Mack thinks the Markan legacy came at too high of a price. Instead of the social experimentation and constructive visions of Jesus groups and Christ cults, he believes Mark gave way to a sectarian mentality (331). Followers of Jesus are innocent in a hostile world and outsiders (the Other) must either join the group or face apocalyptic judgment. For Mack, this too easily translates into a myth of America’s innocence and manifest destiny to civilize the world as the sole superpower (369-374). In the end, Mack calls on us to give up our “messiahs” in a multicultural world and that ”the church canonized a remarkably pitiful moment of early Christian condemnation of the world” (376).
To some extent, the equation of Christianity with civil religion (e.g. The American Patriot’s Bible), the “War on Terror” and the stereotype of the Muslim as the Other, and fundamentalist Christians who see events in the Middle East through the lens of an apocalyptic timetable, has justified Mack’s critique. Mack is also right to condemn imperialistic attitudes and anti-Semitism in the history of western christendom. But could it be that Mark would also be horrified by this legacy? Mark can be read as anti-imperial (as Richard Horsley argues), opposing the temple elites and their Roman imperial overlords in the name of God’s Kingdom. Jesus is a different kind of king who cares for the marginalized (sinners, the impure) and gives up his power in self-sacrificial love (Mark 10:45). His kingdom is not like the state and does not advance by worldly power; instead the disciples are to follow Jesus’ example of servanthood (9:33-37; 10:42-45). But the final coming of the kingdom and Son of Man in power gave hope to Christ followers during their trials and expresses the hope that their present suffering is temporary, that the story does not end in the cross but in resurrection. Would God be good if He remains indifferent to all the oppression and injustice in the world?
No comments:
Post a Comment