truth, except the one alone who renounces all the things of the world." She writes early Christians like Saint Justin Martyr was one who shared this view of self mastery; he wholeheartedly admired those who renounced the world and practiced celibacy. Today this tradition most clearly survives in monasticism.
Another text examined by Pagels here is called, Reality of the Rulers,"In this universe... there is no devil, and no need for one, for the 'Lord,' the God of the Jews and most Christians alike, himself acts a chief of the fallen angels who seduce and enslave human beings." According to this interpretation of the 'Truth,' written in the Testimony and the Reality of the Rulers the "human condition involving work, marriage, and procreation do not reflect divine blessing, but demonstrate enslavement to cosmic forces that want to blind human beings to their capacity for spiritual enlightenment... most Christians have fallen prey to the rulers of darkness and so, like most Jews and Pagans, remain entangled in social, sexual and economic bondage." It is through understanding that truth belongs not to the darker powers but to wisdom and the Father of the whole; the spirit of the truth resides within them. They remain free to devote themselves to the dominions of the Holy Spirit.
These texts and others discovered at Nag Hamadi, as known in the ancient world by the majority of Jewish-Christians who responded to these texts with the term 'heretic.' Heretic, Pagel points out means to make a choice. The ancient, Tertullian wrote that it was actually a matter of pride to be heretical for some; they regarded their own, deeper insight as a 'spiritual gift.' He further observed that Heretics would object to any creed, saying that Jesus himself encouraged questioning, saying, "Ask, and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened to you." For Tertullian the question and the answer resided in one simple, clear place: upon the cross of the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ. Looking further was no longer necessary.
It was Satan, after all who invented all sorts of arts of spiritual warfare; the devil of course, is attached to the wiles that distort the truth, wrote Tertullian. In the last word on the subject of this chapter, Pagels returns to the thoughts of Saint Irenaeus with whom she started: "the structure that has sustained orthodox Christianity ever since, claims access to the apostles, the manifestation of the Church throughout the world and the body of the Christ, with the succession of bishops together forms a very complete system of doctrine." Finally she writes of her own thought that in writing this book, she hopes that the modern struggle against otherness as evil and the group as solid, secure and good, will more clearly come to light. This she does do in a most complex way.
In her book, published in 1995, The Origin of Satan, famed historian and author Elaine Pagels, perhaps best known for her work on The Gnostic Gospels, writes of a history in the West, of the developing idea of the 'Evil One,' the Satan. Exploring the solidifying development of the spirit, Satan, and his ways, Pagels delves into the Roman and Greek era and traces their thought to the more modern, current. Of Satan, she writes in the chapter, The Enemy Within, that for nearly two thousand years, most Christians have taken Saint Irenaeus at his word..." Saint Irenaeus is best remembered for his exhortations against the mockeries of the Devil, Satan.
Pagels examines in this chapter a text called, the Testimony of Truth which direct believers to asceticism. They are according to the Testimony to renounce all worldliness. "No one knows the God of Truth, except the one alone who renounces all the things of the world." She writes early Christians like Saint Justin Martyr was one who shared this view of self mastery; he wholeheartedly admired those who renounced the world and practiced celibacy. Today this tradition most clearly survives in monasticism.
Another text examined by Pagels here is called, Reality of the Rulers,"In this universe... there is no devil, and no need for one, for the 'Lord,' the God of the Jews and most Christians alike, himself acts a chief of the fallen angels who seduce and enslave human beings." According to this interpretation of the 'Truth,' written in the Testimony and the Reality of the Rulers the "human condition involving work, marriage, and procreation do not reflect divine blessing, but demonstrate enslavement to cosmic forces that want to blind human beings to their capacity for spiritual enlightenment... most Christians have fallen prey to the rulers of darkness and so, like most Jews and Pagans, remain entangled in social, sexual and economic bondage." It is through understanding that truth belongs not to the darker powers but to wisdom and the Father of the whole; the spirit of the truth resides within them. They remain free to devote themselves to the dominions of the Holy Spirit.
These texts and others discovered at Nag Hamadi, as known in the ancient world by the majority of Jewish-Christians who responded to these texts with the term 'heretic.' Heretic, Pagel points out means to make a choice. The ancient, Tertullian wrote that it was actually a matter of pride to be heretical for some; they regarded their own, deeper insight as a 'spiritual gift.' He further observed that Heretics would object to any creed, saying that Jesus himself encouraged questioning, saying, "Ask, and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened to you." For Tertullian the question and the answer resided in one simple, clear place: upon the cross of the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ. Looking further was no longer necessary.
