"Who Do Men Say That I Am?"

(PRESENTED TO EDEN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES)

Have you ever wondered about that blessed day when Jesus questioned his disciples about his identity? Did Jesus just, out of the blue, one day decide he was going to give his disciples a “pop quiz”? I think it would be safe to say that those of us with a church background have at least, in passing, thought about how it all went down. That incident is the theme of this message. The thesis, then, is that, while everyone else around you may have an opinion about who you are, what is more important is not only who those closest to you think you really are, but what you believe about yourself, and how you see others.

Based on the gospel narratives that have been handed down to us, most scholars tend to suggest that the incident we’re discussing occurred within the last year to year-and-a-half of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus had been teaching his disciples since just after the start of his ministry, so for at least roughly two years or so. But what exactly was he trying to teach them that eventually led to the question, “Who do you say that I am?”

I was ministering in a jail several years ago when this question, and Peter’s response, really hit me. These were men who were getting ready to spend years in prison. Men in this position are either full of themselves, or they are near the end of themselves and hungry for…something. These men fell into the latter category. They had been utterly condemned by society and, in some cases, even by their families. At this point, I had been ministering to them regularly for a couple of months or longer, and I knew that they didn’t need anyone, especially some preacher, to tell them how lowdown, sorry, and no good they were. They were experiencing severe systemic psychological oppression. The chances of their receiving physical freedom from incarceration in the near future were slim to none. They needed hope. And they needed spiritual and psychological freedom.

Do you know why the vast majority of people actually end up in jail or prison? Sure, many of them have broken the law. Some may have actually hurt other people. Nevertheless, the main reason most people end up incarcerated is that they do not have enough money to hire a decent attorney and grease the palms of the people in charge. That’s just a fact. That’s the nature of the system. And to be sure, this is not an attempt to justify anything any of them may or may not have done. But, truth be told, there are people who have done the same or worse than most of those incarcerated, yet because of their financial standing and the connections they have, they are free to do as they please. Take Trump, for example.

Matthew chapter 25, during what is referred to as the “Olivet Discourse,” provides a glimpse into the social justice aspects of Jesus’ message:

^{35 ‘}For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ ³⁷ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and we gave you something to drink? ³⁸ And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ³⁹ And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ ^40…‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ ⁴¹ Then he will say to those on his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me… ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ ⁴⁴ Then they will also answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ ^45… ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.

You will notice that Jesus did not, in fact, say, “Those imprisoned wrongly.” Or “Those who were imprisoned for the sake of the gospel.” No matter how much some people want it to say those things, or imply such, Jesus is here speaking of anyone in prison, regardless of what the charges are, regardless of their innocence or guilt. If it were only referring to those who were wrongfully charged and imprisoned, or only to those who were imprisoned for preaching the gospel, the text would have indicated as much.

Why is it so easy to write off people who are incarcerated or have been incarcerated? Is it because they truly are “the worst of the worst”? Is it perhaps because they have done something worse than we ever have? Is it because we may have done something similar but never got caught, and now we have such self-hate or loathing that we project it onto them? Are we really any better than they are? Just because we’re free and they’re not?

In order to truly be able to effectively minister to people who are incarcerated, we have to really confront those questions. We must honestly question ourselves, our motives, and our intentions. When people are incarcerated, they tend to be able to tell who’s real and who’s not. Who really loves them with the love of God, and who doesn’t. And if you are there judging them as “less than” yourself, they know it. How does one minister love and bring any kind of true hope and freedom in Christ to those who are incarcerated if they view the people they are ministering to as “less than”? It’s simply not doable. Yet, one must also first, themself, have hope and freedom in Christ. And that doesn’t come from a mentality that says we are nothing but worms, wretches, “shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin” (Ps 51:5 KJV), good for nothing but being thrown into a pit of fire forever.

