|
Sean
P. Kealy, CSSP Fr Sean P. Kealy, CSSp, belongs to the Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers and is based at Blackrock College, Dublin, Ireland. He was once a lecturer at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, in the department of Religions Studies.
One can summarize Jesus’ approach to mission under three aspects: the basic principle of the Incarnation, his brief public ministry, and the education of his disciples. 1. The Basic Principle of the Incarnation In the introduction to their influential book, The Riddle of the New Testament, Edward C. Hoskyns and F.N. Davey (1931, p. 10) give the following evaluation:
The key to the Incarnation is much more than the mere fact of God becoming man, it shows the depth of God’s involvement. This lies in God’s solidarity, in Jesus Christ’s identification with the human condition, and with its problems, deepest longings, suffering, failure. Redemption began with creation and continued through all human history, and was accomplished through God’s actual solidarity with us. The result is that the oppressed and despairing are no longer God-forsaken and alone, and thus have grounds for hope. God is in solidarity (‘hesed’) with them on the long road to freedom, a road that is going somewhere and has meaning. To one who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Incarnation of God, Jesus’ attitudes and responses to situations during his earthly life are of vital importance. To say that Christianity is an historical religion is to say it is about things that actually happened. The alternative is a dangerous delusion. The Church has always condemned gnostics who, being so keen to preserve God as Spirit, detached and remote from human history, cannot accept a real flesh and blood Incarnation. Jesus was born a Jew in a small Asian country of the Roman Empire. A Paul would travel distances by land and sea, but in sharp contrast, the area in which Jesus carried out his mission was little bigger than an average English county. Jesus was not a citizen of the Roman Empire, and as far as we know, he spent most of his life quietly in the insignificant village of Nazareth, in the Jewish backwater of Galilee of the Gentiles, as it is called (Hengel, M., Between Jesus and Paul, SCM Press, London, 1983, p. 138; note that he insists that to speak of a semi-pagan or syncretistic Jewish Galilee is quite unjustified). One thinks of the famous remarks of Goethe: that in order to understand the world it is necessary to select an Eckchen, a small quarter of it for contemplation. The curious thing is that the two largest towns in Galilee, namely, Sepphoris and Tiberias, are never mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. Sepphoris, only four miles north of Nazareth, was destroyed by the Roman general Varius, 4 B.C., and its inhabitants sold into slavery, but was rebuilt by Herod Antipas. Jesus was a country person, in contrast to the city person, Paul, who saw only wilderness outside the cities (2 Cor 11:26). In Nazareth Jesus was so completely involved with ordinary village life that the local people were amazed when he closed up his business to begin his public ministry. Therefore, like Paul, Jesus can be described, as one who really knew Judaism from the inside. This point has much relevance for many missionaries, who spend so little time getting to know the real culture, customs and language of the people to whom they are sent. 2. Jesus Christ’s brief public ministry The public ministry of Jesus Christ was the explosion of humanity, as E. Schillebeeckx describes it. At his baptism, Jesus accepted his mission as God’s Son and in the following temptation scene (and in the corresponding scene at Gethsemane, which introduces the climax of his mission on earth) in opposition to contemporary methods of mission, he witnessed to the new approach to be followed. Surprisingly, Jesus Christ’s followers had only about three years — what missionaries call a tour — in which to get to know him and to learn about his kingdom mission. This was a very brief period indeed, in contrast with other religious founders such as the 40 odd years of Moses over 40 years which Buddha lived after his great enlightenment in his 30s or the 22 years which Mohammed lived from his first revelations to his sudden death of an illness. It is surely significant for modern missionaries to note that Jesus himself devoted a considerable amount of his very brief ministry, as the Gospels testify, to the preparation of followers, particularly the leaders who would carry on his mission.
