Currents of Faith: Open and Unfolding Reflections

Let Jesus speak. Alas, the words of Jesus have waxed and waned in the 2000 years since he uttered them. Dr. Alfred North Whitehead spoke of Jesus as the “brief Galilean flicker.” In the church today we celebrate the bookends of Jesus’ life, his birth and death. Few pay much attention in that period of the church year called Kingdomtide, yet we all anticipate and lavishly celebrate Christmas and Easter. For me, however, the Kingdom is central, for there I find the voice of Jesus. In the bookends I hear the voice of his followers, the church. I value what Jesus said more than what the church said about Jesus.

In seminary in the 1960’s we heard the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. We learned that the Proclaimer became the Proclaimed. Three waves of scholarship have sought to understand the historical Jesus. In each of the three the mission was to focus on actual happenings in the life of Jesus. The challenge was to identify both those events which were created by the church and the words the church placed on the lips of Jesus. This was no simple task because the scriptures present them as already blended: happening, interpretation, created event, and created words.

The earliest search for the Jesus of history began over one hundred years ago with Dr. Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1906; the second adventure was initiated by Dr. James Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1959; and the third by Dr. Robert Funk and colleagues of the Jesus Seminar launched in 1985 and culminating in The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, 1993.

Contributing to the recent quest, I would include Dr. Hershal Shanks, (ed), The Search for Jesus: Modern Scholarship Looks at the Gospels 1993; Dr. Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, 1994; Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 2006; and Dr. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 1991. I find great value in these books as they seek to identify the reality of Jesus, a reality to which I can apply my theology. My quest begins in history as a foundation for my theology.

Theologically, I want to enter the center of creativity of Jesus. I want to know his occasions of experience to the extent that this is possible. I want to know in each of his known words and actions the persuasive influence of his past, his body, his enveloping world and especially God’s invitations. In this quest I am assuming that Jesus was fully human just as I and my friends are today. I also assume that there are dramatic differences between Jesus and us even as we are similar in being centers of creativity. My search began with the experiences of Jesus with God, those experiences expressed in  his parables, sayings and actions.

I was grateful that Jesus invited his followers to pray to God as he did: Abba. Jesus spoke Aramaic, a form of the Hebrew language. The word is translated Dadda or Daddy, and is the language of a little child when speech is first forming. This manner of addressing God was unique and distinct in his time, for there were other names for God used in scripture and worship. It was a first! I was delighted and amused to learn that Jesus went to the nursery rather than the sanctuary to find a name for God, choosing a word which is both intimate and childlike.

This Aramaic word is found in several passages in the New Testament and is the root word of the Lord’s Prayer, “Our Father.” The English translation does not capture the vibrant qualities of the original. The address is much too formal; more like children led by their nanny to make their daily visit to their 19th century English father. In addition to the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostle Paul employs Abba in his letter to the Galatians, affirming that the church in the early 50’s had caught the significance of this new word.

I make the assumption that this form of address reflects that Jesus was experiencing God intimately rather than as a formal or distant figure. I do not believe that Jesus would have used the word if he were not personally experiencing the divine in that manner. This form of address stands in stark contrast to the elaborate ritual one observes when approaching and addressing a King, Master, Lord or Emperor.

Jesus believed that God is available to us as intimate and personal. Jesus was not carefully guarding his relationship to God as a private and unique treasure or a mysterious gift. It was available and possible for all. I am heartily grateful to Jesus for this invitation. And there is another, the invitation to all to enter the Kingdom of God, of which I will speak later.

If Jesus were experiencing God as intimate, I could then understand one aspect of his center of creativity. Jesus was not experiencing the mandates of a king or the law of written scripture. The persuasion of each moment was from a loving parent offering words to one who is beloved. Such understanding leads to the personal authority with which Jesus spoke: “I say unto you!” This is a rather dramatic departure from the language of the prophets: “Thus sayeth the Lord,” and the priests: “It is written that!”

I have used color to describe the persuasive activity of God within Jesus. In my old fashioned way I thought of a barber pole, seen infrequently today. The strands of red and white continually swirl downward in a circular fashion within a glass case situated on a pole. If red represented God’s persuasive invitations, white the persuasion from his past, body, and world, then Jesus would look primarily red. Jesus was open and responsive to the invitations of God. With each passing event in which Jesus acted upon God’s proposal, Jesus’ past would increasingly come forward as red. The barber pole of Jesus looks a lot like red meeting red. Even the persuasions from Jesus’ body would move into conformity with his past and God’s possibilities. The encircling world would offer the white to which both Jesus’ past and God’s possibilities would respond. I contrast this to my barber pole, mostly white with an occasional tinge of red.

