Thoughts on Being Prophetic

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, I am going back through some of my older books. I picked up Brueggemann’s ‘Prophetic Imagination’ last week and thought it worth mentioning. There is one particular part that I would like to discuss. Brueggemann develops the thought of Israel’s early existence as an alternative community. It is “the appearance of a new social reality” that emerges out of the exodus and forms “a social community to match the vision of God’s freedom.” Brueggeman asserts that there “is no freedom of God without the politics of justice and compassion, and there is no politics of justice and compassion without a religion of the freedom of God.” Of course, this seems best understood when it stands in stark contrast to a dominant, often hostile, culture.

When Israel decided to be like all the other nations and develop power through war and kingship rather than by God, they themselves became the oppressors. This becomes most evident through the reign of Solomon. Brueggeman, through Mendenhall, states that this Solomonic achievement is actually the ‘paganization of Israel.’ There are three things that characterize this achievement: incredible affluence, oppressive social policy, and the establishment of a controlled, static religion.

This third ‘achievement’ is the one that caught my attention, specifically when Brueggemann writes that this static religion consigned God and his temple “as part of the royal landscape, in which the sovereignty of God is fully subordinated to the purpose of the king.” In other words, God supports our particular nation-state; or, the freedom of God is now suppressed and given over to God’s easy accessibility. (We see a similar tension in 20th century theology between God’s transcendence and immanence). Essentially, God now resides in the temple for whenever the people need a God. Solomon builds God a house for him to dwell. According to Brueggeman, “God is now ‘on call.’” No longer is there need for a surprise burning bush or a cloud to follow. Instead, God follows his people. When one looks at the three ‘achievements’ of Solomon, one begins to recognize that “it provided a God who was so present to the regime and to the dominant consciousness that there was no chance of over-againstness, and where there was no over-againstness, there was no chance of newness.”

I started thinking about God and his temple. When I was younger, I remember hearing and reading the story of Jesus’ death. When Jesus was dead the sky was dark, there was a great earthquake, and the temple curtain that separated God’s dwelling place from the rest of the temple was torn in two. I was always told that this ripping of the curtain was God’s way of saying that the ultimate sacrifice was made. No longer was the blood of a lamb needed. Jesus paid the ultimate price. And in my nice and neat evangelical faith I accepted this as part of the doctrinal package of justification. It seemed congruent with the differences of the Old and New Testament.

I wonder now if this could be interpreted differently (not wrong, just different). What if this was God’s way of crying “Freedom?” When I think about it now, I actually smile and laugh to myself. Who would have ever guessed that a Roman crucifixion would be the way in which God proclaims his freedom? Israel stuck God in a building the same way we stick God into a neat doctrinal package. Our culture models Solomon’s in a scary way. Never in history has there been this enormous amount of wealth, which of course also characterizes a politics of oppression in which the marginalized are rarely, if ever, heard. And God’s presence is just a quick ‘prayer’ or drumbeat away. We have no recollection of his mystery because he’s our ‘best friend.’

Essentially, we have made Jesus into the kind of savior that we desire rather than the savior that He is. This reminds of a Hauerwas quote: “The resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate sign that our salvation comes only when we cease trying to interpret Jesus’ story in the light of our history, and instead we interpret ourselves in the light of his.”