Mark 9:38-50
38John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40Whoever is not against us is for us. 41For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.
42“If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. 43If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and to be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, 48where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.
49“For everyone will be salted with fire. 50Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”
The Kingdom of God and the Unquenchable Fire:
How Hubris and False Divisions Neutralize Social Movements (Mark 9:38-50)
By
Rich Procida
Unable to cast out demons themselves, and having just argued about who among them was the greatest, the disciples ask Jesus about what to do with outsiders who, in the name of Jesus, cast out demons. Rather than simply call the disciples a bunch of idiots, Jesus uses hyperbole, a form of Aramaic exaggeration used to make a point. Hubris and false divisions cut us off from the kingdom of God (Mark 9:28, 33-37).
Jesus taught that the kingdom of God is imminent. He said “the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15). His miracles serve as evidence that in some ways God’s kingdom has come (Luke 11:20).
Jesus also described the Kingdom in his parables. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, for example, Jesus described the kingdom of heaven as a farmer’s field where Satan had sown weeds in with the crops. The Kingdom is represented in the parable by the field, but the field also represents the world. The “Kingdom of God,” or “divine rule,” is a metaphor for justice (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43).
The kingdom of God is not a particular place or event. Jesus said: “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:20-21).
God’s kingdom is not merely a place we go after we die. The reign of God is a present potential reality. It is something we can recognize and enter into (cf. Horsely 1993).
When a rich man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him that he must sell everything he owns and give it to the poor. The man walked away grieving, and Jesus laments about how difficult it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom. The kingdom of God calls for a response on our part (Mark 10: 17-31; Horsley).
The kingdom of God is not merely some blissful state or a metaphor for the Church. It includes all of human relations which inevitably involves the social, economic, and political. In God’s kingdom there is no injustice, poverty, oppression or war (cf. Horsely)
When Jesus instructs us to be at peace with one another, he uses the word eirene which is the opposite of being at war. It’s means harmony with others. While it may take on attributes of the Hebrew word shalom, meaning wholeness, wellness and healthiness, it is less about inner peace and more about establishing a flourishing community and a harmonious world (Stoffregen).
“Salvation” also expresses the substantive social aspects of the Kingdom. Salvation (soteria) meant peace and prosperity provided by a divine leader. The blessings of the kingdom of God are justice, peace and mercy (Horsley).
Jesus described these blessing in the beatitudes. The kingdom belongs to the poor. In God’s kingdom the hungry are fed, the distraught are made whole, the rich go hungry and the merry weep (Luke 6:20-26). God’s justice effects a change in our priorities (Mark 10:31).
Jesus described his mission at the beginning of his ministry. He came to bring good news to the poor, "release to the prisoners," to set the oppressed free, make the blind see, and declare the year of Jubliee, a time when all debts are forgiven. (Luke 4:18-19) Calling God her savior, Mary the mother of Jesus echoed these themes: God scattered the proud, brought down the powerful, lifted up the lowly, fed the hungry, and sent the rich away empty (Luke 1:51-53).
Early Christians attempted to live the Kingdom. They shared everything in common and "made no claims to private ownership of property." They gave all their money to the community such that everyone’s needs were met. This is what the kingdom of God meant to them (Acts 4:32-35).
Understanding that divine rule is imminent, we can now understand the violent imagery of this lesson. In arguing among themselves about who was the greatest, and then attacking the ministry of someone they considered an outsider, the disciples were causing division. The disciples, like most people, were deeply entrenched in the values of the domination system.
Status, wealth, and power over others were the preeminent values of the Roman Empire. Structural violence and the use of force were its primary tools. Social control in service to the elite and maintaining those in power were its main objectives.
The disciples were caught up in the ways of the world. They were obsessed with their own status and authority. By attempting to censor a fellow believer, the disciples were suppressing the kingdom of God.
Early Christianity was far more diverse than today. While Jesus was alive none of the disciples understood about his death. (Mark 9:30-23). Even after his resurrection, early Christians struggled to understand what it all meant (Ehrman 2003).
Wandering charismatic preachers spread a variety of different teachings (Acts 17:18). Paul encountered many of them. (1 Corinthians 1:10-18).
