|
||
|
Living as God’s Missional
People Text: Isaiah 61 ● I suggested last week that… “What I think the world is after is ‘glory’ and ‘righteousness’, although they wouldn’t say it that way.” Glory- transcendence (to connect with ‘the other’); life that’s bigger; weightier. Righteousness- they desire to see things set right; to put an end to the dysfunctionality which has characterized their lives. ● We most often celebrate freedom in the context of ‘independence’ & ‘autonomy’ [freedom ‘from’ something]; our story (Christianity) references freedom in the context of ‘reliance’ and ‘sovereignty’ [freedom ‘to’ something]. We speak of freedom as ‘life without restraint’; the Bible speaks of freedom as ‘life constrained by love’; that love establishes the parameters of freedom. ● We speak of freedom as the inalienable right to pursue happiness; and, we assume that as long as my pursuits do not infringe on yours, we are living freely. But, of what value is freedom if I can’t find a way to sustain myself or keep my children from starving to death? There must be more to life than freedom. ►You were created for love, not freedom. You can live without restraint or interference and still not experience love; but, you can’t really know love without knowing what it’s like to ‘live freely’. ● Obviously, any mention of ‘freedom for captives’ would not be lost on its readers. It would immediately resonate with a people who had spent the better part of their existence in servitude or oppression to other ruling empires. Their response as captives varied: some felt that compliance was the least threatening approach; for some, co-existence was the strategy; for some, co-existence and compliance were not options: they chose insurrection. ● So, once our freedoms are denied or interrupted, there’s the inevitable conflict. The result is a clash between ‘us’ and ‘them’: ‘us’ (the victims) and ‘them’ (the oppressors). ● In these kinds of stories (which are being acted out daily), each party is able to find good reason for claiming the status of ‘victim’; each will perceive itself as the ‘oppressed’; each will see themselves as virtuous, simply struggling for what’s right. It’s our commitment to our own ‘rightness’ and determination to be justified which fuels the conflict. (2) other issues with such an approach: 1) most often, it’s hard to assign ‘blame’ and ‘innocence’; it’s rarely a matter of simple observation to which we attach the labels of ‘blame’ and ‘innocence’ (‘good’ and ‘evil’); it’s too involved, too complicated. Sometimes the only reason that one party seems more virtuous is because they have less power to be cruel! [you’re just bigger than I am!] 2) what happens when someone ‘wins’? How will the ‘liberated victims’ now treat their ‘conquered oppressors’? “When the victims become the liberators; when the roles are reversed?” Without repentance, today’s victims become tomorrow’s oppressors! ►Our vision of the future must be guided by ‘atonement’ (every movement of God toward his creation motivated by his purpose of setting things right); it must be motivated by a desire for the reconciliation of ‘oppressed and oppressor’, otherwise, we just continue to perpetuate injustice. It’s why our story must include such metaphors as ‘the kingdom of God’ and ‘new creation’. ● Throughout the story, it would appear that, most often, the Israelites had good reason to consider themselves the ‘victims’; the ‘oppressed’ [tiny, defenseless nation]. It’s no wonder that talk of a kingdom that would bring down powers, disperse foreign occupiers and liberate those who were oppressed was so passionately embraced. ● But, Jesus not only called the oppressive empire to repentance, but his hearers (the oppressed, the marginalize, the disenfranchised), who assumed they were the victims. Jesus didn’t seem real anxious to establish such categories as ‘innocent-victim’ and ‘guilty-oppressor’. ● Jesus was clear that none could experience the hope of the future in the present without a radical transformation of heart and behavior. The prevailing values which perpetuate such oppression must be abandoned and a new ‘order/rule’ set in place [i.e. once I determine that I don’t trust in my wealth, I’m not freaked out by having someone cop a $20 from my desk; once I determine that I’m simply a steward, I’m not panicked when you don’t return my rake; once I determine that my value is inherent because I’m an ‘icon of God’, I can live free of your approval]. By re-ordering the values, I eliminate the other’s leverage and can live ‘freely’. Jesus said, “You can’t serve God and wealth”, and, “Love your enemies”. Can you think of a conflict which has arisen between individuals, cultures or nations which is not motivated by either ‘greed’ or ‘hatred’? ►As best as I can tell, forgiveness seems to be the only solution; the only way to experience love and live freely. Repentance is hard. Most often our confessions are tainted with self-justification and victimization. And, if the perpetrators were more remorseful, forgiveness would be easier. ● Forgiveness is our only way out. Forgiveness breaks the power of past wrongs and its demands for justice and brings the cycle to a halt. If you think about it, this whole cycle’s like a ‘Three Stooges’ episode: You slap me, I slap you; you take my coat, I take yours, etc. At some point, someone must exercise their freedom and bring the cycle to a screeching halt. ►Forgiveness itself is a form of suffering. When I forgive, I not only suffer the consequences of being violated, I suppress my desire to exact revenge. ● When you come to realize that love is more powerful than sin, you are free to see yourself as the perpetrator and relinquish your demands for justice (code word for ‘revenge’). COMMUNION: When we come to this sacrament, it’s fairly easy to distinguish the ‘guilty’ from the ‘innocent’; ‘good’ and ‘evil’. But, in Christ, the ‘them’ became ‘us’. ►When you come to the cross, you realize that injustice is what it takes to secure forgiveness. He makes room for both the offender and the victim: he judges the wrong of the offender and the eventual wrong of the victim. The story of the cross is not a story about a God who died because he broke the covenant, but a truly incredible story of a God who was willing to die because of the failure of his all-too-human covenant partners. ►Forgiveness accomplishes what hatred and retaliation could not: change of relationship between victim and perpetrator. Most often, the best we can do is to offer a form of forgiveness which simply allows us to ‘go our separate ways’. But, going our separate ways creates ‘space between us’ and cannot be identified as restoration; it’s not yet ‘shalom’. Ours is a story of a God who refuses to be God without us; just going our ‘separate ways’ will not suffice. ►Forgiveness certainly does not guarantee shalom (peace; wholeness], it simply makes it possible. It’s the opening of our arms which welcomes ‘embrace’; which says we are making room for the other. ►It’s the nature of our actions which expresses our understanding of freedom. If it comes at someone’s else’s expense, it’s not really freedom. Isaiah 61:4-5 [read]- ‘the tables have turned’ ; ‘the shoe’s on the other foot’ This is an appealing theology: that dude in high school that stole my girlfriend… he’s going to walk my dog! That boss that wrongfully terminated you… he’s going to be your ‘pool boy’! Once oppressed, they find themselves in a place of ‘vulnerability’ (a good way to describe the Israelites): they would be standing somewhere in the margin between “forgiveness” and “retaliation”. ● They are being presented with a vision of ‘freedom’; a vision of a ‘hopeful future’: a vision of what life might look like, should they choose to use their freedoms to actually ‘free the oppressors’. Could it be understood as another expression of God’s desire to bless the whole world; this vision of forgiveness which extends healing and restoration instead of perpetuating anger and vengeance.
● It’s freedom as a
‘proclamation’ that keeps this from becoming just some ‘intriguing’ thoughts;
that keeps this sacrament from becoming vain repetition or wishful thinking.
It’s our response to the proclamation that determines if we will ‘live freely’. |