3. Jesus’ education of his disciples Jesus left behind a group of identifiable disciples, who were subject to persecution by at least some of the leaders of Judaism (Gal 1:13,23; 5:11; 6:12; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6; Mt 10:23. See also Hengel, The Charismatic Leader, p. 80.). In particular, he chose and taught 12, and at the end, sent them forth with his Spirit to continue his mission. Matthew devotes a major section to describing that training, probably beginning with the Sermon on the Mount (5:1-11). The Gospel according to John is, on the whole, an education of the disciples with the fullest revelation of Jesus’ person and mission taking place at the Last Supper, on Mount Olivet and the final appearance at the lake. For Luke also, in contrast to Mark’s sudden ending, the training of the disciples continued for a period after the Resurrection (Lk 24:25-53; Acts 1:1-11). Luke describes three stages in Jesus’ relationship with his 12 disciples — a call after seeing Jesus in action (Lk 5:1-11) a choice of 12 from a larger group (Lk 6:13) and their mission (Lk 9:1-6; 10:1-20). One can imagine among Jesus’ followers a series of concentric circles: with an inner three, who receive special attention (Lk 8:51) then that of the 12 who are selected from the disciples or learners and the wider group of 70 (Lk 10:1-20) and then the crowds who are distinct from the disciples (Lk 6:17). There were also the women who accompanied the 12 (Lk 8:2). The 12 special companions of Jesus were rather unusual, in that they were chosen from among the ordinary people, without wealth, high social position or academic background. They were sent forth on a trial run before their full mission, as Jesus’ authoritative representatives. The latter took place after his Resurrection when they could testify to his full life which they finally began to understand. The relevance of Jesus’ mission Ultimately a decision must be made about the relevant message of Jesus’ mission for our times. The Gospels show that it had a different message, depending on a person’s situation. Jesus’ encounter with demonic forces differed from his meeting with a tax collector like Levi or with another rich man, Zacchaeus, or with a thief on the cross and with an executioner. The Acts of the Apostles also describe differing encounters with a Roman like Cornelius, an Ethiopian treasurer or a Saul, zealous defender of Judaism, on the way to Damascus. One must grant that the Gospel speaks different words to different times and even different words to different participants in the same times. This should not surprise one because:
Quite probably, the most important lesson which Jesus has to teach, and not just to the missionary, is his acceptance of a life of insignificance and seeming failure. The Church needs to be purged of illusion (an illusionectomy) in every age. As Timothy Gorringe put it:
Concluding his reflections on A Vision for Mission, David J. Bosch quotes the incisive remarks of Hendrik Kramer, spoken in 1959, that even then we stood at the definite end of a specific period or era of mission, and that we are called to a new ‘pioneer task, which will be more demanding and less romantic than the heroic deeds of the past missionary era’. Bosch, who suggests that the contours of the new missionary paradigm are becoming clearer, but that, nevertheless, ‘what mission should be during the coming decades is far from being a foregone conclusion’, states:
Jesus’ approach is a way of life, diametrically opposed to much that is popular in every society, which goes for the victory of the strongest, the talented, the beautiful and for the abandonment of the weak, with the perception that suffering and death are the equivalent of failure. In Jesus:
In the Synoptics, a key reflection on Jesus’ mission is the parable of the sower. This reflection on the seeming insignificance of Jesus’ mission and its widespread failure, is for Mark the key parable of the mysterious ways of the Kingdom. A critical reading of the Jewish writer, Josephus, suggests that John the Baptist had a bigger influence in his day than Jesus! But, the apparent failure of Jesus was, above all, the failure of love. For he came to destroy a certain idea of God, as a hard, demanding and domineering God who was seen as impatiently using people for his own selfish purposes. Jesus’ view of God as an intimate, caring Father (‘Abba’) still seems somewhat foolish and incredible to us. The difference between the Old Testament view of God and the New Testament, is not that one portrays a God of justice, and the other a God of forgiving love. The Old Testament view of God’s love, as a book like