To announce the kingdom as hope is to announce a future which every present takes meaning from, and in which any past is redeemed. It is to live by the power of the future… How, then, can we announce the kingdom of God as hope? By hoping. By living and sharing hope. By working with hope. By dying with hope!
– Mortimer Arias
It wasn't until four or five years ago that I started to seriously think about the role of hope in Christianity. It was around then that I started reading Moltmann (cf. “Theology of Hope”) and started journeying in intimate love relationships with people who had been deeply broken and forsaken.
I have come to believe that the reason why hope receives so little attention in the North American church is because the North American church is dominated by people who have no genuine need for a transformative hope. Having little personal experience of suffering and little faith in a God who genuinely breaks into history most North American Christians focus hope on the after-life. But even then they wouldn't tend to call it hope – they would tend to call it faith. Hope is a word that is used almost shamefully. Hope is taken as a sign of weak faith. If they had enough faith they would just believe something would happen, they wouldn't hope for it to happen. Of course, all this has little bearing on the way in which they live their lives, climbing corporate ladders, investing for retirement, making sure the kids go to a good school…
Most North American Christians are essentially hopeless.
Yet hope is at the center of the Christian faith. After all, ours is the “God of hope” (Romans 16) who desires that we “abound in hope” (ibid.) and in the end it is faith, hope, and love that will remain (1 Corinthians 13). We talk a lot about faith and love but where is hope? I think we rediscover hope when we rediscover that to follow Christ is to journey alongside of the suffering. In such relationships hope becomes essential. And not merely as an aid in the process. Hope is essential for the enactment of present transformation. That is to say, hopeless Christianity is also impotent Christianity. Hopeful Christianity is empowered Christianity that brings new life. Hope causes the future to break into the present. That's why the church is to exist as an embodiment of the kingdom of heaven in the midst of the kingdoms of the world. The church is to be an in-breaking eschatological reality.
In hope I can say to all those I encounter that the past does not have the final word. In hope I see the present transformed. For the Christian hope is different than other hopes. There is a certainty, an assurance, attached to it. It is not in vain. And no matter how dark the road and how painful the cross the end result will be resurrection that causes salvation to break into the world.
The Bleeding Points of Humanity
Raymond Fung, a theologian and an inner-city worker in Hong Kong, in his critique of Western evangelism suggests that Christians are operating from a faulty anthropology when they only view people as sinners. He writes,
“Surely they are sinners, all of them – all of us. But we have forgotten the sinned-against, those who are victims of the sins of others.”
And this, adds Mortimer Arias, a Bolivian theologian, is precisely the opposite of what Jesus did. Jesus prioritised announcing good news to the poor, the outcasts, the marginals, the “little ones”, the sick, the despised, the rejected – the sinned-against.
“To the sinned-against Jesus' heart went out in love, forgiveness, and gracious invitation.”
At this point we must heed the reminder of J.L. Segundo, a Jesuit from Uruguay. We must be announcing the good news as good news.
How is it that so many Christians have lost this central aspect of the good news? The good news was about the forgiveness of sins, it was about an out-pouring of unexpected grace, of new life, and the restoration of right relationship among all people and all things. It is good news, not bad news. It is a cause of feasting, of dancing, of drinking and of Jubilee.
To live a life centered on Jesus is to move constantly toward the periphery and thereby follow in Jesus' footsteps. As Kosuke Koyama, a Japanese theologian writes: from his birth in a stable, to his association with sinners in Galilee, to his death outside the city gates, Jesus constantly moves toward the periphery.
“He expresses his centrality in the periphery by reaching the extreme periphery. Finally on the cross, he stops his movement. There he cannot move. He is nailed down. This is the point of ultimate periphery. 'My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?'”
Therefore, the World Council of Churches concludes,
“In their witness to the Kingdom of God in words and deeds the churches must dare to be present at the bleeding points of humanity and thus near those who suffer evil, even taking the risk of being counted among the wicked.”
Which Father's Footsteps?
I know of two.
There is the Father in heaven. The Father defined by self-giving love. The Father of life that is only known as “Father” because he is the Father of the Son.
