Rachael Friesen
Until I entered University, I had never really thought of
Jesus as much of an activist. Religiously-okay-but politically??
I realized that he had been pretty radical with the chief priests
and religious figures of his day, but, to me, it seemed to be
mostly on the spiritual level. I realized he was significant to us
nowadays, but his activism was limited in my mind to his
historical and geographical situation in Israel, and unrelated to
my political situation in Canada, 2000 years later. It wasn't
until I entered University and took a class on peace and justice
issues that I started to realize just how politically active Jesus
had been, and how relevant his goals remain to the social ethics
of our day.
To understand how, let us begin by taking a look at
Jesus' historical situation in Israel. Historically, Israel began as
a group of self-sufficient villages run by communities.
Sometime around 1000 BC, walled cities began forming, and
iron technology allowed urban living to be possible. However,
this was bad news for anyone living outside the cities, as taxes
now had to be paid to the elite. Not only that, but they had to be
paid in currency, not in goods, forcing the rural dwellers into
debt. Finally, around 63 BC, Roman forces took over Israel,
causing unpayable debt for farmers and rural dwellers, and poor
political and social situations for most Israelites, save the elite.
This elite would likely have been made up of the chief priests,
the former Israelite bureaucracy, and the wealthy that were
willing to conspire with the Romans.
The political scene around 30 AD was made up of 5
groups: the Essenes, the Zealots, the Pharisees, the Saducees
and the Romans. The Essenes were sort of like the Amish, they
wished to withdraw from society in order to lead a pure life.
The Zealots were just the opposite. They were political
extremists, terrorists really, who used physical force to try to
simply, eliminate the current system. The Pharisees, the church
leaders of the era, believed that religion was a personal, private
issue, and not a social matter. Finally, the Saducees felt they
had the divine right to rule and to cooperate with the Romans in
order to further their own interests, even if that meant letting
their fellow citizens go hungry and naked, or if it meant letting
Jesus be crucified.
Jesus, himself, was not a wealthy man. Both Matthew
and Luke present the family as refugees, probably from Egypt.
Likely, they had not lived in the Galilean area for long, since
they had to go back to Bethlehem, to participate in the census.
Also, Jesus worked as a craftsman, which was not exactly a
white-collar job. His trade is often translated as "carpenter", but
if he worked around Nazareth, which was a small farming town
outside of Galilee, it would be more likely that he was a stone-
mason. And Nazareth, being a small town, meant that Jesus
would likely have had to work in another city, possibly even on
the temple project in Jerusalem, or be a migrant worker. Either
way, it is clear that he has been away for sometime before he
starts his ministry. The book of Mark details his homecoming
to Nazareth. Chapter 3, describe how when Jesus' family
discovers that he has begun to tour as a holy man, they go out
to attempt to restrain him, hearing that he has gone crazy. In
Chapter 6, the townspeople of Nazareth are shocked and
confused as to when and how this boy they grew up with has
become so learned about the scriptures and about politics, with
no formal education to speak of. Most of them brush him off,
as his family did, as having "lost his mind". Perhaps they had
failed to recognize the great expectations of Jesus, heralded
throughout the old testament, and at his birth.
Language of Jesus / Expectations
Take a look at our old testament scripture readings for
today; they prophesy the coming of a messiah who will
"adjudicate for the poor with righteousness" and "decide with
equity for the meek". He will "faithfully" "bring forth justice
to the nations" and "bring out the prisoners from the dungeon".
These passages are talking about much more than spiritual
matters.
The term the early believers used for themselves,
"church" or "ecclesia", was also a political term, meaning "town
meeting" or "parliament". This demonstrated their
separateness from the existing social order. The word politics,
itself, means that relating to "polis", often translated as "city".
In other words, the "ordering of the way people live together".
Surely Christianity has to do with the way people live together;
thus, faith is inextricably political.
Jesus himself speaks in political language, of the
"kingdom-" and the "reign-of-God", this was the central theme
in his ministry. "God's reign is a vision of all things (all
creation) as they were intended to be and as they ought to be; it
means all things being in right relationships thus terms like
peace, justice, and righteousness are adjectives which describe
God's reign". (Gordon Zerbe, "Jesus of Nazareth," February,
2002)
This "reign of God" was Jesus' term for the manner in
which his followers, the church, were to behave. The Church's
mandate was to begin transforming society into a new way of
being. In Paul's letter to the Ephesians, he describes how we
are to become "a new creation". The Greek word is most often
used as a verb in "the act of creating", thus, in being baptized
we are to follow Jesus in the act of creating the "kingdom of
God, on earth as it is in heaven". A whole new world.
