Pastor Kevin Haug writes:
It becomes a question of the heart of Jesus’ movement. Was it a movement about moral purity or eating with outcasts?
First question: is it really an either/or?
Second question: Are either of those two things really at the heart of Jesus’ movement? Or is it something else?
For instance, if I remember some of my seminary training correctly:
The heart of Jesus’ movement in Mark is summarized by Mark 1: 14Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, 15and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”
The heart of Jesus’ movement in Matthew is a fulfillment of the Law in the tradition of Moses.
The heart of Jesus’ movement in Luke is summarized in Luke 4: 18“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
The heart of Jesus’ movement in John is the unflenching salvation of the world through being the Lamb of God who is destined to die and rise again.
Oh, and we haven’t even begun delving into that rascal Paul and his take on Jesus’ movement.
It seems to me that within all of these perspectives, one can find Jesus being a moralist. One can find Jesus eating with sinners and the outcast. One can find Jesus offering repentance. One can find Jesus offering condemnation. So why the either/or nature of the question? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
It seems to me Christian ethics demands us to take moral positions. It also demands us to reach out and dine with the outcast and marginalized. In fact, I would almost argue it is a moral imperitave for Christians to dine with the outcast and marginalized. But that is another thread altogether. Your thoughts?
Bishop Michael Rinehart 
March 7, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Good question. Good point. You’re right. It’s not a either/or. It’s a both/and. It’s not a zero-sum game. Morality and commensality are not mutually exclusive.
And yet…
They can become mutually antagonistic. If my moral scruples keep me from fellowship with those I consider to be less worthy/clean/morally upright, then moral purity trumps commensality. This reality is all too common, and being played out in our church right now. It seems diametrically opposed to obvious pattern of Jesus’ ministry.
“Now all the tax-collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.’” (Luke15)
Jesus’ ministry was magnetically attractive to “unchurched” people. Our ministries today seem to be magnetically attractive to “churched” people. We repel the unchurched. If one wants to understand the decline of mainline Protestantism one need look no further. Those who think Riis adherence to Victorian ethics is the church’s panacea have it wrong. Every religious community has its “return to moral purity” folks, who want to fight off modernity and return to a day when things were simpler. Fundamentalist Muslims want the same thing. It’ll never accomplish what they want.
More troubling, I have a growin conviction that our gospel is mostly about moralism, and nominally about grace. We’re preaching a “be good” gospel, and the good we are to be misses the point, focusing on individual morality often to the exclusion of corporate morality.
To your second question, if I may attempt a summary of the passages you quote:
Mark 1: The heart of Jesus’ ministry is announcing the inbreaking of the kingdom of God. our response should be to repent (i.e. change our minds) and believe the good news (of the inbreaking).
Luke 4: the heart of Jesus’ ministry is to preach good news to the poor: release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, freedom for the oppressed, and to proclaim the jubilee year.
John: Salvation of the cosmos.
I can’t see Jesus as a moralist, At least not with the definition we used in yesterday’s second guest post. He’s not pounding people from a position of moral superiority, though he easily could if that was what he was about.
An implication of the inbreaking of the kingdom is eating together of rich and poor, male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free, righteous and unrighteous. (Oh wait, none are righteous, no not one…) The Eucharist is the enactment of this reality.
An upcoming gospel reading (Lent 4?) from John 9 shows the religious establishment’s view of Jesus:
16Some of the Pharisees said, ‘This man is not from God, for he does not observe the sabbath.’ But others said, ‘How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?’ And they were divided…
It’s very clear when one reads the gospels over and over, that Jesus is violating the very laws he saws will never pass away. He became sin who knew no sin.
I see Jesus as having morals, but not being a moralist. I see Jesus as holding himself to a high moral standard, but showing mercy and compassion to others, the opposite of what most people do.
I recall a congregation member who was on his third marriage pontificating on the sin of homosexuality “so clear in the Bible.” He had come to a place where he could justify his indiscretions, but could not extend that to others. We plead to God, “Mercy!” for me, but “Judgment” for others. I was in the unenviable position of pointing out to him Jesus said nothing about homosexuals, but a few things about divorce and remarriage.
One last thought. What jumps out at me in the gospels is that Jesus is more interested in justice issues, good news for the poor, freedom for the oppressed, mercy and kindness than he is keeping the minuscule rules of the fastidious.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness…”
Elsewhere he says the legalists “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” This is Jesus ranting against moralism. We must too, if we are following him. The church today often seems too much like what Jesus describes. Some folks out there get upset with two people of the same gender who want to profess abiding love to one another, but then aren’t spending nearly as much energy engaging the things Jesus talks about: justice, mercy, faithfulness, Micah 6:8 stuff, Isaiah 58 stuff, alleviating poverty, speaking out for those who are oppressed, advocating for orphans, widows and aliens (don’t even get me started on that one).