This is a way of saying that Jesus took on the perspective of God and this perspective became central in every word and action. Surely, it must have been this quality which attracted and won the devotion of those who decided to follow him and who called him Lord.

I do not know what allowed Jesus to be so fully responsive to God’s proposals. Did he possess certain genetic and psychological traits which would incline him toward an awareness of God? Did God offer unique invitations to Jesus as a little child to be open to the realm of God? Did he grow up in a God-sensitive family and neighborhood? Were his mother and father deeply spiritual persons? Was he especially attentive and receptive to the rabbis who taught in the synagogue? Was he endowed with a deep empathy for those around him who were struggling to survive? Was he influenced by the rich cultural center of Sepphoris only four miles from his home in Nazareth? Whatever the reasons, Jesus was distinct and unique!

A second distinctive quality I see in Jesus is that he was aware not only of the invitations but also the Presence offering the invitations. This quality underlies his naming of God, Abba. God offers invitations to all persons in all places at all times and most receiving them are at best aware of the content of the invitation: inspirations to do something new, construct something different, or see a new relationship.

I continue to be impressed by the image of a snake circling back to swallow its tail which inspired the 19th century chemist, Friedrich August  Kekule von Stradonitz as he dozed by the fire. He had been struggling intensely with how to understand the central formula for organic compounds. There came to him in that moment the prototype of the six sided Benzene ring. Likewise, I marvel at the complete rich melodies which came with ease to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in his youth. These are but two of the many divine invitations to “build a better mousetrap.”

These great figures were aware of the invitations, the inspirations, but not necessarily the One offering those invitations. Jesus was. His primary visions, gained through an intimacy with God, were the qualities of God and deep desires of God for the creation. I think in this manner, Jesus was distinctive.

I return now to the second invitation of Jesus, the kingdom of God. One thing is certain. This was the central teaching of Jesus. On this biblical scholars agree. God’s kingdom was the subject of Jesus’ parables. The problem arises as to the nature of that Kingdom, some saying it is within, others an encircling way of life, some that it has arrived, others that it was emerging through Jesus, and still others that it is yet in the future.

While I have always valued Jesus’ description of the Kingdom, only recently have I become aware of its full meaning and power. For this awareness I am indebted to Dr. John Dominic Crossan. I had read several of his books, heard him present at the Jesus Seminar, viewed his eight session video with our Sunday class, and spent a weekend at a conference he led at Washington State University. I was surprised that I had not heard his insights during my three years of seminary. I am not sure whether I was day dreaming in classes or the message was clearly formulated after I left seminary. I never caught the idea that Jesus’ Kingdom of God was created in direct contrast with the Kingdom of Caesar, the Roman Empire. The qualities which Jesus described were the exact opposite of those which were valued by Caesar. Dangerous stuff!
   
Dr. Crossan summarized it this way, Caesar gains victory then peace, God brings justice then peace! Caesar defeats an adversary thus bringing peace, meaning no rebellion. God values the creating of justice which leads to a vastly different form of peace.

Jesus lived in and talked about the realm of God. His words, as I have proposed, arose from the rich inner experiences with God. I have also said that they are central to my faith, so my quest became, what did Jesus say? To answer that question, I turned to the Jesus Seminar. They concluded in The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus that ninety-one statements are authentic, or in their language “red and pink sayings.” I will illustrate some among the ninety-one which affirm my personal faith and reveal God. I begin with three parables which form a foundation for me. The first is the Prodigal Son or possibly even more accurate, The Waiting Father.

God is like the father of the wayward son. Middle Eastern men do not run to greet anyone. The other must come to them. It is sobering to know that the father had the right under Jewish law to have his son executed for his violations of the Law. However, the actions of the father toward the returning son are lavish: running to greet him, embracing him, putting a ring on his finger, placing a robe over his shoulders and calling the servants to prepare a feast. This was all done for a young man who had asked for and received his share of his inheritance early and rapidly squandered it. He surely did not get what he deserved, rather he was offered grace.

