|
Hilaire
Valiquette, OFM Hilaire
Valiquette, OFM, is a Franciscan pastor in New Mexico, working with
Hispanics and Native Americans. He has a Ph.D. in anthropological linguistics
and has done fieldwork in New Mexico, Australia, and Mexico. He has
taught courses in missiology at several seminaries. Reprinted from Missiology
26 (19C 3) pp.431-433
The process of Jesus’ ministry The story of Jesus’ministry is a paradigm for the ministry of his disciples and a model of the process of God’s kingdom, including missionary activity to outsiders. The story ia as follows: 1. God anointed Jesus to proclaim the kingdom to his own people, not to outsiders. 2. His preaching (particularly his stanœ toward law, riches, and power) and actions (table fellowship with sinners, healing, and exorcisms) were a scandal, and he was rejected by the leaders of his people and abandoned by his disillusioned disciples. 3. He was handed over to the Gentiles and killed, but God raised him from the dead and he appeared to the disciples. 4. The resurrection confirmed him as Messiah and Son of God, and he gave his disciples a mission to all nations. The ministry of Jesus’ disciples, then and now, should mirror that same process. 1. They are to preach the kingdom of God to their own people, bringing the good news to the poor, to the rejected, and to those considered sinners condemning the tyranny of law, riches, and power. 2. They will be rejected and persecuted by their own co-religionists. 3. Only then are they authorized to preach to outsiders, and to ‘outaiders’ in a special sense, as we shall see below. Rejection, the key to the question about Jesus and the Gentiles The question of Jesus’ stance toward the Gentiles in the Gospels has been a puzzle to missiologists, because most of them simply miss the issue of rejection as a necessary condition for the Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles. This is a crucial omission, because rejection is the key to the question they pose about Jesus’ not preaching to the Gentiles. I will briefly discuss below several theological issues that must be considered together, then discuss a few key texts in the Christian Scriptures, and finally add some conclusions. 1. Theological Issues There are a number of issues that must be considered together. Treating them in isolation has led to a narrow, even wrong, view of mission to non-believers, by isolating it from mainstream ministry and theology and by creating the view that there is a ‘sending Church’ in control of this mission. It has also led to a wrong view of the death and resurrection of Jesus, by isolating it from the process sketched above. The Kingdom of God and the Church It is often said that the church is not the kingdom of God but then, matters become problematic, regarding both ‘church’ and kingdom. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God, coming in the near future. This kingdom is God’s definitive action on behalf of the poor, the humbled remnant of his people. It is the kingdom of God, not of Jesus; Jesus is not the kingdom. The kingdom is a proœss, an event, involving the «end of this world/age". It is neither past nor gradual (see the comments about time and history below). The problem about ‘Church’, at least in part, is that fuzzy language betrays the fuzzy theology behind it. ‘Church’ is the concrete, local, structured gathering of believers, not a denomination or corporate structure with such things as mission offices. So statements like "The Church sends..." or "The Church grows..." are simply unclear, because we are not clear about ‘Church’. Even worse are expressions such as: "the Church possesses the means of salvation" (which is simply not true); or "being saved by joining a Church". Membership in a denominational Church does not save; only God saves, and salvation is at the end of this age. Jesus’ death and resurrection The death and resurrection of Jesus is the culmination of his mission. It is not part of his work, since it was not chosen by Jesus. Rather, he accepted rejection and death in obedience to his Father’s will. The death of Jesus was not an unfortunate, avoidable tragedy, but an integral part of God’s plan, it had to happen. The death was caused by rejection by Jesus’ own people, the covenanted people of God. That rejection also had to happen. God did not ‘arrange’ the death of Jesus; neither did Jesus cause it. Rather, the proclamation of God’s kingdom led to rejection. The rejection of Jesus is the opening to the Gentiles, by God’s action in raising him from the dead. So, the conditioning factor (then and now) behind the opening to outsiders is rejection by those who claim to own God’s word. Divorcing the death of Jesus from rejection by his own people and opening to the Gentiles has led to wrong theologies, such as 1. describing the death of Jesus as a payment (to God, or worse, to the devil); 2. seeing the death and resurrection as