2nd Week of Easter: The Woundedness of the Messiah

A great deal of my Scripture readings, thoughts, and conversations of late have begun to spin a dense web concerning the events following the resurrection of Christ. It has never struck me until now, how much attention is paid--by the characters within the narratives, and the authors themselves--to the physical wounds on Christ's body, and what this woundedness says about our God and our relationship with him. As I have continued to reflect on this concept, I want to bring up several areas I have been dwelling on for some time that this resonates with greatly, particularly the eschaton. I don't intend to explore them at length, so feel free to leave thoughts, questions, and concerns.

1. On the Bridegroom

I'd like to open this discussion by examining two very old paintings which depict Christ's ascension.

First, check out this rendering by Dali, and then this one as Rembrandt pictured it.

You perhaps noticed, especially in the context of this discussion, two very striking differences: the hands and feet of Jesus. To me there is something very powerful and compelling about the truth contained in Rembrandt's rendering. I would imagine that most of us, when we envision Christ seated at the right hand of the Father, don't picture Him with nail holes in his hands and feet, and a chunk of flesh missing from his side; an eternal reminder of the pain and horror he suffered for the people He loves. (For that matter, I wonder how many people think of Christ as even having flesh.) It's far less complicated to settle for Dali's picture in that regard.

2. On the Bride

The Church's union with Christ is referenced throughout scripture, notably here in St. Paul's letter to the Galatian Church, in which he locates the point of unity precisely at Christ's crucifixion. It has been discussed previously that the death of Christ allowed us to be free from the strangle-hold of sin in our reality. However, the other half of the equation is equally important, as St. Peter points out here. Again, we see this reference to the wounded Savior, and what is being alluded to here is not only our unity in death, but also our unity in the resurrection and life (characterized by righteousness). The wounds are precisely and paradoxically what bring healing.

I am intrigued by the ways in which the identity of the resurrected Christ seems to be so inextricably tied with his woundedness. St. Luke provides us with this interesting exchange between Jesus and his disciples. Indeed, a great deal of the way in which we relate to Christ and interact with him revolves around our desire to draw near to him and put our hands on the wounds which allow us to do so.

In another sense, Jesus blunty draws attention to a seemingly simple, but all-too-often misunderstood aspect of human existence (which He Himself experienced): our embodied nature as creatures made in the image of God is characterized, among other things, by our physical existence. We are not ethereal, anonymous ghosts. We are embodied individuals known personally by God and to one another.

Therefore, why should we think that our eternal existence will somehow be carried out apart from this embodied nature? I love the beautiful portrait the prophet Isaiah paints of this in his own poetic way.

3. On the Wedding Feast

This post-resurrection scene recounted by St. Luke is a wonderful image, I think, and a great place to end this discussion. I like to think that our eternal existence, dwelling in the full glory of a resurrected Messiah, bearing His wounds in full view, will be a lot like this.

Holy Week Day 3: Thoughts on Divine Child-Abuse

I remember hearing an interview on NPR some time ago with an espoused atheist (whose name has since slipped my mind) who wrote a book dealing with the violence of what he labeled the "Christian" God. He invited his audience to ask how an ever-loving, good God could condemn anyone to hell, and how a just God could murder his own son as payment for the sins of others. This latter question is the one I'd like to open up in light of Holy Week.

Though I think the author's perspective is rooted somewhere between an ignorance of and a misinterpretation of the Christian narrative, such questions are nevertheless valid for anyone seeking to understand these acts, especially those outside the Church who have legitimate concerns, hesitations, and suspicions about it. Furthermore, it is no surprise, given the plethora of violent interpretations of the Cross perpetuated among many Churches, that one would choose atheism over barbarism.

If the Church is intentional about how it engages in such conversations, there are as many benefits to answering these questions as there are to having them answered. Too often in certain Christian circles, staunch defenders-of-the-faith jump at the chance to dismantle piecemeal tenets of atheism, carelessly dismissing the idea of divine child abuse as yet another example of how heretical 'the world' has become. (Never addressing what such a continuous downward spiral of culture would reveal about the effectiveness of the Church.)

I also think it's important to espouse the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity without using it as another tool to dismiss the question. It is valid to say that since Christ is God, the cross is not divine child abuse. Yet while true (albeit incomplete), this 'defense' leaves itself open to being boiled down to divine self-mutilation, which is no more attractive. Luckily, however, it is also valid to say that Christ has a separate personhood from God. In a real sense, Jesus is the Son of God, and while simultaneously focusing on this distinctiveness is scarier for some, it is the only way to address the situation accurately and fully in the context of the Christian narrative. For, we know that rather than God simply acting as some sort of medieval flagellant, Christ, in individual expression, humbled Himself, obedient and subservient even to the point of death.

That being said, I'd like to move on to an interpretation of the Cross which I have found deeply compelling, and I don't want to frame it as a 'defense,' (at least in the overly loaded sense of the word) as much as an 'articulation.' I don't think it's helpful or productive to answer these questions merely in opposition to atheism, the ermerging church, or what have you. I think the 'challenge' of atheism calls us to affirm and know and claim our own story, rather than militaristically defend it, trench by trench, as if it were a piece of territory.

