Stay with people in their homes.
Tell them your good news.
And always go two by two.
Jesus and the Cross
As we move through Mark’s story of Jesus, guided by Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan in their book, “The Last Week,” we are coming to the last day of the last week, when Jesus will pick up his cross and carry it to his death on Golgotha.
Three times in Mark’s gospel, Jesus predicted his death, and each time he also called his disciples to follow him on the way: He began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.... If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” Mark 8:31-34
Christ died for our sins: Most Christians today understand Jesus’ death on the cross as his sacrifice for our sins. First articulated by St. Anselm in the 12th century, this explanation of the crucifixion has been called the theory of “substitutionary theory” of atonement – that is, Jesus substituted himself for us on the cross, taking upon himself the punishment that is justly ours. The substitutionary theory goes like this:
God is perfectly just.
God is also perfectly loving.
Because of God’s perfect justice, God cannot overlook human sins.
Because of God’s perfect love, God provides the necessary sacrifice.
God’s forgiveness is now freely available to all who accept Christ.
But is this image of God – God the impassionate Judge, who sends his own innocent son to pay for the crimes of the guilty – is this the same God whom Jesus proclaimed and embodied?
Christ became like us so we could become like him. There is another, much earlier explanation of Jesus’ death on the cross – we might call it the “mystical theory” of atonement. In the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus – building on the writings of St. Paul – wrote, Because of his measureless love Christ became what we are in order for us to become what he is. This idea was repeated again and again in early Christian sermons and writings:
In his incarnation, Christ became one with us.
In his life and teaching, Christ showed that he was one of us.
In his death, Christ united with us in our death.
In Christ’s new life, we become one with him in his resurrection.
Come, follow me: In Mark’s story, Jesus asks his disciples, again and again, to follow him – to come with him, to share his ministry, to participate in his mission. Borg and Crossan comment on Jesus’ call to his disciples to “take up your cross and follow me” by writing, “Nothing is said about Jesus’ doing it alone to excuse everyone else from having to follow him...” ("The Last Week," p. 95)
Borg and Crossan use the word “participation” to describe what happens when we respond to Jesus’ call to join him in his mission. The description of “participatory atonement” that Borg and Crossan find in Mark’s gospel is very close to the mystical theory held by Paul and Irenaeus and others in the early church.
When writing about the mystical union, the bond that Christ makes with us, Paul frequently uses the phrase “in Christ.” To the Romans, Paul wrote, do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3) To the Galatians, Paul wrote: “for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:26)
But Mark’s story shows us that the disciples did not understand. As Jesus was shouldering his cross, almost all of them were so afraid they ran away. How could they participate in Jesus’ mission, how could they ever be united with him, if they could not even stay with him to the end?
How did they learn what it means to be in Christ?
How were they transformed into bold disciples who shared Christ’s mission?
The Politics of Jesus
Jesus and politics? Today “politics” is a negative word: a “politician,” my dictionary says, is “a person experienced in the art or science of government.... a person primarily interested in political offices from selfish or other narrow interests....” This definition is so far from our understanding of Jesus’ goals and actions that we find it difficult to see him as active in “politics” or even interested in the political system. Yet although Jesus’ goals, his teaching and his actions, were obviously spiritual, they had great political impact in his own culture – and they still have implications for our political life today.
Jesus’ passion for the kingdom? We have seen that Jesus’ passion was for the kingdom of God. As The Last Week reminds us, Jesus came to incarnate the justice of God by demanding for all a fair share of a world belonging to and ruled by the covenantal God of Israel. But “kingdom” is a very political word – it has to do with how a society organizes itself, how it is governed, and who does the governing. When Jesus spoke of “the kingdom of God,” therefore, he was using a word with great political meaning.
The two processions: Borg and Crossan help us see the political struggle in which Jesus was involved by contrasting two processions into Jerusalem. The first procession – one we are very familiar with – was Jesus’ procession into Jerusalem on what we call “Palm Sunday.” The second procession – one we may not have known about – was a Roman procession into the city. In the same week that Jesus and his disciples entered Jerusalem (and possibly even on the same day) Pilate and his legions also came to take up temporary residence in the Governor’s Palace. Pilate’s procession was designed to impress the citizens of Jerusalem with the power of Rome (a power very necessary at Passover, when throngs of people came to Jerusalem to sacrifice and to protest). Mark’s gospel (Mark 11:1-11) shows us that Jesus planned his own procession into Jerusalem; that is, it was a political act, and it made a deliberate contrast to the very political act of the Roman governor and his legions.
Roman imperial theology: Pilate’s procession also conveyed Roman imperial theology: the Roman Emperor was called the “son of God,” “Lord and Savior” who brought “peace on earth” through conquering and subjugating the warring peoples around the Mediterranean Sea. The Galilean who entered the city on a humble donkey would also be proclaimed as “Son of God, “Lord and Savior”, whose goal was to bring “peace on earth” – not through warfare and oppression, but through the liberating Spirit of God. So, when the first Christians called Jesus “Son of God” and “Lord and Savior” they were proclaiming their allegiance to an alternate Lord and their true guide to “peace on earth.”
Domination systems: Borg and Crossan use the phrase “domination system” to describe the most common way that societies were organized in pre-modern times. Ancient agricultural societies had three major features: political oppression – the many were ruled by the few; economic exploitation – the laws and customs guaranteed that a high proportion of society’s wealth went to a very few; and religious legitimization – the religious leaders, beliefs and customs supported the political oppression and economic exploitation. (We might question whether the “domination system” is not still alive and well in the 21st century.)
Sin: What is “sin” in a domination system? Is sin a personal failure, or personal refusal to follow God’s laws? Or is sin also corporate failure, and corporate denial of God’s laws – by cooperating with the domination system? Borg and Crossan write, As individuals, the wealthy and powerful can be good people – responsible, honest, hard-working, faithful to family and friends, interesting, charming, and good-hearted. The issue is not their individual virtue or wickedness, but the role they played in the domination system. They shaped it, enforced it, and benefited from it.
Again, we may question whether the “domination system” is not still alive and well today:
* Where in our world today are the many still ruled by the few?
* Where in our world today do the few still receive the benefits of wealth?
* Where in our world today do religious leaders and religious systems continue to justify political oppression and economic exploitation?