One of the primary things wrong with Western Christianity, possibly more so with Protestants than Catholics, is that many have all but left behind the idea of humanity being the imago Dei – the image of God. We were sold a bill of goods with the doctrine of “original sin,” which largely originated with Augustine, and we bought it at a premium. With the Reformation, Protestantism reinforced the “original sin” doctrine. And, the latter 20th-century and early 21st-century Evangelicalism has swallowed it entirely, with some even teaching that, though humans were originally created in the image of God, they lost that to a great degree, if not entirely, when Adam and Eve “sinned” by partaking of the forbidden fruit, fell from grace, and became estranged from God. They may have developed what is called a “high Christology,” but they have a very low view of humankind. Yet, while having this low view of humankind, these preachers, teachers, and theologians have the gall to chastise people for “sinning.” But if the goal you are aiming for, if the best you could possibly do, is bad, then how can people really “miss the mark” and why should they be chastised or punished for doing so? This is why people tend either to lose their religion entirely or to make it merely a religion of morality.

I’m much like Bonhoeffer in that “[w]hat is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who [or what] Christ really is, for us today.”[1] Bonhoeffer, in uttering or rather penning these words from prison in 1944, was questioning a “religionless Christianity.”[2] What did he mean by that phrase, “religionless Christianity”?

Bonhoeffer had watched in horror as leaders of his own church denomination, the German Evangelical Church, not only sat quietly by as Hitler rose to power, but openly supported the Nazi regime and embraced the Deutsche Christen movement—the current iteration of which is known as White Christian Nationalism. Bonhoeffer, during his year at Union Theological Seminary from 1930-31, had been a student of Reinhold Niebuhr[3], a leading proponent of neo-orthodox theology and “Christian realism.” He was also considered to be a student of Barth, who was also of this ilk. Neo-orthodoxy began as a reaction against 19th-century Protestant liberalism, which, especially in light of the First World War, was viewed as utopian and naïve optimism. Neo-Orthodoxy stressed the sinfulness of humanity and the otherness and transcendence of God.[4] So, when Bonhoeffer spoke of “religionless Christianity,” he was seeing humanity through both a neo-orthodox lens and in light of the rise of Hitler’s Nazi regime. So, for Bonhoeffer, religionless Christianity was a Christianity without the trappings and machinery of religion; a Christianity centered on Christ and not religious culture or language.

Nevertheless, Bonhoeffer seemed to have a firm persuasion that God would utilize this religionless Christianity in great ways in the future. Bonhoeffer viewed God as not merely transcendent and “on the boundaries but [also] at the center, not in weaknesses but in strength; and therefore not in death and guilt but in man’s life and goodness.”[5] So, although he was beginning to see humankind and even Christianity as “radically religionless,”[6] he still had a pretty optimistic view of humankind and its relationship with God.

Bonhoeffer said then, in 1944, that

“our being Christian today will be limited to two things: prayer and righteous action among [people]. All Christian thinking, speaking, and organizing must be born anew out of this prayer and action…[There will come a day] when [people] will once more be called to utter the word of God that the world will be changed and renewed by it. It will be a new language, perhaps quite non-religious, but liberating and redeeming—as was Jesus’ language; it will shock people and yet overcome them by its power; it will be the language of a new righteousness and truth…Till then the Christian cause will be a silent and hidden affair, but there will be those who pray and do right and wait for God’s own time.”^[7]

When you are in a jail or prison ministering to incarcerated people, chances are most of the people will be religionless. And much of the language used, both theirs and yours, will be “quite non-religious” or even “radically religionless.” Yet if you’re being led by the Spirit and following your heart, it will be “liberating and redeeming.”

“What is everyone saying about me? Who do they say I am? But what about you? You’ve eaten, drunk, and lived with me almost as intimately and close as anyone can for almost three years or so. What do you say about me? Who do you say I am? You have seen me at my highest and at my lowest.”

In both Mark’s and Matthew’s renditions of the narrative, just prior to Jesus confronting the disciples concerning how they viewed him, Jesus warned them about “the yeast,” or teaching, of the Pharisees—those who interpreted holiness and good relationship with God as being primarily about external obedience—making sure to follow all the rules and not screwing up, doing the right things right and not doing the wrong things at all.

These twelve men, and probably at least three or four women, who were his disciples and closest followers, had seen Jesus do some great and marvelous things. They had also seen him screw up and be a bit racist and misogynistic and abuse his privilege at times, such as when he called a foreign woman a dog. They’ve seen him break the law dozens of times. They had also watched as he fellowshipped with both the “great” and the “small,” and treated everyone as his equal and as his brothers and sisters.