I want to draw from Rene Girard's rich, anthropological conception of the cross. What I find of value in his interpretation is that the responsibility for the violence of the crucifixion is rightly placed on human beings, not God. As a sort of cliff note, Girard's historical setting might read like this: the Roman and Jewish governments both desired absolute authority and were, at the end of the day, violently at odds with one another. However, what was found in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth was a suitable scapegoat, whose violent destruction would appease both sides, at least for a brief period. It seems reasonable to say that neither the Governors nor the Sadduccees believed that Jesus was the Messiah, yet both (and for similar reasons) saw his elimination as being advantageous to solidifying their own claims to power. This conflict is indicative of the cycle of violence which has been in motion since Cain and Abel.

"Part of the problem in the history of Christian interpretation, beginning already with the fathers, was that the Passion was for them a unique event. That is understandable of course. They saw it as a unique event, a single, unique event in worldly history. It is indeed unique as revelation but not as a violent event. The earliest followers of Jesus did not make that mistake. They knew, or intuited, that in one sense it was like all other events of victimization since the foundation of the world. But it was different in that it revealed the meaning of these events going back to the beginnings of humanity: the victimization occurs because of mimetic rivalry, the victim is innocent, and God stands with the victim and restores him or her. If the Passion is regarded not as revelation but as only a violent event brought about by God, it is misunderstood and turned into an idol. In the Gospels Jesus says that he suffers the fate of all the other prophets going back to Abel the just and the foundation of the world (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:50)." - The Girard Reader

As the preeminent scholar and theologian, Brian Robertson, said in a sermon this past Sunday, God did not cause the events surrounding the crucifixion, he used them. I think it's dangerous to say that from the beginning of time, God's intention was to have his son murdered, and furthermore that such a murder is the only way forgiveness could happen. I know this will open up the proverbial can of worms, but I think what Girard offers is an interpretation which seeks to describe the overflowing, selfless nature of God's love.

Furthermore, it's an interpretation which takes into account the wider story of God's continual work of redemption and salvation in his creation. If we look at Christ's conversation with Nicodemus, we hear him directly address how mankind is to receive the gift of salvation. While Christ knew this work would literally culminate on the cross, he chose to explain it to Nicodemus, who was undoubtedly well-versed in the Torah, by comparing himself to the bronze snake in the book of Numbers.

Just like the poisonous snakes in the desert, God chose to use the violence which theretofore had justly condemned humanity to death as a means to save us. The fact that Jesus is the only human being who has ever been truly innocent, makes him the ultimate skapegoat toward whose death humanity might look to in order to see their acts of violence for what they truly are. Christ's words become clearer and we understand why those who refuse to look to the cross and recognize their own faults will be condemned.

So we see how God, rather than using his son as a whipping boy and an outlet for his wrath, in his infinite love and mercy chose to sacrifice his Son so that all who look upon him will find the salvation he desperately wants us to accept.

Brief Thoughts on GM

I've been asked by several people how I feel about Obama and the Federal government essentially telling GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner, to step down from his leadership position at the private company.
First, we should be accurate about how we use the term 'private.' I think the distinction people are trying to make is that it's not a federally owned company. However, GM is not a private company, it is a public company. I only point this out as a pet peeve, and I'm not arguing that that makes them a federal company. I'm simply saying that a publicly traded company is not private. That being said, here's a few thoughts on questions raised over the last few days:

• Over 15 years ago, GM had the opportunity to place itself on the cutting edge of automobiles with the production of the EV-1. This car consumed zero gallons of gas per mile and had zero emissions. For detailed information about what I'll briefly outline here, watch the great documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car?". The short story is, a culmination of forces including the oil lobby saw to it that the production of affordable electric cars cease and desist and even ensured that EV-1s already on the road would be reclaimed and promptly destroyed. In place of the Electric Car, GM began production on the Hummer. All this to say that GM dug itself into a deep hole by confining itself to the production of vehicles that were so inefficient and consumed so much fuel, they couldn't even be sold in most foreign markets; nor, as we're seeing now, the U.S. market.
  

• As a result of such business practices, GM could no longer keep itself afloat. The leadership turned to the federal government. I am not well-versed enough to know whether the stockholders of the public company were unwilling to support it, or if the company was bent on receiving taxpayer dollars. At any rate, the federal government approved billions of dollars (your dollars) to go towards this failed company. Then, as we all know, the company asked for more money, and got it.
  

• For this reason, as much as the federal government deserves to be critiqued on their use of taxpayer money, GM should be critiqued just as sharply, for their willingness to even think about taking tax dollars from the American people directly for themselves completely isolated form any type of service offered, goods sold, etc. If you want to talk about rewarding failure, here's a perfect example.
  

• Finally, having received an outlandish amount of funding from the federal government, GM effectively sold their soul. If the federal government and its money are the only thing keeping your company afloat, then Barack Obama can put whoever he wants in charge.

• As a sort of aside, I would also be interested in hearing whether the company, whose demise or even the thought thereof warrants the absolutely insane type of bailout we've seen (the defense of which rests on the fact that if the company collapses, our entire economy will collapse), is in fact already nationalized.
  

