"Always Being Made New"

As you know, if you are reading this here, I am a church geek. On Wednesday, August 14, 2013, I joined more than 2,000 others watching a LiveStream of my denomination's Churchwide Assembly -  a national gathering of about 952 representatives that happens every 3 years. Thankfully, this year's gathering of the Evangelical Church in America (ELCA) is being held in Pittsburgh which makes it easy for me to indulge in conversations and watch the live feed.

I watched in the morning as four people  - our Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, and three women currently serving as synod bishops - spoke about leading our Church in the next six years, and I watched in the afternoon as a fifth ballot between the two final nominees was held.

For those of you who think this is as interesting as watching grass grow (my frequent analogy for watching golf on television, or live for that matter) what made it wonderful was the color commentary provided by other church geeks, like me. As the people in the room listened and made their decisions about which candidate would receive their vote, I listened on Twitter (#ELCAcwa) and chat to the overwhelming respect and affirmation of our current leader's gifts and ministry. Presiding Bishop Hanson has led the ELCA for twelve years with grace and compassion even as congregations are getting smaller, even as seminaries are struggling, even as controversy erupted over who we ordain as leaders for our congregations.

And in the midst of recognizing the blessing that Bishop Hanson has been to the office of Presiding Bishop, and at the same time listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit for us in the world today, our church elected a new leader - and for the first time, a woman. It was a day to celebrate the Good in the Church even as we look for ways to move forward.

As a seminary student anticipating assignment and my first call in the ELCA, I am grateful for the day and the memory. I am grateful for the women in ministry who have preceded me. I am grateful for the faithfulness of all the leaders - women and men - who have challenged us to "always be made new" and who have shown courage in walking with us into new places and new ways of being church.

If you are a church geek, too, here is the video of Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson introducing Presiding Bishop-Elect Elizabeth Eaton. (This is a formal moderated press conference. Bishop Hanson's remarks begin at about 2:34 mark and Bishop Eaton begins about 5:27)

The Empire Strikes Back

In Christ and Empire, Joerg Rieger, the Wendland-Cook Endowed Professor of Constructive Theology at Perkins School of Theology (SMU), argues for a more comprehensive understanding of how empire shaped first-century life in the Roman Empire.

“Emperors were revered as divine and gave orders to build temples and altars for themselves.” (26) The emperor was credited with healing power and the ability to bring peace and security to the world. (ibid)  The language that Christians associate now with Christ is the same language attributed to Augustus and later emperors then: dikaiosynē (“justice”), eirēnē (“peace”) and kyrios (“lord”). (31)

Explaining that the context of empire was pervasive, he describes the emperor cult as not only political but also economic, cultural and religious and reminds us that the tendency to delineate these different spheres of our lives is a modern phenomenon. (26-27)

Rieger suggests that today we need to be more aware of how empire theology and the top-down “logic of empire” inform our present-day theological understanding and our society.  He commends Paul’s words in Philippians 2:5-11, quoting Antoinette Clark Wire who sees here “the voluntary downward plunge of the divine”: (43)

5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,
8  he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross.

Rieger argues that Jesus deliberately and decisively reverses the logic of empire. 

Answering charges that empire is not wholly negative and acknowledging that some people will be unaware of “the pressures produced by empire” and imperceptive of its influence, Rieger asserts that “empire can be problematic even when it is morally correct and benevolent.” (44) By definition, empire builds or increases its own power and benefits its own interests; consequently, there are large groups of people who do not benefit from the work of the empire. This is why it is vital that we understand how broadly empire informs our context and why our Christian witness cannot be apolitical.  (ibid)

Rieger identifies the crucifixion of Jesus as political action, writing “the cross was a well-known political tool for breaking the will of the people.” It was the empire striking back, against the proclamation that urged listeners to not promote themselves on the backs of those less fortunate, but instead “[identify] oneself with those who huddle together on the broken, bottom rungs of the human ladder.” (43) Proclaiming Christ as Lord involves “real transformation of the world in ways that go against the grain of the empire and that the empire cannot envision.” (49)

Want to hear more? In Spring 2011 Rieger addresses Earlham School of Religion in a three-part series on Christ and Empire. You can view it Part 1 here: Joerg Rieger -- Lecture One: "Empire and Economics: The Difference Christianity Makes" on Vimeo. Progressive Christian Center of the South has additional video Q & A featuring John Dominic Crossan and Rieger in dialog about God and Empire.

Four Portraits of Poverty

While many of the Jesus stories in the gospels address the poor, few Christian texts provide information about why poverty existed in early Christian communities.  Reading the Revelation of John, the Letter of James, the Acts of the Apostles and the Shepherd of Hermas, Biblical scholar Steve Friesen examines illustrates four unique explanations for the causes of poverty and four distinct responses.  (Friesen, 18)

Importantly, Friesen reminds us that in the early Roman Empire, “most or all of the recipients of a particular text lived near the level of subsistence.” (Friesen, 21)  It is very easy to forget that texts are written in a particular context and to a particular audience.  As I read a text it’s helpful to recognize how my hearing of a text is shaped by my context and experiences, and to reflect on the meaning of the text in the very different context where it was first received.  

(1) In the apocalyptic literature of the Revelation of John, the writer describes a satanic beast who “ conquers the world, defeats the saints, and is worshiped by the whole world.” (Friesen, 22) Friesen suggests the beast is how the writer “portrays the Roman Empire as Satan’s tool, opposed to the God of Israel, and destined for destruction.” (ibid)  The domination and oppression is absolute in that no one is exempt, able to be a bystander.  The system requires participation by everyone, even, or perhaps especially, the exploited. The writer urges people to flee from the Empire’s domination: “Come out of her, my people so that you do not participate in her sins…” (Rev. 18:4)  (Friesen, 23) The suggested response is not only resistance, but anarchy.

(2) The Letter of James moves the emphasis away from the systems of the Empire and emphasizes individual responsibility.  Friesen suggests the writer follows “the prophetic tradition of Israel: one should trust God completely and act accordingly, keeping one’s life pure and taking care of those who suffer.” (Friesen, 24)  The writer contrasts “society’s system of honor and God’s system of honor” calling people to seek God and not the world, and “[advising] the community to share what resources they have….” (Friesen, 25-26)  Here the response is more like nonviolent direct action by refusing to participate in actions that hurt neighbor. 

(3) The Acts of the Apostles neither addresses economic injustice nor does it criticize the Roman Empire.  In fact, in contrast to our other texts, the author of Acts describes the assemblies as people with more resources and existing above subsistence levels. (Friesen, 30-31)  Here the emphasis is on charity; Friesen writes, “the author presents personal gifts and household hospitality (rather than redistribution)” as the way to address the poverty of the neighbor. (Friesen, 28)  

(4) The Shepherd of Hermas presents a fourth and final portrait of poverty.  Suggesting the poor are dependent on the wealthy for survival, “Hermas portrays charity as an individual act that gives material aid to the poor and help the rich survive the final judgment.” (Friesen, 34)  It ignores the causes of poverty and credits wealth to the blessing of God. (Friesen, 35)

The four portraits contradict one another, lending credence to Scroggs’ argument that the Bible is better understood as a foundational document for Christianity than as an authoritative one.   They also spotlight the ambiguity and complexity that are present in religion.  (Friesen, 36)  What is hopeful about this examination is that we find the freedom to live into the questions and work toward understanding.

Friesen, “Injustice or God’s Will” (p. 17 - 36) in Holman, Susan, ed. Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society.     Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.