Why Does God Side with the Outcast? Part V: Becoming an Outcast
By Austin
I opened this series by asking what is the theological justification for God’s concern for the outcast. First I argued that because God is our creator, we are absolutely dependent on God. Second I argued that because God is the sole ruler of all things, he relativizes any claims to authority. Third I argued that we can see the form of power and the society we ought to desire in the person and work of Jesus: the form of a servant, and the community – for lack of a better term – of love.
These three points are just a background for the next two essential aspects of Jesus’ life: his death and resurrection.
Why did Jesus die? What did he do to get himself killed? To understand the answer, you need to understand the purpose of crucifixion.
Crucifixion was the basic Roman instrument of colonial control. The Romans had lots of techniques for keeping their colonies in order, but because of the distance and difficulty of travel in the ancient world, they tended to use techniques that were spectacular – and horrifying. Crucifixion was the bedrock of their techniques, and it was really reserved for two types of people: disobedient slaves and rebellious colonies, the outcasts of the Roman world.
The question is now: what was Jesus crucified for? Christians often give this a metaphorical or spiritual interpretation – as if historically we can explain this by reference to the theory of substitutionary atonement. The fact of the matter is the Romans crucified Jesus for being a part of the latter category – a perceived threat of rebellion.
And Jesus was this perceived threat of rebellion, at least in the Roman eyes (he wasn’t all that different for the Jewish authorities – look at Caiaphas’ discussion in John 11.45-57). But what was this threat? The fact that this man built a non-violent community around the himself, a community that healed the sick, exorcised demons, and feed the poor? What is threatening about this?
Everything. Jesus was being something that most of us never dare to be: fully human.
In other words, the crucifixion is simply the outcome of Jesus being what God created us to be: a human. Jesus was sent to show us what it means to be human. It just so happens that when we and the powers of this world see a real human, someone who loves fully, who fully reflects who God is (is an “imago dei”) we cannot help but destroy this person. This person does not fit in this world as we’ve made it – and they become especially annoying when they gather a big crowd around them (usually the poor and marginalized).
The crucifixion of Jesus happened because Jesus showed what it means to be a fully open, loving, and real human being.
I should just point out, for my purposes, that this also meant that Jesus became to be the most marginalized as well. In fact, this seems to be a common theme in the Bible. If you are fully being human (whether like Israel, when it is following the law, Jesus when showing love, or the early church, when imitating Jesus) you are likely to be marginalized, considered a fool, or just ignorant. When Christians are fully being human, when they are fully imitating Jesus, then they inevitably will be treated as an outcast – just as Jesus was.
The crucifixion, in sum, shows us that not only does God care for the outcast, God became an outcast. Of course, this would be no comfort if it ended here. Next time, we’ll look at the answer to the prayer Jesus’ crucifixion was: resurrection.
Do Science and Religion HAVE to be at odds?
By Sarah
In her new book, Absence of Mind, Marilynne Robinson says, “No.” An idea she puts forth is that it’s unscientific to go from an observation about physical life on earth to making a “conclusion about the cosmos.” I have to agree. A blog post by Josh Schrei reflects this same idea.
Atheism is a belief system, and it seems manipulative for scientists, who cannot prove their belief system (no scientist nor theologian can prove nor disprove the existence of God), to claim science proves their belief system. Many people, atheists and non-atheists alike (even Christians) take issue with those claiming that the Bible disproves science – this is also manipulative. Both are people going outside of their professional realm claiming special knowledge about a completely separate profession, in which they have no expertise. Both hold sway with lots of people because of the brilliance of their knowledge in their own profession (or simply their charisma), yet they take advantage of that respect and step outside of their knowledge and claim expertise in an area they may know little about.
Why shouldn’t religious people get upset with scientists, when scientists get upset with the inappropriate claims that religion has put on science? Aren’t people who use science and religion in these ways just two sides of the same coin?
Why Does God Side with the Outcast? Part IV: The Form of a Slave
By Austin
In the last three posts (here, here, and here) I’ve argued that in order to understand why God seems to partisan for the oppressed – the orphan, the widow, the alien – we need to understand that we are fully what we are when we are dependent (God as sole creator of all things), and that God’s authority relativizes all political, earthly authority (God as sole ruler of all things).
These two doctrines meet in the one place most people would not have expected to find them – in a man from the redneck hillside of Galilee. The confession that “Jesus is Lord” melds these views together, so that the identity of God and the identity of Jesus are the same. If Jesus is Lord, the highest good, our greatest desire, our real hope, tends toward what he reveils in his life, death, and resurrection. Today, we’ll think about his life.
His life shows us two things: what true power is, and what type of soceity is desireable.
a. True power: the text most relevant for this is Luke 22.24-27 (also in Matt 20.20-28 or Mark 10.35-52). The text explains how we typically see power – as a benefactor and a patron, which was the basic system of the Romans. This assumes a certain status relationship – the one with more status rules over the one with less. No matter how status is established, this is a pretty accurate representation of things. It’s certainly different now - we don’t have the same patronage/benefactor system. But clearly this is the way it works.
