“Jesus: Prince of Peace or Bringer of the Sword?”

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Rev. Gretchen Woods

Readings:

from Luke 12:51-53

12:51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No. I tell you, but rather division! 12:52 From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 12:53 they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

From The New Testament: An Introduction, 2nd edition by Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling, p. 60.

Narration of history is almost always concerned with the historic. Factual history belongs in the scholar’s study and the law court, and even then it is difficult to attain. The natural tendency is always to narrate in such a way as to express what one holds to be significant in the events, and this is expressly stated in the New Testament. In Mark 1:1 the use of “the gospel of Jesus Christ” indicates that what is to follow is in some sense a sermon, designed to elicit the response of faith; in Luke 1:4 what is to follow is designed to instruct Theophilus in “ the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed”; and John 20:31 sums up the purpose of the preceding narratives as having been written so that the reader “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” In our words, the events are narrated to bring out their significance for faith; the history in them is history in the sense of the historic.

Sermon: “Jesus: Prince of Peace or Bringer of the Sword?”

In the early 19th century, Joseph Stevens Buckminster was a rising young minister in Boston Unitarianism. He “ . . . entered Harvard at the age of thirteen and received an A.B. in 1800.” (David Robinson, The Unitarians and the Universalists, Westport, Connecticut, Greenwoods Press, 1985, p. 225.) Buckminister not only set a high standard for Unitarian preaching and influenced William Ellery Channing, founder of Unitarianism on this continent, but he also was among the first to bring German higher biblical criticism to the United States. In other words, he “ . . . insisted that the scriptures be read in their historical context and be subjected to the same scrupulous scholarly investigation given other texts from antiquity.” (Ibid. p. 226.) Buckminister set the stage for the scholarly study of scripture that has continued since with Albert Schweitzer and the Jesus Seminar.

In the early 20th century, Schweitzer was forbidden to become a religious missionary for his Lutheran denomination because he had decided, from careful scholarly study, that there was not enough factual information confirming Jesus’ existence on the earth, other than from texts meant to further the religion based upon his life. Schweitzer gave up the “search for the historical Jesus.” He became a medical missionary and, toward the end of his life, signed the membership book for the Unitarian Church of the Larger Fellowship. Current scholars still argue whether or not Schweitzer was aware of what he was doing when he put his signature to paper so late in his life.

Since 1945, some time after Schweitzer wrote his famous denial, 40% more new scriptural material has been found. That is phenomenal! And still there is very little proof of Jesus’ existence, other than that offered by the Christian scriptures. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain mostly inter-testamental material, mostly not germane. The Nag Hammadi Library, on the other hand, and numerous new fragments of cuniform text do have something to say to us of Jesus, but we have yet to find an Ur-text, a definitive original, rather than a copy of a copy of a copy.

Either way, the central figure of Christianity is known only through the written material that is intended to convey the myth of the man, and that highly edited at best. But the success of the religion, through the teachings of Paul as well as those of Jesus, cannot be underestimated. And the anger and fear that has arisen around his name is probably as intense as the hope and the love. I know Unitarians who despise Jesus for his apparent desire to divide families, as indicated in the text read today. Still, we cannot disregard the many who find a very different message from the same texts. I know I did as a child reading the texts over three times before I graduated from high school.

Clearly, most Jewish people never did accept Jesus as the promised Messiah. Had they done so, there would probably be very few Jewish people today, and that is certainly not the case. Mohammed made an effort to be accepted by Jews, feeling he was continuing the work begun by Abraham and Jesus. It was only after he realized that neither group would accept him as a prophet that he moved forward with his own religious organization, separate from theirs. (Karen Armstrong, A History of God: the 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Ballantine Books, 1993, p. 153.) Is

Saul of Tarsus made Jesus successful in the Jewish diaspora and the Roman Empire. As Alfred North Whitehead noted, “When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers. The code of Justinian and the theology of Justinian are two volumes expressing one movement of the human spirit. . . . The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar.” (Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, corrected edition, edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne, New York: the Free Press, 1978. p. 342.)

Herein lies the heart of my argument for today: that Jesus is one of the largest projection screens in our current world. Because he cannot factually protect himself from the projections of those who use his story for their own ends, we find every possible interpretation of what he had in mind. What we “get” from Jesus probably says volumes more about our selves than it does about the man or his message. Jesus has been used to justify such horrors as the Children’s Crusade, and he has inspired some of the most beautiful poetry, art, and music the world has ever seen.