something that happened a long time ago; our present concern is simply how to ‘apply the merits’ to believers; 3. seeing the death of Jesus as punishment for our sins, or as Jesus "taking on our sins"; and 4. saying that Jesus «suffered for us" (that is, in place of us), and that suffering therefore has been taken away. There is language in the Christian Scriptures that seems to justify all these views (for example, 1 Corinthians 6:20 regarding being "purchased at a [great] price), and all these passages need much more careful discussion than I can give here. Nonetheless, I argue that talk about payments, «taking the place of", is quite secondary to a narrative, proœssual approach. Persecution and rejection Persecution and rejection are necessary steps in the process of the coming of God’s kingdom; they are not unfortunate and temporary setbacks. Who rejects God’s kingdom? The rich, the powerful, the satisfied. It is not the ‘pagans’ who reject the Gospel; more basically, it is those who claim to own God’s word—those who use God’s word to control others by controlling the law or to gain power and riches and prestige. So there is constant conflict within the Churches as well as in the world: between the rich and the poor; between those who wield power and those who do not. Persecution is both the proof of the authenticity of the gospel and the means by which the gospel goes to those outside (see the comments on Acts and Galatian below). Who accepts God’s kingdom? The lepers, the poor, the sick, the rejected, those beset by demons. That is the scandal of the proclamation; it is the scandal of the Beatitudes in both Matthew and Luke. Most treatises on missiology simply do not mention persecution, and certainly not persecution by church authorities. The unspoken assumption is that the ‘sending Church’ does not stand in need of repentance. If that assumption is challenged, we retort, "Well, of course, we could all do a little more penance» The assumption is not true: «all have sinned; all have missed out on God’s glory; all are shut up under disobedience" (see the comments on Galatians and Romane below). Jesus and the Gentiles The problem of Jesus and the Gentiles in the Gospels can now be put in its proper context. The question is usually framed as follows: Why did Jesus not preach to the Gentiles? We referred to several answers above and found them all wanting, because they do not see rejection by Jesus’ own people as a necessary part of the process of God’s kingdom. In fact, they do not view it as a process at all, but as a static reality. Yet, only after the good news is rejected by one’s own can it be taken to the outsiders. The Gospel, like Jesus, is literally «handed over to the Gentiles’ in rejection and persecution (see, for example Matthew 20:17ff.). Moreover, these outsiders who receive the Gospel are not the rulers but the marginalized. Denominations and Mission In denominational bodies, there are several problems connected with mission to outsiders; 1. the tenuous connection between ‘internal ministry to members and the extemal ‘missionary activity’ of preaching to non-believers (especially to those of a different culture); 2. the lack of integration of missiology and wider theology; 3. the connection of missionary activity with colonization (still!); 4. the unspoken assumption that the sending Churches have no need of repentance; conversion is for the natives and 5. the question of inculturation, which simply cannot be addressed without a wider theological grounding (see below). The issue here is not only theology and mission policy. It is, just as importantly, the assumptions behind the familiar ‘begging literature’, with pictures (Americana hugging the poor natives, often portrayed as children) accompanied by stories of success, numbers, buildings, and programs. I have suggested above what I consider a better approach: internal and external mission are part of the same prophetic ministry. They are steps in a process, and rejection is the connection between them, just as Jesus’ work and glory as God’s Son are connected by rejection and death. Time and History A common theological interpretation of history, usually called ‘salvation history’, assumes that the central event (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) is simply in the past. All that is necessary now is to proclaim that past event and its efficacy to present believers. They appropriate this salvation in an act of personal faith, and/or join a community of believers. After the death and resurrection of Jesus and his ascent into heaven, the Church continues his work until the end of time, when Christ will come as Judge and Savior. This is a straight-line view of history, and it ignores the essential discontinuity of God’s kingdom, the ‘end of the present age’ (and the end of history). Emphasis on an eschatology that is far in the future makes the very same mistake, by not focusing