Lately I have been reading Walter Brueggemann’s The
Prophetic Imagination and in it he raises an interesting thought that I
want to reflect on. This could be summed
up as “God’s accessibility for all.” We
need to ask ourselves the question, does the Church-community’s action enable
others to find the accessible God of the Bible, or have we fully subordinated
Him to be a tool for our agendas?
Brueggmann points out that there is a tricky tension between God’s
freedom and God’s accessibility in which Christian leadership and subsequent
laypersons bear the role and responsibility to “assert the freedom of God that
tempers the notion of accessibility.”[1]
To use
Brueggmann’s example, prior to Israel’s expulsion from their land (and presumably
the road to the breaking-point that caused their exile), Israel has two very
different social orders. In Exodus we
have Moses and the rest of the Hebrews working with God to create a counterculture
within the world. This community worked
for economic equality, rather than individual surplus (Exod. 16:15-18), they
abide by a politics that worked for justice and opposed oppression (Lev.
25:35-42) and they maintained a view of, and relationship with, God that
embraced God’s freedom to move and dwell among the people (Exod. 33:15-16;
19-20).[2]
However, by
1 Kings, Solomon had managed to counteract what God had begun (too bad he
didn’t make better use of that wisdom). Solomon,
in a short time, amassed much wealth by prizing an “economics of affluence”
over equality (1 Kings 4:20-23). While
this may have reduced worries about survival for some, it came at a cost to
others who worked toward Israel’s affluence but never received its benefits as Solomon
used forced labor to build the nice homes the laborers would never live in and work the
wine vineyards they would never drink from (1 Kings 5:13-18; 9:15-22).[3] Never mind that it only recreated the oppressive-affluence
the Hebrews previously suffered under Egyptian rule, but no matter who is
behind it oppression and affluence tend to need each other.
More to the point, Solomon could
have never done this without the right theological sanctions which he seemed to
adopt (and arguably so) from other pagan social practices. This allowed him to
erect his personal shrine to God and create a “static religion”. In a sense, God is robbed of His freedom and becomes
part of the royal landscape. Solomon secluded God’s presence to the temple
where He would dwell forever (1 Kings 8:12-13).
I do not say this only because the Mosaic solution is counteracted but
where before God was initiating movement, now He is put on call for Solomon’s
needs and all access to Him is limited and controlled by the royal court.[4]
While it
would be all too easy to conclude that Solomon was just a bad person and a
corrupted leader, we would do better to ask how the Church has acted the same
way. We are guilty of robbing God of His freedom to move and to move us thereby
limiting God’s accessibility for others.
One way I see it is in our notion
that we can legislate Christian morality on those who do not hold our
convictions. For example, the hot-button
issue of abortion stems from the Christian belief that life is sacred, not
because life alone is inherently sacred but rather it is sacred because we
believe it is authored by and is an extension of our holy God. If all we do is put laws against people, in the name of God, who
do not know or believe that it not only turns them away from God, but stifles
God’s freedom to move us into more creative avenues to bring His
accessibility. If we are to be a counterculture,
we need fresh approaches to all situations.
One alternative (specific to abortion) could be for us to become a
presence (apart from protesting) at abortion clinics and sacrifice our personal
time, resources and finances to help women who would at least be willing to
carry their baby to term and if possible longer. On the other side of it, we could be a source
of non-judgmental comfort, compassion and burden-bearing for those who felt
like they had no choice and aborted their baby (even though we don’t agree with
the decision). The bigger point is, God
moves in all situations, but we are often too busy being offended or worrying
about self-interest or only doing what inconveniences us the least to know when
God has moved. But that doesn’t fulfill
our role as functionaries for God’s accessibility.
By all means, I would love input; what are your
thoughts? Are there ways in which you
believe we stifle God’s freedom and accessibility? Do you have creative
solutions that reflect more of God and less of us?
[1] Walter Brueggemann. The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2001),
29.
[2] Ibid, 31.
[3] Ibid, 27.
[4] Ibid, 28-29.
No comments:
Post a Comment