Committed Critic

Sunday morning I preached on the Magnificat, the poem Mary recites shortly after learning she’ll become mother of the Son of God. The passage reflects Mary’s celebration that she, a peasant girl, is to be blessed with such an honor (Lk 1:46-55):

My soul magnifies the Lord
And my spirit exults in God my Savior,
For he has looked upon the humility of his slave-girl.

Look: from now on all generations will regard me as blessed
Because the Mighty One has done great things for me;
Holy is his name,
And his mercy is from generation to generation
for those who fear him.

He has done a mighty deed by his arm;
He has scattered the haughty in the thought of their heart;
He has pulled down the powerful from thrones,
And has exalted the humble.
The hungry he has filled with good things,
And the wealthy he has sent away empty.
He has helped Israel his servant,
Remembering mercy,
just as he announced to our fathers,
To Abraham and to his seed
Forever and ever.

I’ve been talking with my fiancee Beth (who’s Roman Catholic) about Mary as a model of spirituality, so I wanted to reflect on how we’re supposed to read toward that end.

One point I decided to press is that when we use Mary as a model for our spiritual lives, we should also consider another model alongside her: Paul. This might seem odd, and I could imagine Catholics and feminists being irritated that I brought Paul into the discussion. The two figures are quite different, in particular that Mary was a peasant girl and Paul was an educated Pharisee. But since a lot of us are more like him than like her, I think we could be misled by focusing on Mary’s example in Luke without considering Paul as another angle on Christian spirituality.

A key theme of the Magnificat, especially as it relates to Mary, is God’s lowering of the mighty and exaltation of the humble and lowly. Mary reflects this humility, both in her attitude and in her station in life. The danger for us is that we’ll try to imitate the first half of her example (the attitude) even though the second half (our station in life) is wildly different than hers. That is to say, if we put all our emphasis on Mary, we’re liable to think that God is satisfied if we simply change our attitude. I think that’s a half-truth that ignores what Luke really has to say about Jesus.

When you read the teachings of John and Jesus in Luke, it’s clear that the call to repentance goes well beyond changing one’s attitude. Jesus has a few things to say about how we feel about money, for example, but more often he gives specific instructions for us simply to give money away. The reason this is important is that it allows us to actually participate in the kind of reversal that the Magnificat proclaims. The reason we should take it literally is because it’s exactly what Paul does, giving up status for the sake of the gospel.

Probably the most famous passage where Paul addresses his loss of status is 2 Cor 12:7b-10:

So that I wouldn’t become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to strike me so that I wouldn’t become arrogant. I begged the Lord three times about this, that he would take it away from me, but he said to me, “My grace is enough for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Accordingly, I enjoy boasting in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ can rest upon me. I am pleased with weakness, with insults, with needs, with persecutions and distresses, on Christ’s behalf. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

I think that when people read about Paul’s strength in weakness, they usually assume either that he’s being humble and “staying out of God’s way,” or else that he’s acknowledging his feeble human abilities that God overcomes to allow him to write great letters.

I think this is missing Paul’s point. When he talks about weakness, Paul talks a lot more about his suffering, and about the embarrassing things that have happened to him –– things like being flogged, which left real scars that people would see if he ever had his cloak off. In the ancient world, people who had status in a city or community had their rights protected by that community; people without status weren’t guaranteed the same kind of protection. A strong person could avoid suffering or persecution; only a weak person or a slave would have to submit to floggings and danger. That’s what Paul accepted willingly for his ministry.

Paul gave up being respected and cared for by society. Weakness, in this sense, means losing some of the ability to control your own life and call your own shots –– the opposite of having power, which means being able to do what you want. Being genuinely weak means making your life less convenient and putting yourself at the risk of sufferings that are no longer under your control, leaving yourself at the mercy of God and other Christians to get you through things. That is what so few Christians ever do, even when it puts us at risk of becoming “the last,” by Jesus’ own words, when he returns.

Other parts of Scripture make a different point, and as I’ve said, there are plenty of passages that call us to have humble attitudes. But I think that Mary’s poem reflects what Christ will do to us unless we do it first. In other words, the way to avoid being knocked from our thrones when Christ returns is to surrender those thrones ourselves, while we have the freedom to do so.

In the incarnation, God didn’t just change his attitude in order to understand how we might feel; instead, he took on flesh and became human. The change didn’t keep God from still being God, but it was still a real change. Paul didn’t lose everything –– he still had his education, for example, that helped him write powerful letters. But he wasn’t content to just try for an inner change. If we want to live up to the teachings of Christ, I would argue that our loss of power and status needs to be real and external as well.