Hosea points out, is very profound. But the New Testament shows in the life and suffering and death of Jesus the extent that this "all powerful Yahweh" was prepared to go to show his great love for people. Jesus’ greatest parable, his most wonderful miracle was the Cross. There, he culminated the failures of all the prophets and revealed an incredibly revolutionary image of God’s love in action, and thus, showed his disciples the full meaning of serving the deepest needs of all people. His triumph through seeming failure put new depth into such Old Testament concepts as God, neighbour, love, justice, faith, hope, truth and mission. Through his seeming failure Jesus delivered people from sin, the devil, sickness and death; the basic dimensions of human failure described in the Old Testament. Thus, Jesus destroyed death (Heb 2:14) which had entered the world through human failure or sin (Rom 5:12) and thus accomplished the defeat of the devil (Jn 12:31). In a world where so many demand instant and constant happiness, Christians too often try to portray the perfect successful image which modern culture seems to demand. Thus, they fail to reach the many others who are struggling with failure and meaninglessness in life. Suffering and failure were at the heart of Jesus’ message and mission, as a reflection on the Gospels shows, e.g. such texts as: ‘Will you also go away?’, ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...’, ‘Father if it be possible, let this chalice ...’, ‘When I return will there be any faith on earth?’. In blunt fact, Jesus failed to convert people, was rejected at Nazareth, wept over Jerusalem and had his life ended early in public disgrace by crucifixion; the most cruel symbol of a human being’s hatred of another one and a sign to many of the seeming curse of God. Even Jesus’ disciples failed to realise that suffering was the passage to resurrection, that the crucifixion was God’s way of effectively communicating divine love and forgiveness to humankind. Mark, in particular, would have difficulty in convincing his own community that suffering and failure were the essential lot of the disciple and that the best way of healing and enlightening humankind was through the acceptance of suffering, failure and death, after the example and warnings of Jesus himself (Mk 13:13; Mt 10:22; 24:19; Lk 6:22ff; 21:17; 15:18). Paul gradually realised that mission meant identifying with the suffering Jesus, and that the triumphalist categories of the ‘super apostles’ should be rejected (2 Cor 2:17; 11:5; 12:11). In Jesus’ brief, but very controversial life, he taught and acted and confronted the leaders of his time in such a way that led to his dreadful death. Like John the Baptist, Jesus lived the life of a charismatic and eschatological prophet in a very tense, complicated situation in Palestine. The close-knit unity of his lifestyle, his beautiful teaching and compassionate miracles led almost inevitably to the Garden of Gethsemane; to Good Friday. Therefore, the basic question to be kept in mind, especially for those who would continue Jesus’ mission is: Why did the compassionate Jesus suffer and die? The crucifixion of Jesus, as a supposed messianic pretender is, after all, the great historical feet of his life about which we can be completely certain. Was it the outcome of a deliberate and radical challenge which he threw down to both the Jewish clerical and political establishment of his time and which he knew must lead to his death? Or was Jesus the sentimental and winsome teacher of goodness and love, so often imagined by his followers down through the years, and so beautifully portrayed by the French writer, Ernest Renan? (Renan, E., The Life of Jesus, Modern Library, New York, 1936). Such portrayal, popular among liberal Protestants, led to the famous comment of William Temple: "why any man should have troubled to crucify the Christ of Liberal Protestantism has always been a mystery" (Hunter, A.M., Bible and Gospel, SMC Press, London, 1920, p. 13). Even Renan saw that his portrayal of a young Galilean rabbi, winning all hearts with a sweet theology of love, and offering forgiveness to all on condition of loving him, was a partial distortion. Renan concluded that, because Jesus’ simple tender love was unable to convince the hard-hearted Jewish leaders, Jesus became a transcendent revolutionary. In fact, the story of Jesus is that of dramatic conflict between his mission, his lifestyle, his startling assertion, and rejection of the religious system of his time and: "all that the piety of the time prized, as the essentials of a revealed religion" (Dodd, C.H., The Meaning of Paul Today, London, 1920, p. 