on the present moment as the end. I argue that the decisive event, the coming kingdom of God, is not peat. It is (always) in the present and near future. It involves a discontinuity with the past. It is a present moment of passover, of death and resurrection, apparent in the rejection and death of those who proclAim the kingdom. Rather than a ‘salvation history’ that sees the peat as over and complete, proclamation is about the present. Does this approach endanger the centrality of the historical Jesus? Yes, it does; to center our religion on an historical Jesus, apart from faith, ia to know Jesus «according to the flesh» (2 Corinthians 5:6; see the comments below). Our faith is not about literal past history; that is the letter that kills. The present proclamation creates the new moment of the Spirit, of the new life of the age to come (see 2 Corinthiana 3:6). It is not a matter of applying past merits (mentioned above); the present moment is the moment of death/Resurrection for the believer. 2. Rejection in Chnstian Scriptures I will briefly comment on Luke/Acts, Matthew, and Paul, focusing on the process sketched above. Acts of the Apostles Luke’s two-part work needs to be seen as a whole. The process outlined in the introduction above shows that thematic unity, specifically in the parallel between Jesus and Paul. Paul’s method followed that of Jesus (compare Luke 4:15f. and Acts 17:2, in keeping with his [Jesus’] usage in keeping with Paul’s usage"). Paul first preached to his Jewish brothers and sisters, in Jewish synagogues. Only after he was rejected did he go to the Gentiles, and then to Gentiles of a very specific kind. For him, the expenience of rejection and persecution is an integral part of the process: "It is necessary that we enter the kingdom of God [by passing] through many tests" (Acts 14:22). The story of Paul’s activity at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:1452) is typical of around nine such examples. We will look at the process, the content of the preaching, and the Gentiles who were involved. Paul and Barnabas went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and offered a ‘word of exhortation’ which was received by «many of the Jews and the devout proselytes" (Acts 13:43). The following Sabbath, many jealous Jews debated with Paul and Barnabas, who took courage and responded, "It was necessary to speak the word of God first to you; since you rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of life in the [next] world, now we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46f.; see Acts 18;6). The Jews started persecution against the two apostles, and expelled them. The (other) disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit: Their joy is directly related to the persecution and expulsion. The content of Paul’s preaching focuses on God’s promises to the ancestors: he recounts our common (Jewish) story, beginning with the sojourn in Egypt. From David he turns to David’s descendant, Jesus, a Savior for Israel (Acts 13:23). Note the phrase: "People, brothers and sisters, children of the family of Abraham, and those of you who fear God (that is, the non Jewish people in attendance), this word of salvation has been sent to us" (Acts 13:26). Jesus was rejected by those living in Jerusalem and their leaders. Jesus was raised and appeared to those who went up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. The ‘good news’ is that God has fulfilled the promise to us God’s children, by raising Jesus and declazing him God’s Son. "Let it be known to you, brothers and sisters, that forgiveness of sin is being proclaimed, forgiveness even of those sins which could not be forgiven under the law of Moses. Everyone who believes is delivered in this one (that is, Jesus; the theme of deliverance by faith in Romans)" (Acts 13:38-39). Then Paul adds a warning, quoting Habakkuk (1:5 Septuagint LXX); "Look, you cynics, and be amazed and then perish, because I do a work in your days, a work you will not believe even if someone explains it to you» (which Paul is doing) (Acts 13:41). Jesus, rejected by the Jewish leaders accepted by marginalized Gentiles
Jesus is not called Savior of the world, but of Israel; the word is addressed to the descendants of Abraham. Jesus was rejected by the leaders at Jerusalem, but was raised by God, and appeared to Galileans (that is, to marginal Jews). Quoting Habakkuk, Paul says that the Jews will not believe; the rejection was necessary. Who were the typical Gentiles who accepted the good news? The ‘God-fearers’, that is, sympathetic Gentiles attracted to Judaism. They were not mainstream Gentiles (see comments on the Areopagus incident below), but those between cultures who were seeking God. They were, by and large, marginalized people, just like Jesus’ Galilean disciples. Moreover, it is important that they were sympathetic to Judaism and familiar with the Jewish Scripture (in the Greek translation). At Corinth, this ‘moving to the Gentiles’ is made concrete in Paul’s moving over from the house of a Jewish couple to the house of a Gentile who reverenced God (that is, the God of the Jews; see Acts 18:7). Regarding those who accepted the Gospel, see also 1 Corinthians 1:26ff. Acts ends on a similar note: Paul spoke one (final) word (to the Jewish leaders in Rome) "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke to the ancestors through Isaiah the prophet, and said ‘Go to this people and say: ‘they will hear and not understand. .. lest they turn and I will cure them.’ Let this be known to you, that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen (Acts 28:25-28). The fact that this word is the final statement of Luke’s whole work (Gospel and Acts) shows the centrality of the process of rejection by Jews and acceptance by Gentiles. These are not two separate steps accidentally related, but parts of one and the same process, parallel to death and resumection. The abruptness of this ending provokes the reader to ponder this necessary process. Paul at the Areopagus: an exception? The story of Paul at the Areopagus (Acts 17:166ff) is sometimes used in missiological texts as a counter example to the above process, or even as the ideal method of cross-cultural mission. Here Paul speaks directly to mainstream Gentiles (the Greek seems to be noticeably more formal), referring to their traditions (the unknown god) and quoting their poets. This is definitely not Paul’s method (see Acts 17:2 quoted above). In my opinion, Luke is using the story precisely as an example of failure, in order to underline his theology of rejection and acceptance. The story is preceded by Paul’s successes in Berea and his discussions in the synagogue with Jews and sympathetic Greeks at Athens. It is followed by the successful Corinthian proclamation and nuanced by scenarios in which partial understanding is corrected (Appolo, and the disciples who know only of John’s baptism). The most telling indication that the Areopagus attempt was presented by Luke as a failure is that Paul left abruptly, and no Christian community was formed at Athens. The Greeks of the Areopagus stumbled over Paul’s talking about rising from the dead, perhaps (in Luke’s theology) not so much because of their own philosophy, but precisely because there was no death (that is, rejection) preceding the resurrection. The rejected Chnst is a scandal to the Jews, and makes no sense to the Greeks (see 1 Corinthians 1: 22ff). Conclusion In Acts, Paul is the new Jesus, handed over to the Gentiles (Acts 21:11); he is the new Jonah, rising from the sea to preach to the pagans. Two important questions call for further study in the light of my thesis: 1. Why the total emphasis on Paul in the second part of Acts? 2. Why is Paul’s conversion story told three times, and what are the nuances involved in the different versions (presumably based on the narrative audience)? Regarding the first issue, I think it is not that Luke had no material on the other apostles; rather, it wee because Paul was the persecutor, the rejecting Jew, who became the vessel chosen to preach to the Gentiles, "I will show him how much he must suffer" (Acts 9:15f; see also Galatians 1:11-17). Note that all of this occurs after the death and resurrection of Jesus. So, rejection and acceptance is not a once-for-all event applying only to Jesus, but is an ongoing typical process, applying to his disciples as well. A question might arise because of rightful sensitivity to the beliefs of the Jewish people: Is not this emphasis on the rejection by the Jews anti-Semitic? No, because it is the typical process, already seen in the prophets of the Hebrew Scupture. Today, this rejection and denial of the Gospel is continued by the First World Christians, by those in Church authority. The rejection is always by those who think they own God’s revelation and deny their own need of repentance while calling others to conversion (that is, to become like themselves). The Gospel of Luke Two key passages I will focus on two key passages: the opening of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 4:16-30), and the end of his ministry (Luke 24:44-50). Returning to Nazareth in the power of the Spirit, Jesus goes to the synagogue on the Sabbath. His method was to preach in synagogues (Luke 4:15; see Acts 17:2), that is, specifically within his Jewish situation. He reads Isaiah 61: lf, regarding the Spirit, the anointing and the preaching of the good news to the poor, and says, "Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing". The people challenge him to perform miracles; he scandalizes them with the stories of Elijah’s and Elisha’s ministry to non-Jews. All the elements of Jesus’ ministry are here: 1. preaching to his own people, but specifically to the poor and those in need; 2. declaring fulfillment of Scripture (see Mark 