And then there is the other on earth. The Father defined by hurt. The Father too broken to realise that, despite his best intentions, he was only breaking others.
Into the image of one of these two I must grow. It is only through being in the Son that I too can be a child of the former. Reject the Son and there is no hope of being with, or emulating, that Father. Reject the Son and I journey in the footsteps of the latter.
No, I will not become the latter. Nor will I fool myself into thinking I can become like the former in any other way except through the Son.
Whatever else we choose to think of Jesus we must recognise that he himself makes this clear.
Judah, my Brother
A swirl, an ebb and flow, a blend of joy and sorrow. Reds and golds and browns and the air that freezes in my mouth. The first sharp intake of breath.
Broken fingers painting pictures of beauty and love out-poured.
He speaks of things we do not understand but his eyes are bright and bottomless. The sky inverted and the sun upon his face. Earth upon his fingertips.
The water swirls and calls the names of loved ones. The rock splits and the world is shaped anew.
And I am not afraid. No, I am not afraid to laugh or to weep. To live and to love. At times limping, at times failing, yet ever assured of identity and the company I keep.
This then is the life abundant. Reaching for heaven and plumbing the depths of hell. Embracing light and darkness. Confident, whether I can see the steps that follow or whether I’m stepping into the unknown.
Come alive, come alive beautiful one.
I love you, I love you, I love you.
In Christ
I was reading something one of my brothers wrote and I was struck by what he said. Drawing on theological tradition he looks back to the idea of original sin and affirms that hubris was the motivating factor. It was because Adam and Eve sought to be like God that they became sub-human. Motivated by pride they sought to elevate themselves and instead found themselves fallen. Keeping this in mind as a warning my brother than suggests that as Christians we must beware of committing the same sin of pride. Let us not presume to be Christ and bring salvation to the world or we may discover that we are far less than Christ and have brought destruction to the world. Therefore, my brother concludes, we should focus on being with Christ. In humility we must journey in love relationship with Jesus and therefore avoid the pitfalls of hubris.
Now this is an intriguing application of the Fall narrative and it certainly avoids one extreme but I fear that it gravitates too far to the other extreme and (as extremes tend to do) ends up being too simplistic. Here it is important to maintain biblical thinking and language. What sort of language does the New Testament apply to a Christian's relation to Jesus? I would argue that the appropriate term is not a call to be Christ, nor is it a call to be with Christ but rather it is a call to be in Christ. Indeed, many prominent New Testament scholars argue that being “in Christ” is the central theme of Paul's entire theology (cf. NT Wright and many others, especially those belonging to the “New Perspectives on Paul”). To use the language of “in Christ” avoids both extremes will providing a more nuanced (and complicated) understanding of Christian identity. To say that believers are Christ can result in the hubris that my brother mentions. However, to simply say that believers journey with Christ can completely lose track of the new creation that Christ has accomplished and the in-breaking of the kingdom that began at Pentecost. One side is sinfully prideful, the other sinfully humble. Indeed, contemporary Western Christians seem to more often commit the sin of humility. No, you are not a sinner saved by grace, you are a new creation.
To be in Christ picks up on the strengths of both extremes without committing the mistakes of either. Thus, there are times when believers are so intimately linked with Jesus' mission, suffering and glory that it is hard to discern between the two. However, there is also a clear demarcation between Jesus, the Lord of creation, and his disciples. In pursuing Christian identity we need to start with an understanding of ourselves as in Christ and work out from there. Together we will discover how being in Christ impacts all areas of our living and when it is appropriate to speak of ourselves as Christ and when it is appropriate to speak of ourselves with Christ – always keeping the central motif in mind.
Flashes of Conversation
“You see that's when I realised… we don't just love even though we know others will disappoint us. We love knowing that we will disappoint others.”
– JS
“Do I believe in universalism? Do you want my honest answer or my sugar-coated answer? …Okay, well, I think God fucks us over so much in this life that we better all be getting something good after it all ends. I mean look at what's going on is Asia. 150,000 people just died… because of a fucking wave. And really that's just the latest in a string of rather atrocious events that have occurred on this planet. And I want to believe in universalism but I can't make it match with the Bible. I'm trying hard to reconcile the God of the Bible, the God of history, with the God I see in Jesus. I like the God that is revealed in Jesus but he doesn't seem to align with the rest of the Bible – or with experience. Experience seems to align with a God who doesn't mind indulging in a good ol' kill-fest every now and again. I don't know… I sort of feel like I'm in a battle for my life and I hope to win but I don't know if I will.”