3 John 1:5-8 describes the lesson succinctly:
“5 Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the friends,even though they are strangers to you; 6 they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on in a manner worthy of God; 7 for they began their journey for the sake of Christ, accepting no support from non-believers. 8 Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we may become co-workers with the truth.”
God’s kingdom is inclusive. Even outsiders can realize and participate in it. “Whoever is not against us is for us,” Jesus said (Mark 9:40).
After calmly telling the disciples that one who performs a mighty deed in his name could not soon thereafter speak evil of him, Jesus broadens the Kingdom to include those who provide even a simple cup of water to support the cause (Mark 9:39-42). The disciples were wrong to censor a fellow believer. We should welcome all of our allies.
Then Jesus goes ballistic. It would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and be thrown into the sea than to scandalize an ally. Jesus wants the disciples to understand how important this is. It’s better to cut off your own hand or foot, or to gouge out your own eye, then to inject the values and practices of the domination system into the movement.
While the kingdom of God is in our midst, the unfortunate reality is that hell is right around the corner. The word Jesus chose for hell (Gehenna) is derived from the Hebrew ge-hinnon and refers to the “Valley of Hinnon,” a place where Judah’s kings practiced human sacrifice. The place Jesus used to describe hell is a place of false religious practice (2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35; Stoffregen)
Then Jesus starts talking about salt. “It’s good,” he says, but if it loses its flavor it’s useless. We should feel strongly about our cause.
Feeling strongly about our opinions is dysfunctional if it is not tempered by tolerance for the views of others. Jesus did not demand adherence to doctrine or membership in some ecclesiastical order. Merely providing a cup of water gets you in. Acting in Christ’s name gets you in.
To act in the name of Jesus is to act in allegiance with his mission and teachings. Among other things, Jesus taught his disciples to welcome strangers. (Matthew 25:30) A broad based movement must incorporate a wide diversity of people and ideas.
Just as the disciples created a false division between us and them, we create a myriad of divisions between ourselves and others. We create these divisions for a variety of reasons. We may disagree, not understand one another, or harbor prejudice.
Difference should be embraced. Just as salt that has lost its saltiness is tasteless, an activist who has lost his fire is useless. Philosophy, religion and politics are both collective and deeply personal activities. Diversity adds flavor to our communities while spirituality breeds creativity.
People need to make their faith their own so that their religion or philosophy is a true expression of who they are. Inevitably, we feel strongly about our views, but we must also respect the opinions of others. We learn from one another, even from those of other faiths and traditions, and we grow spiritually by listening to one another, sharing, teaching, and understanding.
Ideological purity and political correctness are stumbling blocks in any social movement. Some of the things we on the Left are divided over include President Obama, the Democratic Party, Christianity, religion, patriotism, nationalism, capitalism, communism, and nonviolence. These ideological divisions are false because they cause disunity between people who would otherwise agree.
It’s amazing to actually observe how people become incensed by a word or even a symbol. People jump to conclusions, make assumptions, and react negatively to certain topics. Unity and understanding are undermined by our emotional reactions to opinions that do not conform to what we expect.
I’ve attended many protests. At these marches Obama isn’t popular, and neither is the Democratic Party. Christianity is an outright taboo, and the idea that one’s faith might be the foundation of one’s social activism is considered unconstitutional.
“Everyone has to be a socialist.” “The Democrats and Republicans are the same.” “How’s Obama working out for you?” These are the divisive things people say to me at these rallies.
One day I went down to the offices of Answer LA, a group that organizes protests in Los Angeles. I told them that people don’t have to be anti-Obama to be against police brutality. I informed them that not everyone is in the market for an ideology. I asked them to “ditch the third party speak.” I don’t have to reject the Democratic Party to support economic and social justice.
One false division I see in the Left is based on a misunderstanding over the separation of Church and State. Many people falsely equate the separation of Church and State with the separation of religion and politics. The First Amendment only restricts the State, not the Church or religious or spiritual people in general.
