
So What?
So much so-called ‘Christian’
preaching comes down to support for the pillars of culture. It is frightening
for Christians in any culture to see their ‘civis’ (city/civilization)
break down. We are all aware of what third world countries look like, filled
with strife, war, poverty and disease. We cherish the structures that uphold
our culture and seek in every way to value and cherish them. Jobs, families,
institutions, national symbols, political processes, the economy, infrastructure,
civic groups are all aspects of the pillars of culture. It is difficult for
us to imagine life without them. Yet when we announce the kingdom we announce
the end of all these things.
Following the early Christian apologists
and eventually Augustine and Eusebius (Bernard, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, etc)
we have all but capitulated in our thinking to the view that the gospel supports
the world, exalts human progress and generally undergirds cultural systems
and foundations.
We lose our freedom to preach when any
of these aspects of culture become something upon which we depend for then
we tacitly confirm our complicity in that which generates them all, the victimage
mechanism. The early Christians who formed the communities behind Matthew
and Luke had jettisoned these cultural accommodations, and many in fact lost
their lives for refusal to participate in activities that affirmed victimage.
They became victims.
Not for nothing, but our current sacrificial
crisis (post 9/11, hurricane Katrina, Asian bird flu, global warming, the
specter of terrorism and war, famine, disease, global poverty not to mention
the price of gas!) is to be expected. There has been 2,000 years of proclamation
of the gospel, a gospel that has exposed the mimetic principalities and powers
and rendered them increasingly incapable of imposing the violent peace they
promise.
Preachers of peace, preachers of the
gospel, have the task of continuing to declare the Gospel to the world, to
the Powers. Slowly, this message will continue to expose the Pillars for what
they are, sand-castles that will one day wash completely away. But beware.
The parable today speaks loudly of the fate of the one who speaks peace to
the powers. She comes in the wrong clothes, she refuses to celebrate the wedding
of peace to violence, and she is cast into the outer darkness with Jesus,
to Golgotha, the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Anthropological Reading
Last week we suggested that the parable
of the Wicked Tenants (Matt 21:33-46) might best be interpreted if we contemporized
it to refer to sacrificial Christianity. So also, today, we might employ the
same strategy.
Matthew’s version of the parable
of the wedding feast is different than Luke’s (Lk 14:15-23). In Luke’s
version those who chose not to come to the wedding feast make excuses. In
Matthew, the heralds of the banquet are violently executed. Matthew has highlighted
the reason for self-exclusion: violence.
Violence excludes, extrudes, victimizes,
tortures, rapes, poisons, kills. But in the parable there is retribution,
the king who invites becomes the king who destroys. Is Matthew suggesting
that the God who invites will one day become the God who destroys or engages
in violence?
It is possible that the Lukan form of
the parable is the more original. So what is Matthew doing? It might appear
that Matthew is in fact engaging a form of the sacrificial mechanism reflecting
the destruction of Jerusalem in vs 6. If so, it should not surprise us, for
we cannot expect the early Christian interpreters to have altogether escaped
negative mimesis.
It is possible that, from Matthew’s
perspective, the demise of the Jewish leadership and the destruction of the
Temple were perceived as salvation-historical events, events that would change
history. And they were. The destruction of the Temple in 66-70 C.E. was like
our 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. It was an event of cataclysmic proportion.
Therefore we should not be surprised to see it leave its imprint on the formation
of the gospel.
The problem of interpretation comes when
we want to make the parable an allegory, where the King = God and the son
= Jesus. It may be that Matthew has made this identification; if we concede
this then it is better to move on. It is perhaps wiser, in this regard, to
note that the parable in its simpler format omits any notion of retribution
and that we cannot join Matthew in his interpretation.
It may also be that if there is not to
be an identification of King = God and son = Jesus, that Matthew is highlighting
the violence done to the kingdom, emphasizing that self-exclusion is possible,
that consequences arise from not only rejection but also murder. What is occurring
in the parable? The kingdom of heaven can be likened to…not the king
but the process of the story itself as it takes shape in the parable.
As the kingdom of heaven comes, it escalates
mimetic conflicts; here the murder of the heralds is mimetically doubled by
the destruction wrought by the king’s army. This doubling happens as
the non-violent kingdom is preached and lived, violence redoubles its efforts
to retain a grip on social order as it is exposed and deconstructed. When
we preach we should expect people to become more destructive (we might also
expect that others will repent). Victimage does not take kindly to its unmasking
today anymore than it did in Jesus’ day.
But Matthew goes further. The ritual
of the wedding feast and the accompanying social rituals of invitation are
all in place and functioning properly. How do we know this? Because the cultural
mechanism of refounding the dynasty involves a scapegoat. Matthew has tagged
on another parable, the parable of guest without a wedding garment. The guest
is distinguished by a difference; the lack of a garment, and it is this difference
that brings down the judgment of those gathered at the feast. The king’s
response is over the top, the improper guest is practically tortured for daring
to trespass on holy ground. There has been a violation of social protocol
and it must be redressed.