My good friend [note correction] Matthew over at liberaljesus often raises questions of Christian conduct and how it relates to our interpretation of Scripture. Though I can’t usually do much to resolve those questions, here is my take on one Scriptural voice (1 Peter), which I think has a unique, if limited, perspective to offer. (I’ll refer to the author as Peter.)

THE MAIN IDEAS

Three key word families from 1 Peter point at almost everything the author wants to say:

First, 1 Peter identifies Christians as separate from those in the world around them; they are sojourners (1:1; 2:11) and aliens (1:17; 2:11) –– both negative terms indicating they are not home, not inhabitants. Furthermore they have been reborn (1:3, 23; cf. 2:2) into a new life, and they are concerned not with the perishable things that the rest of the world cares about, but with what is imperishable. What they value is not valuable in the world’s eyes, and thus “the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone” (2:7).

Second, a word we’ll translate “way of life” (1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16) occurs almost as many times in 1 Peter (6) as in the rest of the NT (7), and the verbal form occurs once in 1 Peter as well. The term reflects the moral exhortation that permeates the letter, and it also points toward the occasion of the letter, suggesting not a call to specific action but a more general mode of behavior or living. This tone is reflected throughout the letter’s moral exhortation, and it suggests not an urgent mission but a community trying to live faithful, hopeful lives under difficult circumstances.

Third, the theme of suffering recurs throughout the letter. 1 Peter uses both the verb and the noun for suffering more times than any other NT book. Often it is the letter’s recipients who are described as suffering (2:19; 3:14, 17; 4:1, 13, 15, 19; 5:10); at times they are being mistreated or insulted because of their faith (2:12, 15; 3:16; 4:14, 14ff), and much of the letter’s exhortation, as we will see, is in response to this mistreatment. In other circumstances, suffering is unrelated to faith, whether at the hands of a cruel slave-owner (2:18) or at the hands of the devil himself (5:8f). However, whatever the cause of the believer’s suffering, Peter links it to that of Christ (e.g., 2:21; 4:1, 13).

THE MOVES

It is not entirely clear whether Peter has a fixed outline in mind, as many themes recycle throughout the letter. I can discern three apparently deliberate moves, but we must acknowledge that Peter inserted illustrations and applications freely in the course of his argument. Some such comments are brief and fit their context reasonably well (e.g., 3:6; though note that in Genesis Sarah is hardly submissive!), while others seem to bear no connection to their context whatsoever (e.g., Noah as prefiguring baptism in 3:19-22). It seems that Peter offers a sort of sermon, in which he pursues a central argument but freely includes other reflections as they occur to him.

Happily (and not accidentally, I think), the three moves I’ll suggest correspond to the three word families I’ve identified above.

1. Hope in an inheritance (1:3-12): “He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, into an imperishable inheritance…” (1:3b-4a).

2. Consequent exhortation to appropriate behavior (1:13 –– 4:11): “Let your behavior among the nations be good, so that when they denounce you as evildoers, nevertheless when they see your good deeds they will glorify God on the day of visitation” (2:12).

3. Concluding exhortation to steadfastness and caution (4:12 –– 5:12): “Those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful creator in doing good” (4:19).

The overall structure and the major motifs dovetail rather nicely. Thus (1) we are strangers because we have hope of an inheritance elsewhere, (2) our lifestyle is grounded in that hope, and (3) we must remain steadfast because our lifestyle as strangers will cause us suffering in a world that doesn’t understand us. That these three points explain one another suggests that we’re identifying them correctly.

1 Peter’s primary purpose appears to be his exhortation to a moral lifestyle. While he does not present a linear argument in favor of his moral code, he repeatedly offers rationales in the course of his exhortation. A number of different points are mentioned multiple times as reasons for the Christians’ behavior:

• God has called them to the behavior (1:15; 2:9, 21; 3:9; 5:2).
• They have been redeemed by Christ (1:18f; 2:24; 3:18; 4:1).
• They are to follow Christ’s example (2:21; 4:1).
• Scripture commands certain behavior or attitudes (3:10f, 5:5).
• Behavior serves as testimony to nonbelievers (2:15; 3:1; 3:16).
• They will face judgment for their deeds (1:17; 4:17).

