The Passion(s) of Jesus

"Prophets are rejected in their own villages."

--Jesus of Nazareth

Some Christians, however, have been downright passionate about Mel's "Passion," claiming, as Pope John Paul II is reported to have said after viewing the film, that "It is as it was." What it is is unrelentingly violent. And whether in fact the movie actually "is as it was" remains very much in question, and I personally have my doubts. What is unquestionably true is that the movie has reopened still another old debate: who is more important, the risen Christ, or the historical Jesus?

Even the usually conservative Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby has written that "The movie has precious little to say about Jesus' life and ministry . . . there is nothing that makes clear who this Galilean was, why he attracted a following, or why anyone in Jerusalem would have given him a second thought."

Unitarian Universalists have always been more interested in the historical Jesus than in the supernatural Christ. Belief in the literal and bodily resurrection of the Christ, we are reminded, demands a leap of faith that many of us are unable to make. Following the precepts and example of Jesus, difficult though that may be, does not require such a leap. It requires only a new commitment.

I am personally far more interested in the passions of Jesus than I am in the Passion of the Christ: that is, in the teachings and actions of the man Jesus, than in the manner of his death or the claims for his resurrection. What is most important to me is how Jesus lived, not how he died.

And one thing which must always be kept in view is that Jesus was a firmly committed Jew until the day he died. It apparently cannot be said often enough.

My colleague Jory Agate has written, "I have no doubt that Jesus died a horrible death at the hands of an oppressive ruler [Pontius Pilate], but the message about Jesus is how he lived fighting oppression, speaking for the poor and the outcast and declaring God's love of all the children of the earth."

Samuel Miller, the late Dean of Harvard Divinity School, once wrote of Jesus that,

He was careless of himself, we are careful. He was courageous, we are cautious. He trusted the untrustworthy, we trust those who have good collateral. He forgave the unforgivable, we forgive those who do not really hurt us. He was righteous and laughed at respectability, we are respectable and smile at righteousness. . . . He feared God, but not the world. We fear public opinion more than we fear the judgement of God. He was a scandal.

Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it, and had his being there. . . . He estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, "I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think."

At the core of Jesus' teaching, many scholars agree, was a radical egalitarianism. Jesus was a "have not" speaking to "have nots." As Becky Edmiston-Lange has written,

. . .Jesus' message was one of how, here and now, in this world, one can live so that the world becomes like God intended. Jesus' message was about a style of life for the present rather than a hope of life for the future. Jesus' message was not apocalyptic but it was world-negating, world-negating in the sense that it challenged contemporary morality to its depths. His message and actions illustrated a radical freedom, justice and goodness that flew in the face of the stratified, brokered society of [first century] Roman rule.

Because of his disregard for the purity restrictions of his time, Jesus also gained a reputation as a healer. As Edmiston-Lange writes,

. . .Jesus did not cure so much as heal . . . he did not perform miracles of physical transformation but, rather, he declared the liberation of the sick and the possessed. . . . Jesus could not cure disease, but he could heal illness by refusing to accept the disease's ritual uncleaness and social ostracism. Jesus made the "untouchables" touchable. . . .

Theologian Walter Wink prefers to translate the concept "Kingdom of God" as "God's domination-free order." Wink suggests that we try re-reading the New Testament in light of the still-radical idea that Jesus is advocating for a domination-free society.

In this revolutionary new order, everyone is equal. Even women are treated equally. (Indeed, as Wink shows, Jesus violates the mores of his time regarding women every single time.) As Jesus himself said, "In the past, no one in human history is greater than John the Baptist. In the future any one in the Kingdom of God is greater than John the Baptist." In this new order, the master is equal to the follower, indeed, the master is the "friend" of the follower. The leader, rather than being someone who orders or commands, is someone who serves.

Jesus hoped to break the economic exploitation of the many by the few. He wanted people to begin living now as if his new order had already come. Therefore, property was to be held in common. In the new order, God actually elects the poor (more literally, the "expendable"), the meek, the despised, and the peacemakers instead of the rich and the powerful. (That is why he said, "Only the destitute are innocent." That is why he said, "It is easier for camels to enter the eye of a needle than for riches to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.")

In Jesus' new order, non-violence is a must, because Jesus recognized that inequality is always and only maintained by violence. One must not overcome evil by becoming evil oneself. Jesus recognized that violence can never eliminate violence. (That is why he said "Love your enemy.") Every act of violence is a failure which reinforces the myth that violence can ever save us.

(Jesus also rejected the traditional family because in his time, not unlike our own, it was the seat of so much violence and domination toward women, children, servants and slaves. That is why he said, "To accept the Kingdom is to reject your mother and father. To accept the Kingdom is to reject your brothers and sisters." In its place he offered an alternative: a new family, not of blood, but of doing God's will. Everyone is the same; everything is the same; the power to make distinctions is lost.)

For Jesus, not surprisingly, perhaps, God is the compassionate parent of all, both our father and our mother. (He called God "Abba," an Aramaic word which means "Papa" or "Daddy.")

This is enough to give you just a flavor of the passions of Jesus. It was because of his unacceptable message of radical egalitarianism that he had to die. We might ask if that message is any more acceptable now? As Becky Edmiston-Lange writes,

Perhaps that is why Jesus has been reinterpreted and made over so many times, domesticated, reduced to bumper sticker platitudes. We are so very far from embodying his vision of a world with no distinctions, no divisions of class or gender or acceptableness; a world where there are no expendables, no nobodies; a world of radical justice. We are nowhere near embodying that world.

In this Easter season, I invite you to reconsider Jesus in this new light. May we ever strive to build a world more like the Kingdom of God which Jesus envisioned. And may all the hope and promise of this Easter day sustain and inspire us along the perilous way of life. God bless you all!

Amen.

The Rev. Harold E. Babcock