I am assuming in Luke’s telling of the parable that Jesus is portraying the father as God, but he could simply be a human father who models how to live in the kingdom of God. Either of these interpretations would point in the direction of God as grace. [Lk15:11-32] 
 
I have already expressed my deep admiration for the vineyard owner. His actions violate every rule and conventional wisdom of that day. He did not follow the proper guidelines of management for land owners. You would think that his action would promote laziness and sloth among the workers. “Okay, guys, this fool pays a days wage for an hour of work. Let’s hang out a while longer until he comes looking for workers.” I am taken with the owner’s words: “Would you deny me my generosity?” In my search I have never found a moment of grace which surpasses this. [Mt 20:1-15]    

Both the father of the wayward son and the vineyard owner face anger. They simply do not play by the rules. Those who have been diligently following those rules are deeply offended by these radical acts. The older son laments that though he has worked faithfully on his father’s farm there were no feasts given for him. The laborers who worked all day in the vineyard hoped that they would receive even more than the agreed upon wages, and were furious when that did not happen. I think Jesus was expressing how radically different the realm of God is from the kingdom of Caesar.

The despised and lowly foreigner comes to the aid of the man who was robbed and left beaten by the side of the road. His own people, who were members of the dominant culture, walked by, first a priest then a member of the priestly family. A Samaritan offered aid in abundance, placing the wounded man on his donkey, taking him to the nearest inn, and agreeing to pay for his care there. This abundance sounds much like the welcoming of the wayward son. The grace in this instance was surprising, truly unexpected, and from an unlikely source. The foreigner could just as well have thumbed his nose, thought good riddance and enjoyed a sense of poetic justice. “You look down on others. You hurt others. Have a taste of your own medicine!”

The problem for those who walked by was that they would need to be purified in a time consuming ritual if they touched the wounded man. They were no doubt busy people on their way to do important things. Yet the one held in low esteem threw caution to the wind to meet the needs of a man from the superior culture. It is no wonder that we have so many institutions and organizations called The Good Samaritan. [Lk 10:30-36]

I love the story of the shepherd because it doesn’t make good sense! Would any reasonable person charged with keeping watch over the sheep leave the flock unguarded to seek out the one who is missing? Of course not! Hovering wolves would descend the minute he was out of sight. I think the parable has two points, the one sheep is cherished and valued and the kingdom turns everything upside down. There is a surprising zinger which characterized Jesus’ stories and served to grab the listener’s attention. They would likely say, “Did I just hear what I thought I heard?” People who reside in the kingdom of God act in ways which just do not make sense to those living in the kingdom of Caesar. [Mt 18:12-14]  

Jesus spoke in this same nonsensical way in those words which were later called the Beatitudes: “Congratulations, you poor!” “Congratulations, you hungry!” Surely, this is the radical language of a counter-culture which would make the jaws of the listeners drop and leave their heads swimming. No wonder the gospel writer Matthew watered them down and made them ethereal rather than pointedly practical: Blessed are you poor “in spirit.” Blessed are you who hunger and thirst “for righteousness.” [Mt5.3; 6]   

Perhaps the most controversial and puzzling statement of Jesus is that one should hate his family. No teaching could more decisively cut against the grain. I find Dr. Crossan’s interpretation compelling. These words are an effort to avoid the milieu where the young are unknowingly initiated and ushered into the kingdom of Caesar. Ooops, wrong kingdom!

In contrast to Caesar’s kingdom are brief accounts of the delight when one finds and enters the kingdom of God. The woman who lives in abject poverty rejoices when she finds the lost coin, the lowly shepherd rejoices when he finds the lost sheep, the merchant rejoices when he finds the valuable pearl in the ground, the father rejoices when the wayward son returns.

Other stories could be cited which cut the same edge. They confirm for me that a central theme of the Kingdom of God is grace, a grace that does not make sense when one has been nurtured on rules and laws, yet brings great joy to those who enter this strange new world.

The sayings of Jesus are equally as powerful as the parables. Technically these one-liners are called “aphorisms.” The two modes of speaking by Jesus were aphorisms and parables, sayings and stories. The sayings speak of God: The One who knows every sparrow who falls; the One whom the lilies of the field trust totally; the One who nurtures the mustard seed; and the One who casts seeds across all kinds of soil. The sayings speak of a God who would have us forgive seven times seventy times, turn the other cheek when struck, go the second mile when forced to carry the Roman soldier’s heavy gear, give not only your coat but also your shirt, love your neighbor as yourself, and, unbelievably, love your enemy. I say, “Wow!”

My search was not complete without understanding the actions of Jesus. Jesus healed the physically and mentally afflicted, but did not develop a healing center in a given location, as was customary for healers. Rather, Jesus chose to be an itinerant healer so that others would not develop a client-patron relationship with him. He did not hang out his shingle. Again, he swam against the stream of his day!