In short, if we avoid the temptation
to allegorize the parable, Matthew is telling us that first, as the kingdom
of heaven advances there will be an intensified doubling of mimetic violence
and second that this violence will end in the victimage of a scapegoat. This
interpretation of the parable appears to be more consonant with Jesus’
teaching than to suggest that Jesus is proclaiming the retribution of an eschatological
judgment.
Now, having said this, it is also true
that as the kingdom of heaven (of peace and forgiveness) advances in the world
there will be those who for various reasons will not want to have anything
to do with it. It is their preference to avoid peace and forgiveness and to
continue to engage in violence. Such as these exclude themselves from the
feast of the kingdom of God (from the messianic banquet). Just as judgment
become self-judgment in Matthew’s gospel so exclusion becomes self-exclusion,
that is, when we exclude others we exclude ourselves.
This interpretation, through the lens
of mimetic theory, recovers what may be Matthew’s intention of highlighting
the progressive growth of violence in a culture grounded in violence.
Historical/Cultural
Our interpretation of the parable is
strengthened by the Lukan version of the parable. In Luke’s version
the excuses offered are all related to reasons for not going to war (holy
war). J.D. Derrett (Law in the New Testament) has pointed out that each of
the excuses are reasons for refusing military conscription. Scott disagrees
citing Mishnah Sotah 8:7 (Hear Then the Parable). Sotah 8:7 is raised in the
context of holy language, what texts must be read in Hebrew and which texts
may be recited in any language. Recited in Hebrew include the paragraph on
the First-Fruits, the halitzah (the ceremony prescribed in Deut 25:7-9 when
a man ‘draws off his shoe’ signifying his refusal to marry the
childless widow of his brother), the Shema’, the Tefillah, the blessing
of the High Priest and the words of the Anointed for Battle (the Commander
in Chief).
The Mishnah states in Sotah 8:4 “and
these are they that stir not from their place: he that built a house and dedicated
it, he that planted a vineyard and used the fruits thereof, he that married
his betrothed wife, or he that consummated his union with his deceased brother’s
wife.” Not only must these refuse conscription, “these do not
even provide water and food and do not repair the roads.” They are to
act as if there was no war! When Scott cites Sotah 8:7 “what has been
said applies to battle waged of free choice; but in a battle waged in religious
cause all go forth, even the bridegroom out of his chamber and the bride from
her bridechamber”, he does not note that already this might be a later
interpretation for following is a citation of Rabbi Judah (second century)
that may well reflect the despair that not all choose to defend Jerusalem
either in 66-70 C.E. or again in the early part of the second century under
Hadrian. In fact R. Judah argues that the Deuteronomic decrees apply only
to holy war and are abrogated in a ‘duty-bound’ war. It would
appear that while there may have been debates surrounding Deut 20:5-7 in Jesus
day, they were far from settled and that the Lukan version of the parable
is about extrusion from the community because one has refused to go to war
as a result of the proclamation of the kingdom.
It would appear then the parable in both
the Matthean and Lukan versions reflect either the problem of refusing to
join in the violence of culture or the escalation of violence in culture as
the kingdom is announced. While Luke may, in fact, have a more original form
of the parable, it is clear that Matthew has redacted his parable to reflect
what actually occurs when the non-violent kingdom (as reflected e.g., in the
Sermon on the Mount) is proclaimed. Or if we posit that Luke used Matthew
as a source then it is possible to suggest that Luke has brought the ‘excuses’
into line with his Deuteronomic scheme. In neither case do we need to resort
to an allegorical interpretation where the king/benefactor = God.
Either
this page has not yet been completed, or we have not found any significant textual
issues in the lectionary texts for this Sunday.
What's New: (Hover your mouse over to pause cycling)
Exodus
32:1-14
When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people
gathered around Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make gods for us, who shall
go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of
Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." Aaron said to them, "Take
off the gold rings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters,
and bring them to me." So all the people took off the gold rings from their
ears, and brought them to Aaron. He took the gold from them, formed it in a
mold, and cast an image of a calf; and they said, "These are your gods,
O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" When Aaron saw
this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow
shall be a festival to the LORD." They rose early the next day, and offered
burnt offerings and brought sacrifices of well-being; and the people sat down
to eat and drink, and rose up to revel.
The LORD said to Moses, "Go down
at once! Your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have acted
perversely; they have been quick to turn aside from the way that I commanded
them; they have cast for themselves an image of a calf, and have worshiped
it and sacrificed to it, and said, `These are your gods, O Israel, who brought
you up out of the land of Egypt!'" The LORD said to Moses, "I have
seen this people, how stiff-necked they are. Now let me alone, so that my
wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; and of you I will
make a great nation."
But Moses implored the LORD his God,
and said, "O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people,
whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty
hand? Why should the Egyptians say, `It was with evil intent that he brought
them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face
of the earth'? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring
disaster on your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants,
how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, `I will multiply your
descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised
I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'"
And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring
on his people.
Isaiah 25:1-9
O LORD, you are my God;
I will exalt you, I will praise your name;
for you have done wonderful things,
plans formed of old, faithful and sure.
For you have made the city a heap,
the fortified city a ruin;
the palace of aliens is a city no more,
it will never be rebuilt.