Jesus had not called them to venerate or worship him in any way—he called them to follow him. And he had been teaching them not only with words but also contextually and participatorily. Not only did Jesus preach, they preached. Not only did Jesus heal, cast out demons, and raise the dead, but, at least according to Matthew chapter 10, so did they. And when it came to miraculously feeding the crowd, Jesus’ first instinct was to tell the disciples, “You give them something to eat” (Matthew 14 and Mark 6). But when the task seemed beyond them, yes, Jesus broke the original bread and fish; it was still the disciples who actually fed the people, and also they who gathered up the remnants as well.

Nevertheless, Jesus also knew about the “yeast” of the priests and teachers of the law and how it could infiltrate one’s thinking and one’s view of themself. He knew how the yoke of bondage to rules-based and performance-based religion could feel heavy and burdensome. But in teaching his disciples, Jesus had passed along the adage: “A disciple is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like the teacher” (Luke 6:40 and Matthew 10:24–25). He had not taught them to see himself as anything more than they themselves could be. While the Synoptic Gospels do not use John’s language of the Father dwelling within Jesus, they consistently portray him as living in deep dependence on God—through prayer, obedience, and empowerment by the Spirit—revealing a life aligned with and sustained by the divine presence. And the disciples were privy to that and were also thus learning to live such a life so aligned and so sustained.

When Jesus asked the disciples how they saw him, he was also teaching them how to see themselves. When Peter made his great confession, “You are the Christ,” Jesus said that Peter was blessed because it wasn’t simply the miracles or outward things Jesus did that led Peter to understand. It was a revelation from God. Then Jesus tells him that this would be the foundation for the work that he was trying to do in the world—learning how to see themselves and each other as anointed sons and daughters of God. Jesus was teaching his disciples and followers to not only see Christ in one another, but to see one another as Christ, “God’s anointed.”

Imagine if we could see one another this way. Imagine teaching people in jail or prison to see one another this way! Now, you talk about a liberating and redeeming message for a group of incarcerated men! That right there will preach! God, Ground of our very being, within us, around us, and through us, help us to see ourselves and one another the way you see us, through eyes of love and grace! In the name and nature of Jesus, Amen!

[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge, trans. R.H. Fuller, Frank Clark, et al., quoted in Readings in the History of Christian Theology Volume 2: From the Reformation to the Present, Revised Edition, eds. William C. Placher and Derek R. Nelson (Westminster John Knox Press, 2017), 145.

[2] Ibid., 146.

[3] See Charlie Cahill, “The Pragmatic Roots of Bonhoeffer’s Ethics: A Reappraisal of Bonhoeffer’s Time at Union Theological Seminary, 1930–1931,” German Studies Review 36, no. 1 (Feb. 2013): 21-39, https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2013.a501304.

[4] For more on neo-orthodoxy, see H. Martin Rumscheidt, “Neo-Orthodoxy,” in Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith (Westminster/John Knox Press; Saint Andrew Press, 1992), 253, and C. A. Baxter, “Neo-Orthodoxy,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, ed. Martin Davie et al. (InterVarsity Press, 2016), 608.

[5] Bonhoeffer, Letters, 146.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Bonhoeffer, Letters, 147.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baxter, C.A. “Neo-Orthodoxy.” In New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic. Edited by Martin Davie et al. InterVarsity Press, 2016.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. Edited by Eberhard Bethge. Translated by R.H. Fuller, Frank Clark, et al. Quoted in Readings in the History of Christian Theology Volume 2: From the Reformation to the Present, Revised Edition. Edited by William C. Placher and Derek R. Nelson. Westminster John Knox Press, 2017.

Cahill, Charlie. “The Pragmatic Roots of Bonhoeffer’s Ethics: A Reappraisal of Bonhoeffer’s Time at Union Theological Seminary, 1930–193.” German Studies Review 36, no. 1 (Feb. 2013): 21-39. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2013.a501304.

Rumscheidt, H. Martin. “Neo-Orthodoxy.” In Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith. Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.