It was Satan, after all who invented all sorts of arts of spiritual warfare; the devil of course, is attached to the wiles that distort the truth, wrote Tertullian. In the last word on the subject of this chapter, Pagels returns to the thoughts of Saint Irenaeus with whom she started: "the structure that has sustained orthodox Christianity ever since, claims access to the apostles, the manifestation of the Church throughout the world and the body of the Christ, with the succession of bishops together forms a very complete system of doctrine." Finally she writes of her own thought that in writing this book, she hopes that the modern struggle against otherness as evil and the group as solid, secure and good, will more clearly come to light. This she does do in a most complex way.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Fools For the Christ
The Simple Mind is away from the computer.
"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you, and utter every kind of slander against you because of me." Bible, St. Matthew 5:11
When in the park land of the world, in the gardens or the towns, wherever, turn the other cheek, commands the Christ. It does seems a fool thing; however perhaps it is the most appropriate thing for a disciple to do when faced with unwarranted aggression and basic disrespect from others. Most often when there is the impulse to retaliate, the aggressor is responding to a past, perceived slight or insult. They may be emotionally hurt, or they may be quite imaginary in their thinking. In the first incident, recalls Anthony Gittins in his book, Come Follow Me, "these words of the Christ assumes that the recipient of the blow is an innocent party... the recipient of the blow being completely taken aback by the unprovoked aggression." Anyone so deeply committed as a disciple is likely to antagonize the less responsible, the less committed members of any given community.
As the former Saul, now Saint Paul knew, discipleship entails risk. The bible book, 1 Corinthians 4:10 records, 'we are fools on the Christ's account. Ah, but in Christ you are wise! We [the people of Corinth] are the weak ones, you are the strong! They honor you while they sneer at us.' Considering the aftermath or consequences of such exchanges is possibility. The possibility that courage may enter into the equation, that the way to justice may become clearer, that growth of discipleship may lead to faith, to peace.
The possibility that the world may be unified as one in the Lord, that nations may beat swords into plowshares is part and parcel of the radical directives of the Christ. In preaching and teaching, Jesus challenged the status quo of first century C.E. Palestine, a world where "honor was accrued or defended through fighting or contesting. If someone was looking for a fight, he is anticipating being the winner, either by causing his opponent to withdraw and thereby being shamed, or making a loser out of him, and shaming him. If the would-be opponent retaliates... the drama proceeds until winner and loser are determined. So, what if the opponent fails to either retaliate or withdraw?" Instead, he turns the other cheek, then dominance can only be realized by bullying, or by an unfair fight.
This does not however, honor an aggressor; rather it shames him. Without a fair fight, the would-be aggressor is forced into a potentially uncomfortable position; he may even be required to apologize to restore the community. Jesus rejected the entire 'honor system' of the ancient world in which he lived. He exposes a world built on honor and shame as false; he teaches for the good. He unmasks the world built upon the poverty of an 'eye for an eye,' the moral rule widely in force during his time.
"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you, and utter every kind of slander against you because of me." Bible, St. Matthew 5:11
When in the park land of the world, in the gardens or the towns, wherever, turn the other cheek, commands the Christ. It does seems a fool thing; however perhaps it is the most appropriate thing for a disciple to do when faced with unwarranted aggression and basic disrespect from others. Most often when there is the impulse to retaliate, the aggressor is responding to a past, perceived slight or insult. They may be emotionally hurt, or they may be quite imaginary in their thinking. In the first incident, recalls Anthony Gittins in his book, Come Follow Me, "these words of the Christ assumes that the recipient of the blow is an innocent party... the recipient of the blow being completely taken aback by the unprovoked aggression." Anyone so deeply committed as a disciple is likely to antagonize the less responsible, the less committed members of any given community.
As the former Saul, now Saint Paul knew, discipleship entails risk. The bible book, 1 Corinthians 4:10 records, 'we are fools on the Christ's account. Ah, but in Christ you are wise! We [the people of Corinth] are the weak ones, you are the strong! They honor you while they sneer at us.' Considering the aftermath or consequences of such exchanges is possibility. The possibility that courage may enter into the equation, that the way to justice may become clearer, that growth of discipleship may lead to faith, to peace.
The possibility that the world may be unified as one in the Lord, that nations may beat swords into plowshares is part and parcel of the radical directives of the Christ. In preaching and teaching, Jesus challenged the status quo of first century C.E. Palestine, a world where "honor was accrued or defended through fighting or contesting. If someone was looking for a fight, he is anticipating being the winner, either by causing his opponent to withdraw and thereby being shamed, or making a loser out of him, and shaming him. If the would-be opponent retaliates... the drama proceeds until winner and loser are determined. So, what if the opponent fails to either retaliate or withdraw?" Instead, he turns the other cheek, then dominance can only be realized by bullying, or by an unfair fight.