Platform
This "whole new world", was demonstrated by Jesus
through his constant social and political activism. There are
many instances of Jesus feeding the poor in the gospels. This
was very important, because of the pervasive poverty and
hunger in Galilee. Not only that, but the kinds of people that
Jesus chose to banquet with were not you average Galilean
'banquet-goers'. Instead, Jesus chose to eat with the
marginalised: the tax collectors, the sinners and the poor. Not
only was Jesus making a statement about how worthy these
people were, to be eating in the company of the Son of God, but
these festive meals helped the banqueter break down the social
barriers that estranged the various groups from each other.
Jesus was concerned with breaking down social barriers.
He spoke with children, with slaves, with sinners, harlots,
samaritans and women, none of whom were considered
"people" in their society. Jesus spoke with them all of
important theological issues, with the capability to understand
it, and make changes in their lives and the lives of others.
In the book of John, 14:20-23, Jesus prays at the
passover meal that those who believe in him will be made one
as he is with God. The apostle Paul later reiterates this idea in
Galatians 3:28 "for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God
through faith...There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no
longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all
of you are one in Christ Jesus." The Early Church felt so
strongly about this new social order, free of ethnic and
economic divides, that when asked their nationality, they would
respond "Christian".
Jesus associated with the ill, and the unclean and healed
them. He forgave their sins, but questioned the stigma that
those who are ill are more sinful than the healthy. The
forgiveness of sins helped to alleviate the burden of self-blame
that accompanied the label of being especially sinful.
Take the instance of Jesus' healing of the blind beggar in
John 9:1-3 . This man has been labelled as a sinner and is
marginalised from the rest of society because of his poverty and
his physical condition, yet Jesus takes the time, on the sabbath,
to heal him. He tells the crowd that "neither this man nor his
parents [have]sinned; he was born blind so that God's works
might be revealed in him"
Jesus was careful to convey the requirement of faith in
order to be healed. This is symbolic of the requirements of
being part of "the reign of God", in that in order to be
transformed by God, those who wish to be healed, literally or
metaphorically, must take the first step. Taking initiative is
required to be part of the kingdom of God, as it is not a passive
lifestyle. It requires discipline, and is not without it's costs.
Jesus was often warning people of the price of following
him. He warned that it would divide father against son, and
daughter against mother. He warned that his followers would
be hated, excluded, defamed and reviled. He also warned the
rich that "those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but
those who lose their life will keep it"(Luke 17:33). In other
words, those who are concerned with their lifestyle, their
comfort and their possessions, are missing the point of living,
particularly, living in the kingdom of God. This is a indicates
that economic violence, or economic sin, is just as much of a sin
as any other.
Throughout Jesus' ministry, instead of bringing
additional laws, Jesus simplified the existing laws of Moses into
three simpler, but more demanding rules: to love God and
neighbour, to seek the "weightier" things of God's law-such as
justice, mercy and love, and to seek God's mercy rather than to
sacrifice. This was good news for the sinners, the Gentiles and
the poor, but required much more effort from those, such as the
Pharisees, who kept the laws of piety and cleanliness, without
showing kindness and generosity to those below him. It meant
that the Pharisees could no longer simply pay sacrifice for their
sins, but had to change their hearts before receiving forgiveness.
John Howard Yoder, an influential Mennonite
theologian, in an unpublished paper he wrote for his Goshen
Seminary students entitled "Was Jesus A Political Person"
(1973) said that one's inward and outward lives should not be
separate. "You [cannot] evangelize your neighbour inwardly
while you patronize...or discriminate against him politically."
For example, you cannot witness to the First Nations people
while destroying their culture and taking their land, as North
Americans have done historically. The honesty of that witness
simply does not follow through from word to action.
Mike Garde, an Irish Anabaptist, argues that the
interpretation of the New Testament, as non-political, began
with Constantine. Up until then, the Early Church had existed
as a small, radical group, but Constantine managed to change
"the cross from an instrument of salvation and minority social
ethics, to a crusading imperial project, which totally changed the
shape of Christianity to this day" At this point in history, all of
those who fell under the jurisdiction of Constantine were forced
to be Christians. Thus there was a difference between those
who truly believed Christ's teachings, and those who were
simply forced to participate in the worship. John Howard Yoder
adds that it meant "that the people who truly called themselves
"Christian" were not really free to follow Jesus in their social
structures."
How, then are we to follow Jesus in our encounters with
injustice? Are we to separate ourselves in an attempt to become
a radical minority? Or are we to go out and attempt to force
societal revolution? Well, if we follow Jesus, the answer is
probably neither.
Jesus is careful to reject the first-century means of
resisting the powers. He rejects the violent methods of the
zealots, nor does he support the non-involvement of the
Essenes. This is made clear in the scripture passage read earlier
about the temptations of Christ.
When Jesus is first tempted to turn the stones into bread,
he refuses, saying that "man cannot live on bread alone". He
does not wish to be the kind of Messiah that has followers just
because he feeds them when they have no food. He is quite
aware that his purpose goes far beyond solving the temporary
social problems of his day.