Thoughts?

The Conservatives' Big Lie + How it Won Obama the Presidency + The Truth

Villagers protest drone bombings authorized by President Obama which have murdered donzens of civilians.

“Barack Obama wants to wave the white flag in the war on terror.” I think most people can remember hearing similar statements during the exceedingly long presidential campaign. Some people might even remember believing it after having it drilled into their heads for so many weeks by GOP politicians, conservative pundits, and right-wing talk radio. The intense onslaught of spin and propaganda was intended to “wake up America,” “expose the radicals,” and in short, damage Obama in order to keep a Republican in the White House.

However, I regret to inform Rush Limbaugh and the lot that the effort to paint Obama as a European-style peacenik (an image Obama was happy to accept) is precisely what handed the election over to him. It is a dying shame that the overwhelming effort to make this big lie into a publicly recognized truth put the Stop Obama Express on a countdown to self-destruction.

The irony is that, rather than inflame the conservative base enough to drown out or reeducate the left, the lie actually ignited overwhelming numbers of young liberals. Once the idea of Obama as a candidate for peace began to be perceived as true, the GOP could kiss their presidential hopes goodbye, as that is exactly the type of candidate so many in our generation want. Even outside left-leaning student circles, America was ready for change, ready to leave the ways of militaristic power struggles behind; and conservatives showed them exactly who to vote for. The only problem was that many of these Obama voters did not have the wherewithal or desire to do the research necessary to find out they were being duped.

One needed only listen to what President Obama expressly stated in any number of nationally televised debates during the primaries to know that, far from waving the white flag in the war on terror, he would keep the nuclear option on the table in relation to Iran, raise troop levels in Afghanistan, carry out military operations across Pakistani borders without their permission, and continue anti-terrorism aggression in Iraq. For what it’s worth, Obama was at least honest, since he has followed through on all of the above.

Just this week, President Obama reminded the American people that they should be scared; al-Qaeda is “actively planning” attacks on the U.S. from Pakistan! He then had the gall to ask Congress for over a billion dollars to fund a military solution to the problem and mask it as a favor to the people of Pakistan. He also stated that we will "defeat terrorism," yet refrained from defining either what terrorism is, or exactly how many people need to be killed in order for it to be defeated. I hope I’m not the only one having some major déjà vu right about now:

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush (9/28/2002)

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney (9/14/2003)

If Conservatives wanted to win the election, they need only have pointed out the bare naked truth about Obama’s militaristic tendencies and refusal to Imagine a United States that can hold itself together without a war. Loyalty would have then been fragmented away to third party candidates who offered a platform of peace, and John McCain would have won the election.

Bearing this in mind, for the time being, maybe we should count our blessings.

Urban Evangelism?

I read an article in the current issue of Comment magazine about Christian attitudes toward cities, and I was struck by a comment the author, Robert Joustra, made about the nature of urban mission work:

"If our urban activities as people of faith are consistently predicated on conversion, we shall quickly become very bad neighbours. I think of this as a kind of spiritual narcissism which grows out of an interior insecurity about our own faith and life."

He later goes on to suggest that rather than viewing missions work, particularly in our home cities of urban North America, in a truncated sense, with conversion and proselytization as its exclusive goal...

"...we learn to live and share the Gospel story in ways that far exceed a simple dualistic mission--we start to think of worshipping God and honouring him by building efficient transit [etc.]...the Gospel in the urban metropolis calls us forth into all the manifold spheres of city life, to enact justice, sustain and cultivate beauty..."

I think this observation is right on, and I think the practices of even the most adamant, unapologetic, and conservative Christians show that they agree. The most evident example of this that I see is the way in which most overseas missions work, especially when there is a language barrier, is carried out. I've never heard of a team memorizing the Romans road in Spanish or Chinese; but they do have faith that the Spirit of God will be evident in their work of building a home for a single mother, or teaching English to students.

I am not saying that I think preaching the gospel has no place in missions work. Obviously, even in the above example, for instance, the gospel is at the forefront. However, I am indeed suggesting that there are benefits to reexamining urban missions along the lines mentioned. Rather than conversion being our number one goal, what if our goal was to cultivate life-giving practices within an urban context so that the gospel can be embodied through our actions, rather than (often empty) words? And what would happen if we partnered with inter-faith non-profits, government organizations, and all resources at our disposal creatively and faithfully to do it?

I think implicit in Christ's command to go and preach the gospel to all nations is a call to constantly deconstruct the practices we employ to accomplish it. While it may have been appropriate and effective in St. Paul's context to walk into a city, head to the synagogue and start converting people, our own reality is much different.

While there are appropriate times to evangelize and a number of people who respond positively to it, I think one thing that is lacking in our Church culture is a desire to serve with absolutely no ulterior motives including the desire for the one served to come to Christ or attend a church service.

What if we serve selflessly, often, and creatively enough that we become known as lovers rather than preachers, and by the work of the Holy Spirit, our cities invite themselves to a Sunday service? Amidst a culture of death and violence, there is something so compelling about the Church, whose gospel offers life and peace.