Jesus Contemporary Thought & Scholarship

Luke 7:18-23; 2 Corinthians 5:16-21

A sermon by Kathy Toivanen at EMUC, 2/18/2007

Over the past 5 weeks, we have explored and deepened our understanding of Jesus through the lens of scripture, our own life experience and through the wisdom of various scholars and theologians. Today, as we conclude this series on Jesus, I want to offer a glimpse into a couple of the key topics that today are part of the debate and discussion about Jesus.

In the time and space that we have today, I can only touch on a few of the current areas of interest, so I hope that you will take time to continue the reflection and delve deeper into the areas that pique your interest.

In a world of economic disparity, in a world of many conflicts, in a world facing life-threatening issues like global warming, the gospel accounts of Jesus life and teachings have always been explored by those who are seeking a way forward in hope.

People like Jim Wallis, Walter Wink, and Ched Myers to name a few, are well known for their work in linking Jesus life with economics, peace and violence, politics and the environment.

Walter Wink is well known for his work on the challenges of a Christian approach to the issues of evil and violence in the world. In his book The Powers That Be, Wink asserts that Jesus’ message and life are powerful teachings on effective nonviolent ways to confront injustices and oppression in the world.

In one of his chapters called ‘Jesus’ Third Way’ he claims that Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence are not impractical idealism, but rather revolutionary actions that can disarm an enemy.

Wink points to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:38-41.

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.

Wink says that traditionally, we have interpreted these words of Jesus to mean that we should be passive and masochistic doormats in the face of violence and injustice. He argues that Jesus never displayed this kind of passivity. By carefully researching the cultural traditions of Jesus’ day, Wink sheds new light on traditional interpretations of Jesus’ words: if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.

In order to hit someone with your fist on the right cheek, you would have to be left-handed like me. But the left hand in Jesus’ day was only used for ‘unclean tasks’. To use your left hand in public was unheard of - it could mean exclusion and doing penance for up to ten days. So, Jesus was talking about someone using their right hand. The only way you can use your right hand to hit someone on the right cheek is to use a backhand blow.

Using the backhand in Jesus' day was a deliberate act of humiliation and degradation and it was a gesture only used on inferiors. Masters backhanded their slaves and servants, men in a patriarchal culture backhanded women, and of course in Jesus’ day Romans, who were the imperial force in Palestine, backhanded Jews. The whole point of a backhanded blow was to force someone who was out of line, back into place. Jesus is speaking to those who were accustomed to being degraded and humiliated because of their status or race and his teaching shows them a way to protest this kind of treatment.

By turning the other cheek - that is the left cheek, it is impossible for the aggressor to deliver another backhanded slap with the right hand. The left cheek can only be struck with a blow with the right fist; such a blow that would indicate that the aggressor and his victim were now equals.

By turning the cheek, the one who has been seen as an inferior is saying, "I’m a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated any longer. I am your equal. When large numbers begin behaving like this, then you have a social revolution on your hand.

One only need look at the leadership of Gandhi in India or Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights movement to see the power Jesus’ teachings on non-violence in action.

Jesus’ second example is set in a court of law. A poor man has been taken to court over an unpaid loan. Only the poorest of the poor were subject to such treatment. One of the laws in Deuteronomy (24:10-13) says that a creditor can take as collateral on a loan, a poor person’s outer robe, but it has to be returned each evening so that the person has something to sleep in.

Earlier in this series on Jesus, I described the heavy debt that burdened most of the peasant class in Jesus’ day; because they were not only taxed by the wealthy among their own people, they were also taxed again by the Roman Governors who had to pay Imperial Rome in order to keep their posting. Because of this, many Jews lost their land, had huge debts they could never repay and lived in abject poverty.

To these people Jesus says that if anyone takes your coat - that is, your outer robe, then give them your cloak - your inner robe - that is strip naked!