The second time, Satan tempts Jesus with reign over "all
the kingdoms of the world, all power and glory". Again, Jesus
is quite aware that his mandate could never be realized by
involving himself in the fallen, earthly structure of international
politics, and he refuses.
Lastly, he is tempted to jump of the pinnacle of the
temple and be saved by angels. Not only does Jesus refuse on
the grounds of not wanting to be followed for being a miracle-
worker (in fact, in most instances where Jesus performs
miracles, he immediately directs the witnesses to keep it a
secret), but the pinnacle was also the place where the criminals
were often executed by forcibly falling to their deaths. If Jesus
was to jump off and call for the angels to save him, that would
show the masses that he had in fact put himself to the penalties
of his "crime" but without having to deal with the
consequences, which was not the message he was trying to send
to his listeners.
Instead, Jesus advocates what Walter Wink, an American
theologian, calls "Jesus' third way": to assert oneself with
dignity and take control of a situation without being violent or
careless. In Matthew chapter 5:38-42, Jesus tells the masses
that "if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other
also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give
your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go
also the second mile."
This passage is typically interpreted as being impractical
and an invitation to let oneself be abused. However,
historically, this is not the meaning at all. In the ancient near
east, face "slapping", with an open palm, was not an uncommon
gesture of greeting. The only time it was not friendly, was
when one was to slap another with the back of their right hand,
like so (demonstrate), hitting the person on the left cheek. Thus,
if one is to turn their left cheek forward, the perpetrator has no
choice but to slap them with the open palm of their right hand,
a sign of greeting and equality, or to strike them with the back
of their left hand, which was only used for unclean tasks, and
carried a penalty if one was discovered using it for any other
purpose. [as a side note, this demonstration was a lot of fun to attempt
with each other and the dean of students in the lecture hall]
In the case of giving one's cloak, the clue is found in the
book of Exodus. Here it can be used interchangeably with the
word "undergarment". Exodus 22:26-27 states that "If ever you
take your neighbour's cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before
the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbour's only clothing
to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep?" Only the
poorest of Israel would have only an coat, or outer garment, to
give as collateral. So when Jesus tells the poor to give their
undergarment as well, this means they must leave the court
completely naked. "Nakedness was taboo in Judaism, and
shame fell less on the naked party than on the person viewing or
causing the nakedness. Therefore, in giving the creditor their
undergarment, they are publicly shaming them in taking away
literally all of their possessions, and making a political
statement about the economic system that has caused the
peasants heavy debt.
Lastly, it was common practice for the Roman soldiers
to force an Israelite to carry their pack for them, but the limit on
how far a soldier was allowed to have someone carry it was a
single mile. This practice was often abused. Roman soldiers
would force people to carry their packs just to boast their power,
and these packs weighed up to 85 pounds. According to Wink,
"there are vivid accounts of whole villages fleeing to avoid
being forced to carry soldiers' baggage". Imagine a scene
where at the end of one mile, this Israelite insists on taking it for
another mile. This was not a favour to the soldier, he could be
severely disciplined for violating the rules, the Israelite could
even report the soldier himself. Thus, the soldier is left either
being held accountable in court for abusing his position, or
being publicly humiliated by pleading with Israelite to return his
pack, as he happily refuses, continuing the scene to the end of
the second mile.
This is how we are called to act. As Christians, our
mandate is to care for the sick and advocate for the poor. As
Jesus said in Matthew chapter 25, "Truly I tell you, just as you
have done to one of the least of my brothers, so have you done
for me." When we are faced with injustice, we are called to
get involved, to be political and to be non-violent. An
example of this can be found in the case of a black woman
walking down the street in South Africa with her children,
during the years of apartheid. A white man, in the midst of
passing her, spat in her face. Immediately she stopped, turned
and said "Thank you, and now for the children." He was so
shocked he was unable to respond. Another instance can be
found in the case of Bishop Desmond tutu. While walking by
a construction site on a temporary sidewalk the width of one
person, a white man appeared at the other end, recognized
Tutu, and said, "I don't give way to gorillas." At which Tutu
stepped aside, made a deep sweeping gesture, and said, "Ah
yes, but I do."
This is not to say that non-violence is always effective.
It does come with its consequences, which can include
anything from receiving physical violence to jail time. But
Jesus reminds us, in both Matthew 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-34
not to worry about their physical needs of food, clothes and
shelter, as life is more than food and clothes. In other words,
activism is not about results or ends, but about action, or
means.
Mahatma Gandhi agrees with this idea, and expresses
it quite clearly in his response to the Machiavellian argument
that the ends justify the means. "Your reasoning", he says,
"is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting
a noxious weed...The means may be likened to a seed, the end
to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connexion
between the means and the end as there is between the seed
and the tree...We reap exactly as we sow."
SOURCES
Rachael Friesen is a student at Canadian Mennonite University in Winnipeg, Manitoba