or Participatory Redemption?
A couple of things before I reflect on this day:
1) What follows is not actually written on Good Friday. I chose to fast and pray yesterday, the actual Good Friday. In a Talking Circle on Thursday, we were asked by the elder to take the day for fasting and prayer. As I had joined them for a 3-4 day fast a few years ago (see here) and it was a profound experience, I figured it was time to do it again. I considered doing it for 3 days again, but chose instead, for one day. Good Friday. No food, no technology - only a book and prayer.
2) To be clear, I was raised in a Christian family - my parents were, their parents were, and on so and back. Therefore, I am not a 'new Christian' and I am captivated by the history, the line of the faithful. As I continue to live, I have come to a point where I am embracing more of life and living, and my beliefs are a part of that. I believe God is where God will be, and not where I say that he is. I believe there is much more to this than the label we give it. And, I believe God's love is for all creation. If someone were to tell me that they did not want to talk about 'that' (faith), then they would be saying that they did not want to talk about 'me' ... for it is as integral to me as my gender or my hobbies. However, because of what I do believe, I endeavour to make it as inclusive as possible, because my faith is inclusive. There is a part of me, a growing part, that is embracing something called 'universal salvation', and it gives me a peace heretofore never felt.
Thus, a reflection on Good Friday, of what this day is about, is part of who I am. Part of what I wrestle with. Part of what I celebrate. The life and death and resurrection of Jesus.
This year, I am reading a book - The Last Week by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Both Borg and Crossan are men steeped in biblical knowledge and understanding, both know more than most on the context and reality of what was going on at that time. They are also part of something called The Jesus Seminar. This is a group of Bible scholars and laymen who, in 1985 under Robert Funk, gathered to examine the Gospels and New Testament with a bit of a different lens. As far as I can tell, at this point in my reading, they do not dismiss Christ's redemptive purpose (or, maybe it's that from my reading, their propositions are not in direct conflict with my beliefs? At least not yet) but they bring a lot of context and cultural understanding into the narrative, which is something I greatly appreciate.
One of the things I have been reflecting on over the last year, is what would it mean to be a 'Christian Anarchist'. There is so much in organized Christianity today that does not sit well with me, and in a discussion with a friend, he referred to a statement made by Tolstoy. It got me curious. And now, with this book, I can see even more 'anarchist' type of thoughts put forth. Maybe I am making the word 'anarchy' into my own definition of this, but somehow, through it, I address things with Christian consumerism that surround me and that bother me. On the one hand, in some circles, there is a complete dismissal and turning away from anything connected to Jesus. It often seems to come from a place of ignorance, of assuming something that holds no truth but in the mind of the speaker. And, then, on the other hand, are the people who have been blinded to key aspects of what it means to walk the Way. I'm on neither side, but am curious about those who speak of being in connection with a Power that resembles what I call God. Often, it seems, we hold common messages.
This book I'm reading, is brilliant with the historical context of what was happening in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's crucifixion. And, what's even more appreciated, is that they bring in other texts than just the Bible. In my thinking, they go together - what has been found extra-biblically supports what is written in the Gospels. I know the Gospels are written by 4 different people, which means there is room for small differences because ... oh ... they're different people! Get any 4 people together that watch the same car accident, and I promise you, there will be differences! This book uses, predominantly, the Gospel of Mark for its examination. And, with a deeper understanding of the Jewish people, their faith and their relationship to the Roman overlords of the time, it makes things a bit different. Something, that is actually occasionally in line with my developing 'anarchy'.
"God is a God of justice and righteousness and when worship substitutes for justice, God rejects God's temple - or, for us today, God's church." (p49) This was from the section on when Jesus threw out the people in the temple. I often wondered about this point - was it about selling in God's temple? or was there more going on here? And it seems that it's more ... much more. They were doing what they were supposed to do (due to the parts of the temple and what needed to be done in these parts for both the Roman law and the Jewish law); what Jesus made a point of was - making a statement against the violence that was present and taking a stand for non-violence. Making a statement against the structural levels of authority, and for the equality of all. In God's Kingdom, there is no higher or lower, but we are all the same. Similar to how he came in to Jerusalem from the East on Palm Sunday, a direct in-your-face subtle challenge. This is the 'anarchy' I am creating - one of non-violence, one of global responsibility, one of connection and community and equality, one of unconditional love. And what does that look like in life. "Taken together, and they must be taken together, those action-word combinations proclaim the already present kingdom of God, against both the already present Roman imperial power and the already present Jewish high-priestly collaboration. Jerusalem had to be retaken by a non-violent messiah rather than by a violent revolution, and the temple ritual had to empower justice rather than excuse one from it. What is involved for Jesus is an absolute criticism not only of violent domination, but of religious collaboration with it. In that criticism, of course, he stands with the prophets of Israel for the anti-imperial entry against violence (Palm Sunday) and the anti-temple action against injustice (Monday), but he also stands agaisnt those forms of Christianity that were used throughout the centuries to support imperial violence and injustice." (p.53)
So, that brings to Good Friday. Well, there was lots in between but I'm going to skip to the historical Good Friday. They do refer to the redemptive theology of this day (which I do believe) but they bring to consideration another supported understanding of it, which is most intriguing. I am very familiar with the concept of substitutionary sacrifice when unpacking the significance of Christ's death. All the elements that surround this theology, I get ... and, I even take it a step further and believe that it is for the redemption of Creation, not just to save man. This is, in part, where my inclusive theology has come from. This book, however, brings another piece to the puzzle. [To note, I am not an 'either-or' person but a 'both-and' provided one doesn't directly contradict the other.]
