Yesterday, I began reading the twenty-second chapter of Luke. I am using the original edition of the Jerusalem Bible. I like this because it is kind of non-standard. The first pericope found in this chapter consists of its first sxi verses. These verses have to do with the desire of "the chief priests and the scribes" to do "away with" Jesus. As the Jerusalem Bible translates it, they wanted to do away with Him "because they mistrusted the people" (v. 2). "Mistrusted" here is a translation of the Greek word efobounto, the root of which is the verb phobeo. It is the Greek origin of our word phobia.
In reality, this word is best translated as "they feared." Mistrusted is an interesting and, I think, insightful choice. In verse 6, Judas goes to the chief priests and scribes to freely offer to hand Jesus over to them "without the people knowing." Normally, that final phrase is brought into English as something like "in the absence of the crowd." I think the focus on things being done in an underhanded, opaque, and autocratic way highlights something important.
Jesus teaching in the Temple, from Standard Bible Story Readers, Book Five (1928), authors: A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
In the Jerusalem Bible's rendering, I think "mistrusted" is connected to Judas entering into his deadly pact with those who wanted to do away with Jesus without the people, who were gathering each day in the Temple precincts to listen to this Galilean knowing anything about it. The Lord's words against these religious figures and their corrupt institution were, to put it nicely, unsparing. His teachings clearly resonated with the people. This is what caused the authorities to fear the people in their desire to put a stop to this troublesome Galilean.
These same authorities clearly mistrusted the people who were hanging on Jesus' every word, who believed Him and in His authority. The people of Jerusalem seemed to be treating this peasant nobody from backwards Galilee as though He might be the Messiah!
Keep in mind, in the synoptic Gospels Jesus only journeys to Jerusalem once. In Luke 9:51, the inspired author writes that Jesus "resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem." He set out at once. He didn't take the typical route, which avoided Samaria. Instead, He went right through Samaria.
Without getting into the intricacies and complications of it, there is the sensus fidelium- the sense of the faithful. This very concept is mistrusted by many. Of course, this sense is not reliabliy expressed by opinion polls or through voting. In my view, one of the biggest issues with synodality as it's currently understood and practiced is that it is seen as a kind of parliament. At least to this point, even if it were meant to be a legislative body, it cannot be said to be anything close representative of the Church. It is important for the voice of the faithful to matter and to be heard, not dismissed.
Linking this up with Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, those who proclaim God's kingdom in all of its world-upending purity are still seen as troublesome. In the first section of an essay he wrote for a book on Christology- Who Do You Say That I Am: Confessing the Mystery of Christ- entitled "The Kingdom of God and the Theological Dimension of the Poor: The Jesuanic Principle," Fr Jon Sobrino, SJ noted "Forgetting the poor has gone hand in hand with forgetting the Kingdom of God." He goes on to point out that "By the time of the fourth-century conciliar debates it is clear that the Kingdom of God plays no role whatsoever in Christology" (page 113).
In short, by that time the transcendent had eclipsed the immanent, essence overshadowed existence. While since the Council there has been some attempt to recover the immanent, led primarily by liberation theologians, like Sobrino (even methodologically, "liberation theology" is far from monolithic), it seems hard to strike a better balance.
Being largely a bourgeois phenomenon, Christianity these days tends toward the metaphysical to ease the angst, the boredom, the monotony of the materially comfortable. This is the kind of self-absorption that Pope Francis has sought to identify, criticize, and lead us beyond during his pontificate. His urging us to go to the margins, to be good stewards of creation, to seek peace and reconciliation often don't land well in prosperous parts of the world or among many who belong to the theology guild. Monty Python's "Christmas in Heaven" from their movie The Meaning of Life comically sets forth a version of bourgeois heaven.
When it comes to the transcendent and immanent it is not either/or. But attempts to achieve a balance are resisted mightily by the mighty; plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. But this, as no less than Pope Benedict XVI noted in his very first encyclical Deus caritas est, only lends credence to what is perhaps the main Marxist critique of Christianity: get people to worry about life after death instead of the here and now. This way you can exploit them much easier.
I am writing this Thursday evening. As soon as I completed writing what is above, I prayed Evening Prayer. The first and second Psalm for this office for Tuesday, Week II of the Psalter, is Psalm 72 (it is split up for use in the Liturgy of the Hours). This Psalm is about the reign of the Messiah, who "shows pity to the needy and the poor and saves the lives of the poor" (v .13). One of prayers in the Intercessions is
Teach us to restrain our greed for earthly goodsEither that or you can focus on resisting chocolate or beer, right? Something about rending your heart, not your garments... the interior work instead of the exterior show.
-and to have concern for the need of others
Our traditio is a song off Sinéad O'Connor's Christian album, Theology. Listening to her album this week reminded me of a lovely article written at the time of her death in 2023 by another Jesuit, Fr. Matthew Cortese: "How Sinéad O’Connor taught a Catholic priest how to pray." Our Friday traditio is "The Glory of Jah"
No comments:
Post a Comment