Given this perspective, let us consider the quote that we read today. While the word “peace” is used extensively throughout Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the latter prophets of the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus does not appear to have used it as often, except as a blessing between himself and his disciples and to offer special blessings to “the peacemakers,” as he does in the Sermon on the Mount. Paul uses it more frequently than Jesus, especially as a greeting to all the churches to which he writes.

Is Jesus the Prince of Peace or Bringer of the Sword? The Jesus Seminar is a group of biblical scholars who determine from careful scholarly scrutiny what seems most likely to represent truly the message of Jesus. Only 3% of those scholars believe that it is likely that Jesus ever made this statement. 18% believe it is mildly possible that Jesus made this statement. 32% believe it is unlikely, and 47% think there is no way Jesus said such a thing. Interesting. So where did this idea come from? Whomever the author, it was directed toward Greeks and Romans who might be converted from their pagan religion, given that the Gospel of Luke seems to focus upon that audience. These folks would have to leave their families of origin’s religion to become Christian, hence the importance of affirming that process, whether Jesus actually did or not.

For many of us, our deepest experience of scripture is from Handel’s “Messiah,” which does emphasize the idea of Jesus as “Prince of Peace.” But that text is actually taken from Hebrew scripture, rather than any message of Jesus. Ultimately, we return to the notion that we project upon the scriptures the meaning we wish to convey most strongly. I am reminded of the young man who disrupted “God at 2000,” screaming that all those who believed in a God of Love and a Jesus who asked people to confront every message they got from the dominant culture and question its validity were doomed to hell. He seemed to derive his energy from the rage he expressed against anyone who believed differently than he did.

Ultimately, we see what we believe. We project what we most deeply feel. That psychological reality makes us responsible for our own thoughts and beliefs. We can – and do - choose what we see and what we believe. Unitarian Universalism invites us to choose what makes the most sense from our own experience, rather than accepting tradition from any group. I think it is no accident that I arrived to do my Master’s studies at a Jesuit University (John Carroll University) at which Jesus’ message was to confront structures of domination with demands for justice and compassion. That reflects my view exactly, since I first read scripture as a child.

As my thought matured, I expanded my view of God to an Energy/Consciousness Source of all of life that includes everything that I experience in its infinite loving awareness. This is a Universalist view of God. This love is a “divine lure to greater intensity and harmony,” (paraphrase of Whitehead) and invites us to engage in creative interchange with all that is, thus co-creating the process of life. This does not depend on Jesus, but is what I saw in Jesus’ life and message many years before.

This perspective does not ask that we blindly accede to unhealthy boundaries and allow others to over-run us. It does not mean that we will not struggle with questions about whether we are enabling evil or co-creating peace. It does not tell us not to say, “NO!” to abuse, cruel misuse of power, and evil. It does not lead us to give away our power to do good in our world. If anything, we are called to be more engaged in offering alternatives to “power-over,” injustice, and war. But, like Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and, yes, maybe even Jesus, who inspired both of those men, we are called to use means which match the ends we seek, non-violent and compassionate means. This is my projection on Jesus.

Each of us may be asked to become a “Second Coming.” Maybe our question should not be, “What would Jesus do?” but “How best to use our energies collectively to further the greater good of all?” Rather than a single person, perhaps all of life is being called to forward the cause of peace. Must we lie down and defer to the drive for greed and power-over and war, or may we find ways to overcome that proclivity amongst us and move on to a better series of choices, one by one? I don’t know, but, as for me and my house, we shall put our energies, however insignificant, behind the consciousness that brings greater peace, love, and joy. This is the best way for us to celebrate this Easter, this uprising of life that hopes for a better world for the greater good of all - with justice and peace. This is an idea that brings fire into the veins and reminds me of Mary Oliver’s poem, “Sunrise.”

You can

die for it –

an idea,

or the world. People

have done so,

brilliantly,

letting

their small bodies be bound

to the stake,

creating

an unforgettable

fury of light. But

this morning,

climbing the familiar hills

in the familiar

fabric of dawn, I thought

of China

and India

and Europe, and I thought

how the sun

blazes

for everyone just

so joyfully

as it rises

under the lashes

of my own eyes, and I thought

I am so many!

What is my name?

What is the name

of the deep breath I would take

over and over

for all of us? Call it

whatever you want, it is

happiness, it is another one

of the ways to enter

fire.

Are you willing to enter the fire of peace with justice? That is the question only you can answer. Happy Easter. Blessed be!