In reality, the Constitution protects religious expression. Churches are free to do whatever they want, but if they want to maintain their tax exempt status, they must agree not to advocate for or against particular candidates for elected office. Churches are otherwise free to engage is social issue advocacy, and many churches and religious people feel morally obligated to be involved in the important issues facing our world today.
We fail to appreciate how large a role religion has played in the cause of social justice. Both the abolitionist and the Civil Rights movement in the United States were religious movements. Ghandi inspired a nation to resist British rule. Even some of our greatest political leaders, such as Nelson Mandela, become our greatest spiritual leaders, as well.
Today Pope Francis is inspiring millions of Catholics to address climate change and to demand peace and economic justice. Social justice, long a feature of Progressive Christianity, is becoming a popular topic in churches and spiritual centers around the country. People are coming to recognize that justice and equality are spiritual matters, too.
At the same time there are many on the Left who view religion as the problem. They view Christians as ignorant and deluded and demand a strict separation between the secular and religious. They have made “us” the enemy.
False division, like false religious practice, is exclusive and intolerant. It cuts us off from others and creates division within the community. In the case of dangerous cults, the severing off of members from the outside world can be extreme.
Questions for Discussion
- The kingdom of God has become quite a mystery in Christianity. People sometimes assume that the kingdom of God is a place we go when we die, but Jesus taught something different. Jesus talked about what has been labeled the “already/not yet” nature of the Kingdom. He describes divine rule as already here, near, and coming soon. What are your views on the nature of the kingdom of God?
- What are we to do with the poor? Is charity enough? In the sermon on the plain in Luke, Jesus issued woes to the rich. He said the full will go hungry and those who laugh will weep (Luke 6:24-25). In her song, Mary the mother of Jesus praised God for scattering the proud, bringing down the powerful, and sending the rich away empty (Luke 1:51-53). God’s plan includes not just charity but economic and social justice as well. (My view is that the Church is not the department of social services, and churches do not have the facilities or trained personnel to address widespread problems like poverty. Only government can do that. The Church is instead an organizing institution.) Are Christians, the Church, and we as spiritual people charged with using our power and influence to advocate for the poor and oppressed?
- There is debate about the Kingdom even among evangelicals. Different types of millennialism and covenant theology lead to different conclusions about the Kingdom. What are the conservative evangelical views on the when and where of the Kingdom?
- Mainline and liberal views of the kingdom of God are different. They tend to embrace the imminence of God’s reign. The “now” of the Kingdom takes on more salience, and many mainline protestants embrace the “already/not yet” description of the Kingdom. Liberals tends to consider the poor, the oppressed, and the raising of the masses of humanity in accordance with scripture. What are some of the mainline, liberal, and emergent views on the kingdom of God? (Chris)
- There are many different views about the afterlife. Christians and Muslims believe in heaven and hell. Catholics believe in a middle place called purgatory. Eastern religions teach about karma and reincarnation. Spiritual people have a variety of views about the spirit world. What are your views about the afterlife? What happens after we die?
- We know that in this world there are bad people who prosper and good people who suffer. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the wicked proper? Is there justice in the afterlife? What happens, for example, to serial killers or mass murderers like Hitler? Do we suffer any consequences in the afterlife for our choices in this life?
- Early Christianity was a social movement. Christianity spread quickly throughout the diaspora and then the Roman Empire. This posed challenges for the movement, including conflicts between different communities. Paul, for example, called the ministries of Peter and James “a ministry of death,” because they demanded that Christians follow the law and be circumcised (2 Corinthians 3:7-8; Aslan 2014). What problems do social movements face, particularly in maintaining unity and building coalitions? How can progressives build a broad based coalition?
- Most people are familiar with Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation between Church and State,” but less are aware of the approaches to applying the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Under the Lemon test, the State may neither inhibit nor advance religion (Lemon v. Kurzman). Under the endorsement test, the state must be cognizant of the perception of the public to ensure that it is seen as neither endorsing nor disapproving of a religion. The Coercion test forbids requiring students to participate in a religious practice, such as a prayer, in public schools. Using the hypothetical of a valedictorian who wants to speak about her faith, how would you balance the interests of her right to free expression against the importance of maintaining the appearance of neutrality?
){kind=link}
0 Comments