1:14f.) and creating a time of repentance; 3. being rejected by his own; and then 4. leaving to preach elsewhere. Jesus started with his own, but no prophet can be accepted in one’s own country, even though that is where one must start. The saying regarding rejection of prophets is not simply a quotable one-liner but a statement of Luke’s theology (see also John 4;44). In the final episode of the Gospel, the disciples are enlightened to understand the meaning of the death and resurrection (see also Luke 24:26f). In order to fulfill all Scupture (see Luke 4:21) the Messiah had to suffer and be raised from the dead on the third day (see Luke 24:26: "suffer and enter into his glory"). Jesus is not referring to a single passage of Scripture (such as Hosea 6:2), but to a general theme of Hebrew Scripture: that of rejection and acceptance (Ishmael/Isaac; Esau/Jacob; Pharaoh/Hebrews; exile/return, etc.) that is applied to his own mission. In the name of this Messiah, metanoia (conversion) and forgiveness of sin (in Luke 3:3, these are connected with baptism) are to be preached to all the nations. Forgiveness of whose sins? First, those of the disciples. Only after they had experienced forgiveness, could they preach it and be witnesses of this forgiveness. The preaching to all nations is to begin in Jerusalem; persecution will extend it. Througt Luke’s Gospel: rejection and acceptance The theme of rejection and acceptance occurs throughout Luke’s Gospel. It is in the song of Mary (Luke 2:5.2f.; note also the theme of fulfillment of the promises to the ancestors that we saw in Paul’s preaching and the two passages above in Luke) and in the blessings for the poor and curses for the rich (Luke 6:20ff.). In the material specific to Luke, the theme is often personified by contrasting two persons; this occurs both in narrative and in parables. A few narrative examples are as follows: 1. the woman and the Pharisee at the table (Luke 7:36ff.); 2. the rich man and Zachaeus (Luke 18:18ff.; 19:1ff.; see the material in between); and 3. the two criminals on the Cross (in Luke 23:39ff.). The theme is equally striking in the parables, for example, 1. the two brothers (in Luke 15:11ff., the contrast seems to be between Jew and Gentile); 2. the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19ff.); 3. the widow and the judge (Luke 18:1ff?); and 4. the two men in the temple (Luke 18:9ff.). The messianic banquet (Luke 14:15ff.), while not specifically Lukan, is also an example. A whole list of woman/man contrasts also fit this theme. Conclusion The theme of Luke’s work is not just compassion (see Bosch 1991:98ff.), but rejection and acceptance. The Messiah had to suffer; it was not a historical accident that could have happened otherwise. This rejection is a necessary part of the dynamic of God’s plan. The Gospel of Matthew I will discuss the question of why the Gospel portrays Jesus’ ministry as focused on his own people, and not to the Gentiles. The ‘missionary discourse’ in Matthew 10 forbids preaching among the Gentiles or the Samaritans; Matthew 15:21ff. (the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman) shows an almost insulting aversion to serving Gentiles, even though Jesus finally gives in to her request. It has been said that Jesus’ earthly ministry is ‘exclusive’; it would be more exact to say, "focused on his own people". Note that the disciples are sent to the ‘lost sheep’ of the house of Israel (not simply to the house of Israel); that is, to the sick, the dead, the lepers, and those possessed by demons. This is the same provocative stance that Jesus himself took. They will be rejected, flogged in synagogues, and handed over to kings and governors as witnesses to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:18). So I believe that some missiologists are simply wrong about Jesus forbidding ministry to the Gentiles in the missionary discourse. In fact, it will come after rejection and persecution, just as it did with Jesus. The same must be said about two other texts, which do talk about preaching to the Gentiles. In Matthew 24:14, the Gospel will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations (see Matthew 10:18), and then the end [of this world] will come. But this saying is preceded by reference to rejection and deliverance to the Gentiles in Matthew 14:9-13. The great commission (Matthew 28:18ff.), of course assumes the rejection and resurrection; that is the basis for Jesus’ ‘total power’ from God. Jesus will be with his disciples until the end of [this] world (see Matthew 24:14). So all of these texts assume rejection by their own people, both in regard to Jesus and to the disciples. One could also cite Matthew’ version of the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21:33ff.). The turning to the Gentiles is part of a process, not a permanent policy. Paul’s Epistles For Paul, rejection and persecution are the authentic marks