Jesus then asks a rhetorical question (they’re all at the last supper here): who’s greater? The server or the one being served? Clearly it’s the one being served, since they have the status. Then Jesus hits them – “I am among you as the one who serves.” In other words, if you think I am great and powerful, then you should know how my power works. It turns everything upside down…
b. A new soceity: The early Christians took this to heart, and there is perhaps no better way to see this than in that wonderful passage in Phil 2.1-11. The text is really of two parts: the first 5 verses show how our community life should be, and the second (more famous) 5 verses grounds this community life in the fact that Jesus came to us in the form a slave, and because of this condescension is exalted. The community that Jesus expected was enacted by Jesus himself, and when Paul tells us to “have this mind” – after he has told us concrete steps toward this – we recognize that Jesus, through upending our expectation of what power is, has established a new way of being a society, a whole new world.
Paul’s point is that the confession that Jesus is Lord gives full weight to the type of community that Jesus formed around himself. John Howard Yoder gives probably the best description of what this community was:
When He called His society together Jesus gave its members a new way of life to live. He gave them a new way to deal with offenders – by forgiving them. He gave them a new way to deal with violence – by suffering. He gave them a new way to deal with money – by sharing it. He gave them a new way to deal with problems of leadership – by drawing upon the gifts of every member, even the most humble. He gave them a new way to deal with a corrupt society – by building a new order, not smashing the old. He gave them a new pattern of relationships between man and woman, between parent and child, between master and slave, in which was made concrete a radical new vision of what it means to be a human person. He gave them a new attitude toward the state and toward the “enemy nation.” (The Original Revolution, 29)
The type of society Yoder points to is a society in the form of Jesus’ life: forgiving, sharing, suffering, building, re-defining. This is a society we should be desiring because this was the mind of Christ.
In summary: the confession Jesus is Lord, bringning together two sides of Christian belief, means that true power happens in the form of Jesus – in the form of a “slave” – and true society happens in the way Jesus constituted it.
But this is not all. Jesus’ life certainly affirms this new way of power and society, but the capstone of his life was not a triumphant march to the halls of power in Jerusalem or Rome, but rather a march of shame to a death that fit his life in Rome’s eyes, a death fit only for slaves – crucifixion. More of that in the next installment.
Suffering and God’s Plan
Jonathan Torgovnik - Intended Consequences: Rwandan Children Born of Rape. http://www.torgovnik.com*
By Sarah
“I believe God our suffering is all part of God’s plan.”
I have heard this, or something like this, in a number of situations, from a variety of people, throughout my adult life. This view of suffering is fatalistic and presents a simplistic analysis of events inexplicable to humans. To accept this view rejects our purpose as God’s people – to work with God to build his kingdom here on earth.
Here’s a non-exhaustive list of things that cause suffering:
- Illness/disease
- Poverty
- Rape/sexual abuse
- Addiction
- War
- Natural disasters
- Racism
- Poor decisions
When you look at this list, what do you see? Many of these are the result of human sin. We sin as individuals, communities, and societies, and it hurts us and others. It’s not fate. People aren’t destined to suffer. Sin causes suffering. When we say suffering is part of God’s plan, we give meaning to sin. But suffering is merely the rubbish heap we have made through our sin.
Some causes of suffering are not fully caused by the actions of others. Natural disasters are not the result of human action. But the policies or practices that provide the most relief to the privileged, shown clearly to be sin in scripture, are choices made by humans and cause suffering. Hurricane Katrina is a good example of this.
So what does the Bible have to say about sinful human activity that causes the suffering of others?
In the book of Amos, we see many causes of suffering. We see slavery; war; the ripping open of pregnant women; war; colonialism; selling the righteous and needy; rape; oppression of the poor and needy; and more war.
What is God’s reaction to all of this sin? “I will send fire upon the house of Israel” (1:4). “Even the bravest among the warriors will flee naked in that day” (2:16). “[T]hey will take you away with meat hooks (4:2). God will “flash with destruction upon the strong” (5:9). God shows that, much as he doesn’t care for “personal sin,” he does not care for societal sin that causes suffering.
What about Jesus? “But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe…and yet disregard justice and the love of God…” (Luke 11:42, NASB). Jesus lambastes the Pharisees, many times, in fact, because of their lack of compassion and their acceptance of injustice.
Jesus’ response to suffering is action, not a fatalistic, “it’s all part of God’s plan.” When Jesus saw sin that caused suffering, he acted with compassion, restoring dignity and respect to the sufferer. He also acted with justice, rejecting the cultural norms and religious laws that legitimized the sin of oppression of those that Jesus loved.