THE LENGTHY COMMENTARY

The behavior that is taught is grounded in the believers’ identity, as Peter establishes primarily in the early portion of the letter. The believers are a priesthood (2:4, 9) and simultaneously a sort of temple (2:4). They are a people/nation (2:9f). They are free, yet at the same time they are slaves of God (2:16f). And perhaps most importantly, as mentioned above, they are aliens or strangers in the world (1:1, 17; 2:11).

The Christian’s behavior encompasses all of life. Believers set aside desires that lead them astray (2:11, 4:3ff). They are holy, as God is holy (1:15). They fear God (1:17; 2:17; 3:2) but never suffering (3:14; cf. 3:6). They avoid debauched living (2:11; 4:3) and hateful relations (2:1); instead, they live with moderation (3:4; 4:7) and show love and respect toward the community and outsiders (3:8, 15; 4:8, 5). In short they do good, (2:14, 15, 20; 3:6, 17; 4:19), not bad (2:12, 14; 3:17; 4:15).

A major portion of the moral exhortation in 1 Peter is the household code prescribing submission, obedience, and Christlike behavior for people in various positions. While groups that were traditionally subjugated (slaves and women) receive the most rigorous commands, all believers are urged to submit to human authorities (2:13), and Peter addresses specific exhortations also to elders and young men (5:1-5). It is important to note that, while the codes support forms of behavior that appear to reflect cultural norms for propriety, the rationales Peter gives for such behavior are not cultural but in each case theological (2:15, 21, 3:4, 7; 5:2, 5).

Along with the rationales mentioned above for their behavior, Peter’s audience is reminded continually that their identity and behavior are based on a hope (1:3, 13, 21; 3:5, 15) of what God will do when Christ is revealed in glory (1:7, 13; 4:13). They are living in the last days (1:20) and await the last time (1:5) or the end of all things (4:7). Therefore their lives are situated between the gift of hope given through Christ’s resurrection (1:3) and the ultimate salvation they are receiving (1:9) and will receive (1:5).

The Christians’ separateness is a key to their situation. It encompasses their different behavior which allows them to be holy (1:15) rather than embrace evil desires (1:14). It is what allows them to serve as priests, and indeed to be a temple. And it is what earns them their neighbors’ scorn (2:12, 15; 3:16) and causes them suffering (3:14; 4:14). Yet it also is what allows them to glorify God.

This final point, the glory of God, is a natural outgrowth of the Christian life. Trials help build up the believers’ faith (1:7) so that there may be praise, glory and honor (perhaps for both the believer and God) when Christ is revealed (1:7). The believers’ good lives will cause the pagans to glorify God in the day of visitation (2:12). And when the believers live according to the gifts of God, it will result in praise for God through Christ (4:11).

The church’s separateness also relates to the inheritance it awaits, which is not of this world. We are not aliens for the sake of opposing the world, but because we have a homeland that is elsewhere. Therefore our conduct is grounded in the hope we have, a hope which both warns us against squandering God’s good graces and encourages us when our lives of nonconformity become wearisome.

QUESTIONS & GAPS

Interestingly, 1 Peter contributes both to what is right and to what is wrong with conservative Christianity: it emphasizes holiness and other-worldliness to the complete neglect of social justice. Its exhortations to submission clearly lack concern with achieving justice for the oppressed, but rather encourage, e.g., slaves to endure under harsh masters. If you didn’t think “doing good” included caring for the poor, 1 Peter wouldn’t do anything to change your mind. It is perhaps appropriate that this letter is located in the Christian canon immedidately after James, which also presupposes other-worldliness and suffering but applies them over and over again to care for the poor. It would be fascinating, I think, to examine how these two theologies, so similar at certain points, could find such different applications.

But 1 Peter’s deficiency at this point can direct us toward a key contribution it makes to Christian spirituality: our relationship with God (perhaps against James 1:27) is not simply based on our dealings with other people in this world.

Though it is hardly a complete guide to the Christian life (such would require blatant disregard for Jesus’ teachings concerning money, the poor, and the marginalized), we must allow 1 Peter to confront us with the fact that Christian ethics cannot be based entirely on the impact of our behavior on other people. God can demand things of us that we cannot rationalize according to whether they improve the world around us. And to turn it around, we cannot use God as an excuse to accomplish what we think is right in the world.

1 Peter’s message concerning holiness is that Christian ethics is also between us and God, based on the holiness he expects for those who presume to belong to the world above. This is not the entirety of the Christian life, but it is indispensible.