Once again, it is important to know that nakedness was taboo in Judaism, and shame fell less on the person who was naked, than on the person who caused the nakedness or the one who viewed the naked person. (Genesis 9:20-27). Jesus’ teaching is actually a protest against a system that created such an unjust debt load. It is a dramatic protest that says, ‘You want my robe? Here, take everything! Now you’ve got all I have except my body. Is that what you’ll take next?’

This teaching of Jesus was recently put into practice by those who had nothing else to lose. Shortly before the fall of apartheid in South Africa, police arrived at a squatters’ camp which they planned to demolish. They gave those who lived there five minutes to gather up their possessions before the bulldozers moved in to level the shacks. The women in the community came up with a creative non-violent way to stand their ground. They stripped naked before the men and the bulldozers. The police where so surprised and unprepared to respond that they turned and fled leaving the squatters and their camp in tact.

Much of this same theological reflection on Jesus’ life and teachings surfaces among peoples who are oppressed and living with grinding poverty and debt. In the late 1990s and 2000, all of the churches who were members of the World Council of Churches, (UCC is a member) focused the theme of ‘Jubilee’, a biblical reference to setting aside a time to relieve the unreasonable debt load of peasants and slaves, and the provision of a sabbath rest for the land and for all whose work enslaves them. During this focus on Jubilee, Christian voices from all around the globe turned time and time again to Jesus’ teachings about wealth, money, debt, sabbath, and non-violent resistance as they looked for ways to challenge and transform systems, economics and policies that exploit and oppress so many.

Most recently, in the United States, Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourners, a Christian peace and justice organization, has written a book called God’s Politics, which offers an alternative to rightwing Christianity and politics as well as to liberal viewpoints that water down or ignore the real power of Jesus’ teachings. His book includes chapter titles such as ‘When did Jesus become pro-war?’, ‘When did Jesus become pro-rich?’, ‘When did Jesus become a selective moralist?’ Like Walter Wink, Jim applies Jesus’ teachings and his actions to current issues of violence, poverty and morality.

Jim’s work has caught the attention of a wide range of people - he has been in conversation with many political leaders and his book has been a New York Times bestseller.

The other key area I want to touch on today is the discussion on the historical Jesus. As I mentioned in the first week on this series, in the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we do not have a biography of Jesus. The gospels are a unique form of writing with the sole intention of evangelism; another name for a gospel writer is evangelist. And the work of an evangelist is to draw people into faith - the gospels were written in order to draw the listeners and the readers into a faith relationship with Jesus Christ. And while it is true that the gospels include things Jesus said and did, they are not meant to be read as a clear linear sequence of biographical events in Jesus life.

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan are two Christian theologians who have devoted much of their scholarship to isolating the historical person of Jesus from the later writings and editorial comments of the early Christian Church.

As I mentioned before, I have had the privilege of attending educational events with both of these scholars. Marcus Borg is an American Lutheran Pastor, now a professor of religion in Oregon and John Dominic Crossan was once a Roman Catholic Priest, born and raised in Ireland. No longer a priest, he is a professor of religious studies in Chicago.

Both of these scholars appear on the DVD "Living the Questions" created the United Methodist Church in the USA. This resource is currently being used by a number of UCC congregations as a study and discussion resource. I’d like to show you now a couple of clips from one of the sessions on Jesus. The clip begins with Marcus Borg describing what he means by Jesus as a ‘pre-Easter figure of history’ and Jesus as a ‘post-Easter figure’. The second clip features John Dominic Crossan who talks about what we mean by the word ‘gospel’.

show clips

There is much more that could be said; there are many other Christian scholars, theologians, activists, and spiritual leaders that I haven’t had the time to highlight today.

Of course, I hope that this means that we will have another occasion to spend time to pursue more reflection and study on the person we look to foundation of our faith.

What I’d like to leave us all with today is Dom Crossan’s all important question - ‘What is your gospel?’ How will you live out the good news of Jesus’ life and teaching? A publication of the World Council of Churches includes a piece of poetry that invites us to take this question seriously.

May it be so.