But Jesus also deals with suffering, ultimately, on the cross. Jesus was killed by human sin, suffering unjustly at the hands of oppressors. But God was victorious in the spiritual and physical realms as a result – human sin was blotted out and overcome by the ultimate goodness and justice of God’s plan.
So what does this mean for us?
As God’s beloved children, we are to act as signposts of God’s Kingdom here on earth. Our response to the sin that causes suffering is hope, reconciliation, respect, dignity, restoration. This is how people will see God through us (Isaiah 60). We live out God’s promise for the future – that he will dwell with us, and will wipe away every tear. “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev 21: 4). That is the Kingdom of God, which we are called to work with God to bring forth here on earth.
What does this actually look like? If a woman in your community is suffering from domestic violence, you can help her find a lawyer or give her a room in your home. You can buy fair trade coffee, ensuring that the children of coffee growers can go to school. You can do the hard work of trying to eliminate racialized outcomes by joining with organizations that refuse to allow the sin of racism cause the suffering and oppression of millions of people throughout the U.S.
Scripture is quite clear – God abhors sin that causes suffering. When we refuse to accept that this is just the way things are, reject the idea that that sinful actions are part of God’s plan, and live out Jesus’ example of restoring dignity and respect to sufferers, heaven and earth overlap (N.T. Wright). This is the core of how we are to live as Christians.
Have you participated in the rejection of the sin of oppression that causes suffering? Have you seen others do this? How have you seen heaven and earth meet through the elimination of suffering and oppression?
* Image – This photo is from Jonathan Torgovnik’s powerful Intended Consequences: Rwandan Children Born of Rape project. Torgovnik sought to highlight the difficulty faced by some of the women who became pregnant and bore children as a result of rape during the Rwandan genocide. More than 20,000 children were born as a result.
Why Does God Side with the Outcast? Part III: My People, Their God
By Austin
Last week I continued this series by looking at the fact that God is the sole creator of all things. The conclusion I came to was that we as humans are being fully what we are, and hence fully free, when we are fully dependent on God. There is no contradiction between our freedom and God’s, because God is not a “thing,” and hence there is no paradox between the human and the divine. I mentioned that for post-Enlightenment humanisms this is a problem. Kant called such an idea “heteronomy” (law from outside) and opposed it to “autonomy” (law from the self).
Yet Kant’s autonomy, along with the modern individualism that it gives rise to, has been considered idolatry by the Christian tradition. Why? Because it refuses to acknowledge the second basic conviction of the Judeo-Christian tradition: God is the sole ruler of all things.
A little history. The Israelites began an experiment in the Ancient Near East. Scholars like Norman Gottwald and Paul Hanson have argued that the tribal confederacy represented in the book of Judges was a revolutionary pattern of governance in this world. The laws represented in the Torah were laws that governed a de-centralized, monarch-less group of peoples. This wasn’t democracy, but it was more formalized and orderly than other tribal societies. The three basic convictions of this community, as seen in later prophetic texts as well, was “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic 6.8).
This concern for justice did not come about by philosophical thought a la John Locke on the “rights of man,” nor through a post-colonialist desire for nationhood, but through “encounter with the God who delivered slaves from bondage. Israel understood community essentially as a response to God’s gracious act of salvation. Israel was called into existence as a people when it was called forth from bondage to be a nation of priests consecrated to God’s redemptive purposes” (Hanson).
What Hanson is arguing is that the idea of the law was a response to God. And what did this really mean? The act that it responded to was a gracious giving of freedom. More specifically, it was the giving of freedom to a group of slaves in order that they worship God, and create a just community.
These two things – worship and justice – always go hand in hand in the Torah, because the creation of Israel as a people happened in response to a king (Pharaoh) who had set himself up as god. Everything about the Exodus story points out that God is opposing himself to the gods of Egypt, as represented by Pharoah. The basic representation of Pharoah is his power to oppress a people simultaneous with this inability to protect his own, while God’s power is seen in his ability to unleash and then restrain chaos, while simultaneously protecting his own.
The power of Pharoah is emblematic of all political power, which ultimately makes a theological claim for its legitimacy, and its right to inflict violence. The Jewish and Christian belief that God is the sole ruler is the first step to relativizing this political theology, and making all kings and leaders of the world only a penultimate, not an ultimate, authority.
For Israel, and the church, this worked out most essential in the notion that God has a people – and the people have a God. That this God is also the sole creator of all things further intensifies the relativization of all earthly authority. As the history of Israel shows, the community was never fully reconciled to a king, and the anti-monarchial sentiment in parts of Deuteronomy, and the whole of Kings and Chronicles (not to mention the prophets!) shows this relativization in clear colors.
In summary, our status as dependent creatures makes most political sense when we recognize the basic fact that God is the sole ruler of all things. Next we’ll look at these two together when God becomes human, dies, raises, and is exalted - Jesus is this Lord.
leave a comment