of the good news, and signs of solidarity with the rejected Jesus. Here I discuss examples from just three of Paul’s letters. Galatians. Paul speaks strongly against the tyranny of the law employed by the Jews seeking to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, they want to "glory in your flesh" (Galatians 6:13); they want to "make slaves of us" (Galatians 2:4). They do not keep the law themselves (Galatians 6:13; see 2:14); it is a matter of having power over others. Because Paul opposes this, he is persecuted by his own people, and that persecution is proof of the authentic gospel (Galatians 5:11); Paul bears the marks of Jesus (Galatians 6;17). The process of rejection/acceptance is intrinsic to the Gospel (see the discussion on Ishmael and Isaac in Galatians 4:21ff). The contrast between flesh and spirit carries the same idea (Galatians 5:16ff.). The transition from flesh to spirit involves dying, being crucified with Christ (Galatians 5:24; see 2:19f.). Jesus became ‘accursed’ by the law (Galatians 3:13). Paul also died to the law (Galatians 2:19). The process is: 1. the law brings death; 2. both Jesus and Paul are "killed by the law" (which includes rejection by their own people); and 3. God gives life (to the Gentiles). There is "no difference" between Jew and Greek, etc. (Galatians 3:28). This is not a general statement about human equality; it is about repentance for everybody, for God delivers all by faith (see Romans 3:22ff.; 10:12). There is a problem in Galatians for the thesis I am presenting here: Paul’s statement about being sent to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:16; 2:2; 2:9) seems to contradict the methodology outlined by Luke in Acts. While his statement should be read in the light of Galatians 1:1 lff., this remains problematic. Second Corinthians. Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, especially chapters 2-7 is a discussion on his ministry. The theme is the parallel process between Jesus’ ministry and that of his disciples. Jesus became sin (accursed by the law and rejected by those who own the law), so that we might become the righteousness of God (for others, 2 Corinthians 5:21). Death is at work in those who proclaim the Gospel, and they carry about the death of Jesus; but life is at work in those who hear (2 Corinthians 4:12; see 1 Corinthians 4:9ff.). The preacher is poor, but enriching many (2 Corinthians 6:10; see the parallel with Jesus in 2 Corinthians 8:9). The preacher is constantly at the point of death, constantly being persecuted. Paul is never far from thoughts of his own death in this epistle. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the typical process for his followers; one died for all, so all have died (2 Corinthians 5:14). Hyper panton (for all) does not mean ‘in the place of’, but it means that all disciples die in the same way (go through the same process) that Jesus did. Then they can live for him and for the good news of reconciliation (see 2 Corinthians 5:15). Not to share in the death of Jesus is to know him only ‘according to the flesh’ (2 Corinthians 5:16). To share in the death and resurrection is to become a new creation. It is not just the follower of Christ who has died, but the whole order has passed away. The old letter of the law kills, but the spirit, the new letter written on hearts, gives life (see 2 Corinthians 3:6). A metaphor for this whole discussion is Paul’s earlier letter (which frames the section; 2 Corinthians 2:3; 7:8) regarding the sinful man who must be punished so that he can be forgiven. So, letters condemn and punish (the law), but the same letters then lead to repentance, and are life-giving (2 Corinthians 2:4). The present moment of preaching is a moment of discontinuity; it is not the past law, not even the past death of Jesus. Now is the moment of acceptance; know is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2). To look only to the past is to know Jesus according to the flesh; it is to be a slave of the letter. One problematic area in this discussion is Paul’s call for the people to separate themselves from non-believers (2 Corinthians 6:14-18); it needs more study from the point of view I have presented here (and seems to contradict 1 Corinthians 5:9ff.). Romans. Paul’s letter to the Romans is very much concerned with the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. This is not an ‘historical problem’ that was solved in the first century; we face exactly the same painful issue today in the relationship of those within the church and those outside. For Paul, there is no difference between the two groups; all have sinned and have fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23); all have been locked under disobedience (Romans 11:32). Yet there is a great advantage to being a Jew (Romans 31ff.; 9:4f.). And today, there is a great advantage in being a Christian; but not in the sense that one owns