Present company excepted of course.
March 8, 2011 at 8:03 am
Two thoughts in response to each point:
I would agree that our “gospel” has become increasing more about moralism and less about grace both by those considered more liberal and those considered more conservative. That might sound a bit odd, but none the less, I believe it to be true.
Those moralists on the “right” harp on the usuals: homosexuals, sex, drugs, alcohol, abortion, etc. There’s no need to beat that horse.
However, I find the left just as moralistic when it comes to the issues of justice albeit on a more corporate level as you state. Thus, instead of an individual mandate to “be good”, there is now a wagging finger at “the church” or “the state” telling those entities to be good, or as you eloquently state toward the end of your post, “do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God.”
I’ll leave it at that without developing my thoughts too much further as I shift to Jesus the moralist.
I understand how it is you do not see Jesus as a moralist. Most of us would rather not. Even those who talk about homosexuality, drinking, drugs, etc. don’t like Jesus the moralist (as is the example of the gentleman who you encountered who had been divorced three times). But it is no difficult stretch to see Jesus as a moralist, but one with morals which are impossibly high.
Several examples, and please note, I am using the plain reading of the following texts. I do so for several reasons: 1) It was the prefered methodology of Luther. 2) It is the methodology used by most of the people in our pews. 3) It…well, I’d better not list reason 3, it would open up a whole can of worms that would lead to much, much more discussion.
Example #1:
The story of the rich man in Mark 10:
17As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” 20He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” 21Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 22When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
23Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 26They were greatly astounded and said to one another, “Then who can be saved?” 27Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”
It is no great stretch to interpret Jesus here as saying, “You must give up all your possessions and follow me in order to inherit eternal life.” No one that I know of has actually been willing to literally interpret Jesus as such. Most jump on this and say, “Jesus is saying we must love him more than our possessions.”
My answer is, “Really? I just don’t get that anywhere in that entire story of Jesus. Seems to me Jesus is pretty clear in what he is saying about what is required to inherit eternal life. If you don’t give everything away, you won’t inherit.”
No one likes me when I say such things because they are confronted with the uncomfortable task of realizing they have possessions. Oh, and I have heard others say that Jesus is taking this guy down a notch because he isn’t humble about following the law; therefore, this teaching is only for that man and anyone else who isn’t humble. Well…
Seems that’s just a convenient excuse to weasle out of what Jesus is saying here. We like the law and moralistic statements until they hit us where it hurts.
Second example: the great judgment in Matthew 25. I won’t recount the parable here, but it is no great interpretive stretch to say, “Jesus says we must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, visit the sick and imprisioned, and clothe the naked or else we will be lumped in with the goats and receive eternal punishment.”
There are numerous other examples that could be cited, but the reality of it stands, it is not difficult to construct an argument regarding Jesus being a moralist–albeit a moralist who, as you point out, does not have much regard for the purity code.
It is also painfully obvious that Jesus’ morality code–in justice, in compassion, and in relationship–is so high it is unattainable. Which leads to that whole don’t judge thing.
March 8, 2011 at 11:02 am
Luther said the first meaning is the plains and simple meaning, but he then went on to quite allegorical interpretations as well, in the Augustinian tradition.
Yes, Jesus raises the bar impossibly high. unless you are perfect…
At the end of your first Scriptural example the disciples are shocked at the standards. “Who then can be saved?” Jesus responds by saying basically no one. It’s impossible. But for God all things are possible. He oPens the door for grace.
So we’re back to the definition if moralism. Jesus is not raising the bar to create a platform of moral superiority, but in fact to bring the religious leaders down from theirs. “If you look at a woman with lust… If you are angry with someone…”
IMHO Jesus uses the high standards to level te playing field between the religious leaders and those they refer to as “sinners.”
March 8, 2011 at 11:13 am
Absolutely correct. IMO, THE response of someone who seeks to live by high morals.
I’ve got a guy in my congregation who I respect to the nines. He understands this stuff all too well. He remembers what he was like in his 20’s when all he thought about was the next girl he’d be able to sleep with.
He says that whenever he starts trying to climb up on his high horse, he reminds himself of those years. He reminds himself he’s no better, and it keeps him grounded.
He understands grace–and that’s why I quoted that entire part of Jesus’ conversation with the disciples. Jesus knows it’s impossible for us to live the perfectly moral life. He knows we need grace.
It’s the wrestling with life after we experience God’s grace that’s difficult. After all, we are no longer subject to the disciplinarian. (Galatians) Without the threat looming over our heads, how do we respond? That’s ultimately the toughest part about following Jesus.