Therefore strong peoples will glorify you;
cities of ruthless nations will fear you.
For you have been a refuge to the poor,
a refuge to the needy in their distress,
a shelter from the rainstorm and a shade from the heat.
When the blast of the ruthless was like a winter rainstorm,
the noise of aliens like heat in a dry place,
you subdued the heat with the shade of clouds;
the song of the ruthless was stilled.
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines,
of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear.
And he will destroy on this mountain
the shroud that is cast over all peoples,
the sheet that is spread over all nations;
he will swallow up death forever.
Then the Lord GOD will wipe away the tears from all faces,
and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the LORD has spoken.
It will be said on that day,
Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, so that he might save us.
This is the LORD for whom we have waited;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
Philippians 4:1-9
My brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand
firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved.
I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to
be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion,
help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel,
together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the
book of life.
Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will
say, Rejoice. Let your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near.
Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication
with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of
God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds
in Christ Jesus.
Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever
is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever
is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy
of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have
learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be
with you.
Matthew 22:1-14
Once more Jesus spoke to the people in parables, saying: "The kingdom
of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son.
He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet,
but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, `Tell those who
have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves
have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.'
But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business,
while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. The king
was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their
city. Then he said to his slaves, `The wedding is ready, but those invited
were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you
find to the wedding banquet.' Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered
all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with
guests.
"But when the king came in to see
the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and
he said to him, `Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?'
And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, `Bind him hand
and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping
and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."
Occasional Articles
As with the Introductory Articles, we
will add other articles as time permits or as our readers request. If you
have a suggestion for anything, please let us know.
Michael Hardin
Is the Apocalypse Inevitable?: Native American Prophecy and the Mimetic Theory presented to the Colloquium on Violence and Religion 2008
Michael's Essay for a Celebration Volume honoring Rene Girard
Michael's Response to Willard Swartley's Covenent of Peace at the November Colloquium and Violence Meeting
Does
Peace Make A Difference? - Michael's essay in response to Rick
Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan (which somehow never mentions peace).
An Analysis of Rick Warren - Michael's response to "The Purpose Driven Life."
"The
God of Pat Robertson" - a response to Pat Robertson's words
to the people of Dover, PA.
"A
response to Charles Stanley's "A Nation at War"
"Must
God be violent? A Diagnosis and Prescription for Modern Christianity"
The
Scapegoat: Christologies in Conflict - A Study in Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Biblical
Testaments as a Marriage of Convenience: Rene Girard and Biblical Interpretation
Finding
Our Way Home: A Brief Note On The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture
"Does
The Passion of the Christ Preach the Gospel?"
A
sermon for the holiday devoted to Dr. Martin Luther King. (requires
Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
GRASPING
GOD: Philippians 2: 1-11 in the Light of Mimetic Theory
Rene Girard and the Recovery of Early Christian Perspectives (Brethren Life and Thought)
The Dynamics of Violence and the Imitation of Christ in Maximus Confessor (St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly)
"EcoSpirituality"
Or What Happens When You Sit Down With A French Literary Critic
Jeff Krantz
Mighty
One or Crucified Messiah? Competing Christologies and the Chiastic
Structure of Mark's Gospel
There's
No Such Thing as the Rapture - A sermon preached at the Church
of the Advent, Westbury (requires Acrobat Reader)
Holy
Scripture and the Consecration of Gene Robinson - a response
to the request of the Windsor Report for a Scriptural rationale. (requires
Adobe's Acrobat Reader)
Worship - The Redemption of Desire by Jeff Krantz
Myth
and Film - a piece written for the City of Angels Film Festival
The Stations of the Cross - Rewritten by Jeff Krantz
A Dramatic Presentation of the Stations of the Cross for Youth by Barb Fabijan-Waddell
Escaping
the Power of "My" - A NonViolent Approach to Stewardship
Preaching
Peace in Hollywood: The Theologies of Terminator, Lord of the Rings, and the
Matrix
V
for Vendetta - The Name Says It All A review of the movie.
Essays, Sermons and Liturgical Pieces by Friends of Preaching Peace
"Jesus and the Gibeonites: Reading the Bible from the Perspective of the Hidden Victim" by James Warren.
Mark Heim's "No More of This" - A hymn on Nonviolent Atonement
Kate Layzer's "No More of This" - A hymn on Nonviolent Atonement (and inspiration for Mark Heim's hymn!)
Alan Cork, "Transformation" in L'Arche: A Mimetic Account presented to the Colloquium on Violence and Religion 2008
"The Wisdom of God's Peace" a sermon by Jim Amstutz, co-pastor of Michael's church.
Girard's Christology - Per Bjornar Grande
Violence, Anarchy and Scripture: Jacques Ellul and Rene Girard - Matthew Patillo
Comparing
Plato's Understanding of Mimesis to Girard's - Per Bjorner Grande
C. Frank Terhune, an Easter Sermon: "God's Big But" (no kidding!)
Gerald Biesecker-Mast's paper from Theologia Pacis on Pacifist Gospel Epstimology.
An essay by the Rev. John Hill on Mimetic Theory and Catechesis