When invited, he ate with those whom he had healed, just as he invited all to the table. Dr. John Dominic Crossan describes this open table as “commensality.” All are welcome, no one is excluded, sometimes to consternation of the rich and famous of that time. Indeed, it was very disruptive when the woman prostitute interrupted the dinner hosted by a Pharisee to wash Jesus’ feet and dry them with her hair.

Open table is also expressed, according to Dr. Crossan, in the last supper Jesus shared with his disciples. He took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to those gathered. While to moderns it would appear that nothing significant is happening here, there was. The model being acted out is that of the host who is also servant, contrary to the  traditional  role. In that role the host takes and blesses the bread, after which it is left for the servant to breaks and distribute the bread. If we listen to this behavior, we receive a an unspoken and striking message.

Invitations and seating arrangements were carefully choreographed by the Romans and Greeks of that day. The nearness of your dining lounge to that of the host was a mark of your importance. Jesus’ parable of the king’s servants who were ordered to invite a select list of people to a great banquet is instructive. The number accepting the invitations was zero. People had other obligations and priorities. The king then instructed the servants to search the highways and byways inviting all to the event. Thus, when some reject the kingdom of God, others will be cordially invited. The invitation is to everyone.

The parable of the king’s banquet fits with the actions of Jesus. He was widely known to associate with the social outcasts, a clear violation of the purity code. I find that his experience expressed in teaching was consistent with his behavior.

I was particularly curious about the relationship between Jesus and women. Little about women is present in the authentic words and acts of Jesus. I see no evidence that the conversation with the woman at the well was considered authentic, though the words shared there had considerable influence in the church. The one historical event identified by the Jesus Seminar is the woman suffering from a discharge of blood who grasped Jesus’ robe and experienced healing. Sadly, Mary of Magdala was assumed to be a prostitute possessed by demons until healed by Jesus, yet historically she was more likely a leader among the followers of Jesus.

My search for such relationships was clearly hampered by action of the later church, erasing women from the Jesus movement. According to Karen Jo Torjesen in When Women Were Priests, this was literally carried out as both the descriptions of women were removed from the written documents and the names of women chiseled off the stone sepulchres and other sculpting and facades. I found one clue in the directions given by Jesus to his followers to go out two by two. Some scholars think this was because one woman could not travel alone in that culture. A plausible explanation results, one of the two was a woman. With this limited historical information, my intuition is that women were actively involved in responding to the call to the realm of God.

I believe that the parables, aphorisms and actions of Jesus point toward a realm which is the creation of a God of grace. Everyone is invited to live within this realm where Jesus lived. His daily experience was of Abba, so we might say that he marched to a different drummer and invited all to join in the parade.

I know that it is a jump to assume to know the selfhood of a person from listening to what they say and what they do. Still, if I had ninety-one statements spoken by that person, I would be willing to risk the jump. I am willing to risk saying that for me this is Jesus.
 
I titled this discussion the Commonwealth of God and thus far have been discussing the Kingdom of God or the realm of God. The Jesus Seminar has employed the phrase, “God’s Imperial Rule.” I find this name to have some inconsistency with the basic persuasive nature of God which is central to my theology. Dr. John Cobb, in a recent lecture in Wenatchee, spoke of his preference for “commonwealth” to avoid the sexist connotation of kingdom. Indeed, it would be more accurate, yet cumbersome to speak of the kingdom-queendom of God. Commonwealth also leads to language about the common good and emphasizes the importance of the entire community. There is some risk in using this term as a number of dramatically authoritarian empires have borne this title, yet perhaps less risk than using the masculine title. I have chosen to speak in terms of  a commonwealth or realm of God.

I conclude that Jesus has gifted both opportunities and tasks. I have the opportunity to be aware that “Abba, Dadda,” is continually present with me. I have the task of being open to God’s invitations. I have the opportunity to hear a number of words directly from Jesus and my task is to distinguish them from the words the gospel writers of the early church placed upon his lips. I am free to appreciate their interpretations of Jesus and decide to what degree I can affirm them. I have the opportunity to be aware of the commonwealth of God, bringing me the task to respond in each moment to the invitation of Jesus to live within that realm in contrast to the ever-powerful invitations of some present day version of the empire of Caesar. I do believe that Jesus has gifted us all with Abba and the commonwealth.

Thank you, Jesus!

In the next chapter on Jesus Christ, I will present my theological reflections on the resurrection of Jesus as experienced by his followers.

Living in Process: My 43 Years in Process Theology is an interactive eBook by Robert Brizee, Th.M., Ph.D.