13). This Jesus, who invited all to the wedding feast, was a constant source of controversy to his contemporaries. He claimed to be the Servant of all, yet, he displayed an unprecedented authority over people, even over nature in his teaching. The Jewish religious authorities were shocked by his interpretations of religious customs, which had been ‘sanctified’ by centuries of tradition. Yet Jesus was a regular attender of the synagogue on the Sabbath, and of the temple for the feasts (Lk 4:16). Jesus’ free association with the disreputable, with sinners of all kinds, both moral and political, must have horrified the self-conscious, respectable people of his time, yet no one could convict him of sin (Jn 8:46). In particular, the ordinary people must have found it very difficult to accept his lack of patriotism, his lack of interest in many of the burning issues of his day. Any adequate hypothesis about Jesus must first situate him, believably, in the Hebrew culture of his day, and secondly, explain why the movement initiated by him eventually separated from Judaism. Explorations into Jesus can never be purely objective historical expenditions. They are a way in which one asks the deepest questions about God, men and women, life, values, death, fear, success and failure. Further, ‘the veil is thick’, as Barth once remarked, whenever we deal with the mystery of God and his activity, or with a very exceptional person like Jesus. One does not have to agree with Rudolf Bultmann’s historical scepticism, to appreciate his insistence that Jesus’ death and resurrection was not a detective story, to be solved, but a mystery to be lived. Nevertheless, an historical research to examine Jesus’ mission against his background is essential, if only to avoid the danger of misunderstanding Jesus, of conforming him to our own prejudices and desires and hidden agenda. In this study, a comprehensive treatment is not attempted (Kealy, S.P., Who is Jesus of Nazareth? Dimension Books, New Jersey, 1978, gives a fuller treatment to the problems involved in seeking the historical Jesus). Rather, the writer’s intention is to offer some indications and suggestions, which may lead to a deeper understanding of the mission of Jesus, and which may help towards a solution of the many problems, both cultural and theological, which have arisen among missionaries in recent years. While the available sources do not permit the reconstruction of a full biography of Jesus, that is, in the modern sense of the term, nevertheless, many recent scholars are convinced that a considerable amount of authentic material can be attained by using the historical, critical method. This would include: "the typical basic features and outlines of Jesus’ proclamation, behaviour and fate" (Kung, H., On Being a Christian, Collins, Glasgow, 1978, p. 159). Finally, one should mention that there is a growing realization that, as A.E.J. Rawlinson put it in his 1925 Commentary on the Gospel According to Mark (p. 11), the New Testament, broadly considered, is the literature of a missionary movement. The problem, too often, is that the situation, experience and preferences of exegetes have dominated the agenda of biblical studies for many years. Such domestic issues as ecumenism, church structures, ministry, speculative problems in Christology, archaeology, linguistics, methodology, have been more interesting to exegetes:
Yet it should be remembered that all New Testament books were written for Christians, and none for immediate use as missionary propaganda. He quotes Elisabeth Fiorenza:
According to Senior, a re-assessment of the value of non-Christian religions, a radical shift in the Church’s self-understanding, and the change in the political atmosphere in the post-colonial period, have resulted in the base dropping out of the missionary effort of the mainline Churches. In his valuable study, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (The Struggle to be Universal, C.B.Q., January 1984, p. 81), Senior rightly insists that Jesus and his mission are ultimately decisive for: "the character, the scope, the urgency, and the authority of the early Church’s Christian mission" (written with Carrol Stuhlmueller, SCM Press, London, 1983). The aim of this paper has been to show that the same is true today. The following quotation from a review article by David J. Bosch highlights a number of key issues, to be kept in mind in any study of biblical material:
Conversely, there are some missiologists, who advocate a narrow conception of the Scriptural message and those who base their pastoral practice upon it as the same author warns:
Ref.: AFER, Vol. 41, nn. 2-3, April/June 1999.
|