– MT
“You are different though. Your faith actually does dictate everything about your life. And that does make you different than most Christians who think it determines their live but keep on living like everybody else. Your relationship with Jesus determines your school. It determines what the career you're looking for. Even when it comes to loving people, you love them through Jesus.”
– TT
Vive La Revolucion
On December 27, 2004 TIME Magazine declared the recently re-elected President of the United States of America to be 2004's Person of the Year. The subtitle of the December 27th issue stated, “George W. Bush – American Revolutionary”. Bush Jr. has joined the ranks of such all American heroes as George Washington. As Time notes, “Eagles rather than doves nestle in the Oval Office”. Apparently Bush Jr. is not simply a hawk, he is the personification of American splendour. As Nancy Gibbs and John F. Dickerson write:
For sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes – and America's – on his faith in the power of leadership, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year…In his pursuit of a second term, Bush was just as radical as he was in his conduct of a pre-emptive war. As a politician, he showed the same discipline, secrecy and never he demonstrated in his conduct as President. So he emerges with his faith only deepened in the transformational power of clear leadership. Whether or not the election actually yielded a mandate for his policies, he is sure to claim one for his style, because he stuck to it against all odds, much advice and the lessons of history. And on that choice, at least, the results are in.
Now whether those results are actually in as genuine reflection of the American public or whether the Republicans “stole another election” is the topic of a more serious debate than Gibbs and Dickerson suggest(See Lewis H. Lapham's article, “True Blue” in HARPER'S, January 2005). Regardless, it is clear that the major media pundits are rejoicing in Bush Jr.'s re-election and portraying him as a bold, clear-eyed visionary who has triumphed because he is both strong and good.
TIME's portrayal of George W. Bush as a leader first and foremost is appropriately flushed out be Andrew Sullivan's essay on the final page entitled “Year of the Insurgents”. Drawing from the American Heritage Dictionary Sullivan defines “insurgency” as “a condition of revolt against a recognised government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognised as belligerency” (Sullivan does not include the italicised words, presumably because the fuller definition does not fit the profile of insurgents he is seeking to present). Thus, Sullivan concludes that insurgents are about sniping, not governing. Given the chance to exercise true leadership they prefer to stay on the margins. Besides, he says, they don't really expect victory. They engage in “a war that is not a real war, a halfway inconclusive revolt without end, a battle of attrition that polarizes as it goes essentially nowhere.” Thus, while insurgents from Mel Gibson, to Iraqi “rebels” in Fallujah, to Jon Stewart engage in infectious but ineffective revolts George W. Bush – that blessed American revolutionary and visionary – is the only true winner. And, TIME Magazine seems to suggest, we should be quite thankful for that.
Unfortunately Sullivan does not create an accurate portrait of insurgents (not that he seems concerned to do so) but only achieves a caricature. Looking at other definitions of insurgency (“an organised rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the usage of subversion and armed conflict” – Merriam-Webster; “active revolt” – Oxford) one realises the the key to the definition of insurgents is not their aversion to government or leadership but their active resistance to the government as it currently exists. The American Heritage dictionary adds the clause about insurgents lacking organised government points to the fact that insurgencies are grass-roots movements that are still in the process of gathering numbers and organising themselves under structures of leadership. It does not mean that they are essentially going nowhere, it means that they have only just started going somewhere. Naturally Sullivan finds it much more convenient to warp the definition of insurgency in order to have his audience accept his mostly hyperbolic critique of those who oppose the mainstream media, George W., and American foreign policy.