Mark's story is not so much about 'dying for all sinners' as it is 'pick up your cross and follow me'. In fact, reflection on Wednesday covers this. He reflects on the theology of atonement - at-one-ment ... comparing the disciples and their responses to the woman who pours the ointment on his head. What was very interesting to me was the suggestion was that she was the first one who 'got' what he was about, what his death meant. In fact, she was the first believer, the first 'Christian' ... before he died and rose again! She said, "Since (not if!) you are going to die and rise, I must anoint you now beforehand, because I will never have a chance to do it afterward." What an example! And, add to this, her demonstration of what it truly means to 'lead' in the Kingdom of God! What strikes me in all of this, is the action that is required. Not words, but action. It's not what we profess as much as the actions we give to support that profession. To be a Christian is not what we say but how we live. And how does Jesus ask that we live? following him with our cross, standing for non-violence in the face of violence, being a servant first, through persecution to death. (Sunday is yet to come.) This is not a happy life, full of money and good stuff. This is a difficult life! No wonder so many 'Christians' have changed it to what they want it to mean! But these Gospels are clear - the way of Christ is the way of the Cross. Non-violence calling out the injustice!
Mark makes clear how the law manipulated it so that the crowd who cheered Jesus' entry on Sunday was not the same crowd that cried for his death on Friday. When asked if Jesus believes himself to be the King of the Jews, one script said, "I am" ... and another said, "Am I?" which would continue Jesus' responding questions with questions, that is present throughout the earlier chapters of this week. All other people in this story - from Barrabas to the two crucified on either side of Christ were all revolutionaries. The thing is ... they all, but Jesus, advocated a violent revolution. Christ, alone, advocated a non-violent revolution - a revolution of the heart, of the soul, of message.
The book takes a look at what crucifixion was, what was it used for, how was it done. And, there is nothing like this in our world today. Save, perhaps the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and journalist for the Washington Post. That seems to have been pretty brutal, even by today's standards. He also reflects on the darkness, the ripping of the temple cloth, and the wonderful role of women. All, possibly true, but definitely symbolic and powerful. Darkness likely was not actual (as there is no astronomical proof of anything like this at that time), but there certainly was a 'darkness' in understanding, in grief and judgement. The ripping of the fabric - also. A continuation of the message of equality, of removal of hierarchies that was at the center of Christ's preaching, even as recent as the last Monday. And women? The last mention of the disciples in Mark was when they fled from the Garden ... but the women continue to make various appearances - from near the cross to preparing the body, to the first to the tomb on Easter morning. I like that they were a significant part of this part of the story!
Apparently, in the early days around and after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, there were many thoughts regarding what this was and what it meant. I'm not going to go into all of that, but there was one statement that struck me. "According to Mark, Jesus did not die for the sins of the world. The language of substitutionary sacrifice for sin is absent from his story. But in an important sense, he was killed because of the sin of the world. It was the injustice of domination systems that killed him, injustice so routine that it is part of the normalcy of civilization." (p.162-63) My personal thought on this is ... could it not be both? I think that if you isolate only one reason, you are missing a lot of the meaning. I could definitely see how 'because of sin' is part of the picture, but I don't want to lose the 'for the sin' either. I think there is enough scriptural justification for both.
What this new phrase brings to the picture for me is a collaboration, of sorts. Because of the sin - in my mind, that is something that is part of us all. We are all sinners, we all sin. And it is this collective sin that brought Christ to his death. However, this brings to my thoughts - was it only the sin on earth to then, or the sin throughout history? In that way, both 'because' and 'for' make most sense to me. In my mind, in my understanding, it is because of ALL sin, and for ALL sin. In which we all have a piece. And, as I mentioned earlier, both would support my developing belief of redemption for all of creation.
Friday ... yesterday. Today, he is in the tomb. Tomorrow morning ... a New Life.
But until then, we are still in the tomb with him. We are still in darkness.