God’s Word, or has no need of repentance. The gospel must first be preached to the Jews, and then to the Greeks (Romans 1:16; 2:10); but God shows no partiality. "If you call yourself a Jew" [or today a Christian], but do not observe the law, then God’s name is blasphemed because of you (see Romans 2:17ff.). Romans 9-11 can be seen as the key to this discussion. Paul applies the language of rejection and acceptance to Ishmael an Isaac, to Pharaon and the Israelites, and to the present situation of Jew and Gentile. Israel is ‘hardened’ until the full number of the Gentiles ‘comes in’, then all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:25ff.). But the Gentiles should not be arrogant. Paul clearly sees the necessity of rejection by the Jews, but he does not let it end there; God has not and cannot reject his people Israel definitively. Conclusion. There is no doubt that Paul sees his own ministry as parallel to that of Jesus including, and especially, his rejection and persecution. 3. Conclusion I believe I have offered an answer to the ‘puzzle’ of Jesus and the Gentiles; it is a puzzle only because of our assumptions. The approach suggested here integrates death/resurrection (of Jesus and the disciples) into a theology of the kingdom, and thus integrates missiology into a wider theology. But rejection and persecution are not intellectual issues; they make sense only in experience (see Hebrews 5:8), an experience of being totally in God’s hands. The process of God’s kingdom includes as an essential step the passion, of not being in control, of obedience. That step is consistency ignored in missiology. Church and Kingdom We should not take statements, such as "the church builds the kingdom", or "the church serves the kingdom", etc ... merely to mean that a simple, static relationship exists between church and kingdom. Rather, we need to see it as a process. Within that process, the church is the covenant people of God; theirs are the adoption, the covenant, and the promises (Romans 3:1; 9-11). But the disciples in the Gospels are also blind, ambitious, and power-hungry, they finally deny Jesus and run (see Mark 8:31ff.; 14:27ff.). Within missiology there is too much emphasis on method and technique, on successful programs, and, lurking in the shadow, on ownership and power. But like the Jewish leaders in Jesus’ time, church leaders today often reject the good news to the poor in favour of control. The kingdom is God’s action; it is not gradual, but suddenly among us; it does not come by human observance, or by running here and there after a messiah (see Luke 17:20f.); it comes in answer to incident prayer, and it is questionable whether the Son of Man will find any faith when he comes (Luke 18:1-8). The kingdom is always now, always future; we stand on this side of the barrier (the veil in Hebrews), in the old covenant, in hope. The tension between Jew and Gentile, between church and kingdom is embodied in Paul, the rejecter and preacher. It is lived in his pain for his people, and is finally mystery (Romans 11;33). Inculturation Inculturation is not the job of the preacher, as if he/she could say, "I have (control) a message to translate". The preacher is to be submissive to every human institution (1 Peter 2:13; also 1 Peter 4), a Jew to the Jews, a Greek to the Greek (see 1 Corinthians 9:19ff.). It is not the owners of the culture who accept the gospel, but the marginalized. If the Christians could let go of their tyranny by the law (for example in regard to ceremonies, food, clothing, marriage, customs, and calendar), then the gospel can be inculturated. But, of necessity, Christians cannot let go; the letting go comes only after they reject the Gospel and find themselves sinners just like the outsiders. Finally, what about the individual in church; what about you and me? We know what the Lord requires: do penance; preach to the sick, the sinner, and the blind; and confront injustice (but with full recognition of our part in it; this is the ‘work’ in John’s Gospel). Then you will be rejected, persecuted, ignored, ridiculed, and possibly killed. That is the hour, the moment of the kingdom. Now God can act. These comments are not that controversial; what would be revolutionary is a life lived like Francis of Assisi: not bitterly rebelling, not self-righteously condemning those who reject and persecute (that would be trying to control the persecution), but simply living the Gospel. That was a scandal and would be today, but it was also the good news of forgiveness and acceptance of everyone, the just and the unjust. The only valid missiology talks about the good news of the kingdom of God and persecution in the same breath. The only true missionary is one who is rejected and persecuted. "If anyone wants to follow me, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it". (Mark 8: 34b-35). Text: from the author, in Euntes, Vol.33, n.1, March 2000
|