It's hard to miss the doublespeak here. When those like Gibbs and Dickerson call George W. Bush a revolutionary one begins to wonder how much meaning is left in that word. Others who speak and act out against the injustices they perceive within the present order are not called revolutionary – they are insurgents, and insurgents as Sullivan defines them. TIME is careful to reserve the powerful language and symbolism of revolution (thanks to a culture and education system that presents the American Revolution as the pivotal turning point of history. Odd for a nation that is regarded as Christian – for Christianity affirms that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was the pivotal turning point of history) for its allies, while also refusing to apply such language and symbolism to its opponents, regardless of how closely either sit fits the terms of usage.
Perhaps t-shirts with pictures of Che Guevara captioned, “Vive la Revolucion” will one day be replaced with t-shirts sporting George W. Bush proclaiming, “Long live the Revolution”. And kids will sit around in Starbucks reminiscing about the glory days of his reign and wonder how they too can continue the war of freedom that he fought so well.
John Bunyan Meets The Brothers' Grimm
Purity was raped, not by Passion but by something nameless.
For Passion too was beaten and tied up in the basement.
Revelry was blinded just as Faith began to see
That Innocence had died and Hope was made an orphan.
But Assurance adopted Hope who grew to untie Passion.
Passion became the lead in a dance with Revelry.
And Revelry? Well, Revelry introduced Purity to Transformation.
Together they sought Power but all they found was Love.
Who dubbed the nameless 'Impotence'.
Toronto: A Eulogy for Becky
A city full of ghosts and shadows stained grey.
Catching glimpses of the skin of children wrapped in cardboard.
Born of angels
Who fell a long, long time ago
And forgot that they could fly.
“She’s still a trigger and I’m still reliving
The trauma caused by beauty and searching for a stronger muse.
But I only find
Her voice in parking lots
And her reflection in the windows of this train.”
Holiday Family Gatherings
Ivan is clean. His last binge lasted nine days, and he’s been clean ever since. That was five months ago. He’s waiting for me at the door. There’s a light in his eyes, his smile breaking out all over his face and he can’t stop laughing at everything, at everyone, at every word. Not mockingly – joyfully. There’s muscles all over his body where before there were only bones. He’s got a place to stay, and just finished school for a fork-lift driver’s license.
The girl in his lap looks up sneering, “What? Your friend shows up and all of a sudden you’re giggling like a little girl?”
I hadn’t seen Ivan since I took him away with my brothers. Not since he laughed and talked and slept and played and drank with us. He’s family now. We both know it. We are each others family. I’d stayed in touch through a friend, wept when I heard of his heart attack, and prayed desperately when I heard that he had started to clean up.
Ivan, my friend, it is good to see you. You are my Christmas present.
~
Visiting the drop-in was bitter sweet. Scribbles came up to me delighted, pulling me into a bear-hug, laughing and talking too fast. He’s clean too, he’s got a place, he’s gone legit, he’s a father now and he’s taking care of his baby. Scribbles looks like he’s made it. Nikita too, she’s doing well. Eric isn’t nearly as angry as he used to be he smiles and cracks jokes when I point at his long hair and beard and call him Jesus.
“All I know is that if people start deciding I’m some sort of icon to follow then the world is going to get really fucked-up really fast.”
That’s the good news. And then there are the others. Shaun was clean for eight months. He appeared in Toronto about three weeks ago and has started binging again. I talk with him but he’s sketched out. He’s a paranoid schizophrenic and when you couple that with a crack addiction it can be hard to have a coherent conversation. I was hoping he had gone away for good leaving this city and its demons behind. But he’s crashing and burning once again. Lexus buried her baby three weeks ago. She’s older now too, a little more open to being sorrowful instead of angry. I hold her for a moment and she kisses my cheek before she goes. And then there’s Becky. She was doing well. She was clean, looking for work, pursuing her dreams. Then, three days ago, she jumped in front of the subway train. Nobody really knows why. She was in a battle for her life… I guess she lost right at the very end.
In a way, I wish there weren’t so many kids that were thrilled to see me. In a way I wish I had come back to discover a place full of unfamiliar faces. I wanted to dream that the kids I knew had moved on, had healed, had been made whole, but a lot of them are still here, still fighting, still chasing highs and lows. And it’s sad but that’s life. So we just love each other, we delight it one another’s company until we part ways again. For one more day we know that we are beloved and then we say goodbye.
Yes, this is where I wanted to be for Christmas. God bless us, everyone.