This does not however, honor an aggressor; rather it shames him. Without a fair fight, the would-be aggressor is forced into a potentially uncomfortable position; he may even be required to apologize to restore the community. Jesus rejected the entire 'honor system' of the ancient world in which he lived. He exposes a world built on honor and shame as false; he teaches for the good. He unmasks the world built upon the poverty of an 'eye for an eye,' the moral rule widely in force during his time.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Jesus, the Subversive, the Radical
The Simple Mind is away from the computer
Today, this holy day in Christianity, Holy Thursday, is the day that tradition tells of Lord, the Christ Jesus, started his walk on the long road leading to crucifixion. His crime, among others explains Anthony Gittens in his book, Come Follow Me, is that the Christ advocated 'turning the other cheek' in an ancient world where 'an eye for an eye' ruled supreme.The G-d of the Jews, of the Greeks and Romans was a just God meting out both reward and punishment in measure. Their God was merciful, but he was unlike the G-d advocated for by the Christ. The entrance of this God into the world astounded; it defied. Citizens felt compelled to act.
"Turn the other cheek," Saint Matthew writes (Matthew 5:39). "Jesus seems to be saying something like this: even if a person has so little respect for you and so much aggression toward you as to add injury to insult by viciously striking you in the face, not only should you not retaliate, you should respond by assuming a stance of vulnerability... On the face of it, this act is indeed foolish... Unquestionably, there is risk involved, since we can never precisely predict another's behavior... It is all rather difficult to understand.
"Jesus, writes Gittens, 'surely knows that discipleship entails risk. But it is also intended to renew families, relationship and communities... Jesus' demand goes far beyond every specific situation. It is general..." He calls the disciple to a higher standard so that others may see and believe. His method is counter-culture. For example, by not seeking retribution for wrong doing or legal recourse, members of the community are called instead to reconcilliation." To the Christ the notion of the 'zero sum game' was without relevance. His Father in Heaven, whom he called upon, was without prejudice. There is no competition. Winners and losers are totally unacceptable to the Christ. God's grace is not a limited good.
And so writes Gittens, "the Jesus movement was in his time, and thereafter breaking up households. Parents frustrated with their offspring, totally unable to dissuade their children away from this new, radical life built on love, unable to shame them out of their new commitment, often struck them on the cheek." The bold, radical love of the Christ advised the proffering, then, of the other cheek. "And the world turned on its head."
Today, this holy day in Christianity, Holy Thursday, is the day that tradition tells of Lord, the Christ Jesus, started his walk on the long road leading to crucifixion. His crime, among others explains Anthony Gittens in his book, Come Follow Me, is that the Christ advocated 'turning the other cheek' in an ancient world where 'an eye for an eye' ruled supreme.The G-d of the Jews, of the Greeks and Romans was a just God meting out both reward and punishment in measure. Their God was merciful, but he was unlike the G-d advocated for by the Christ. The entrance of this God into the world astounded; it defied. Citizens felt compelled to act.
"Turn the other cheek," Saint Matthew writes (Matthew 5:39). "Jesus seems to be saying something like this: even if a person has so little respect for you and so much aggression toward you as to add injury to insult by viciously striking you in the face, not only should you not retaliate, you should respond by assuming a stance of vulnerability... On the face of it, this act is indeed foolish... Unquestionably, there is risk involved, since we can never precisely predict another's behavior... It is all rather difficult to understand.
"Jesus, writes Gittens, 'surely knows that discipleship entails risk. But it is also intended to renew families, relationship and communities... Jesus' demand goes far beyond every specific situation. It is general..." He calls the disciple to a higher standard so that others may see and believe. His method is counter-culture. For example, by not seeking retribution for wrong doing or legal recourse, members of the community are called instead to reconcilliation." To the Christ the notion of the 'zero sum game' was without relevance. His Father in Heaven, whom he called upon, was without prejudice. There is no competition. Winners and losers are totally unacceptable to the Christ. God's grace is not a limited good.
And so writes Gittens, "the Jesus movement was in his time, and thereafter breaking up households. Parents frustrated with their offspring, totally unable to dissuade their children away from this new, radical life built on love, unable to shame them out of their new commitment, often struck them on the cheek." The bold, radical love of the Christ advised the proffering, then, of the other cheek. "And the world turned on its head."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
