CHRIST AS MEDIATOR OF GOD

cover l editorial l chapter 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 l 6 l 7 l 8 l 9 l 10 l

by Dr. M. Masango

Currently Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of South Africa and pastoral counselor.

This topic is given at the time of confusion around the world. There is so much violence abuse oppression and confusion among the human race.

We in South Africa, particularly, are in the process of coming out of the dark tunnel of suffering. Glimmers of hope for a new reconciled community have begun to appear. Mothers of children killed by the racists and the women who come from the families of the killers are for the first time beginning to worship God in the same churches. God has been understood by the protagonists of apartheid as their God and the Africans who were told that they were a rejected and a cursed race never accepted this. They always knew God to be on their side suffering together with them. They also knew that God as revealed in Jesus Christ has been encouraging them to extend an arm of friendship and forgiveness to their tormentors. This readiness on their part, especially on the part of the bereaved mothers and widowed wives is proving to be a powerful catalyst in bringing about a new reconciled community of all colours. Problems remain but we are confident that God will enable us to achieve what God has purposed for us.

It is in this context I want to begin my theological reflection by asking who God is.

God

Who is God? God is known by human beings in different ways. For example, the Western civilization draws many of its leading metaphors and definitions of gender and morality from the Bible. In the Old Testament structure God is modeled after the patriarchal ruling class and is seen as addressing this class of males directly, adopting them as His “sons” – they become his representatives.

God has lately been seen as a male God. To analyze the roots of this formation of the male God image, it is useful to go back to the beginnings of patriarchal monotheism. For prior to that development many religions worshipped a female deity or the dominant divine image was paired with a spouse complementing the male and the female within the god head.

God has also been viewed as “the divine ground of being” without any gender attributes. This is more natural for the Africans. They usually refer to God as:

“God of wonders

The ground and fountain of mercy

The lover of the oppressed

The husband of the widow and

the companion of the widower

The one who embraces

the broken-hearted.”

Here the divine is not “up there in heaven” as an abstracted ego, but beneath and around us as encompassing source of life and renewal of life. In short, God is powerfully imbued with the powers of life and spirit. In so far as it is women who are more forgiving we need to ask whether our envisioning God exclusively as a male person is correct. In fact ancient myths as already mentioned seemed to have had a fuller way of perceiving God.

We need to revisit the early urban civilization of Sumer and Babylonian tradition and its understanding of God. The traditions used the female image of the divine and later paired it with a male deity. To them generations of old and young gods and goddesses expressed the historical memory of the emergence of urban and agricultural civilization from a prehistoric epoch. In their own days the older gods and goddesses represent the food-gathering era of direct dependency on spontaneous natural powers. In the new world of cities and agriculture – both male and female co-operate in this new system of urban and agricultural order. The balance became an important aspect of the knowledge of God. This duality of viewing God is helpful in balancing our view of God. We, who are in a modern society, can avoid the one-sided male God who is portrayed as a very oppressive, isolating, punishing and humiliating God in order to show that God is powerful, sovereign and legalistically just.

We can also avoid a male monotheistic God who reinforces the social hierarchy of patriarchal rule through its religious system in a way that was not the case with the paired images of god and goddess. God is modelled after the patriarchal ruling class and is seen as oppressive to the female – and only addressing this class of males directly, adopting them as his “sons”. They become his representatives, the responsible partners of the convenant with him. The role now changes, women as wives, now become symbolically repressed as the dependent servant class. In other words, women, along with children and servants, represent those ruled over and owned by the patriarchal, hierarchical classof men. They relate to man as he relates to God. In short, a symbolic hierarchy is set up in the following order: God, men, women, servants.

Now, women no longer stand in direct relationship to God; they are connected to God secondarily, through the man. The original concept of God was based on complementarity. But eventually this gives way to a male god who is arbitrary, authoritarian and capricious. Such a god-image is used by men to legitimize their dominance over women, children and servant.

The Old and New Testaments are full of this kind of oppression. For example in 1 Cor. 11:3, 7

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.”

This is the beginning of oppression, whereas ancient myth had seen the gods and goddesses as within the matrix of one physical-spiritual reality. Male monotheism began to split the reality into a dualism of transcendent spirit (mind or ego) and the inferior and dependent physical nature.

Thus the hierarchy of God, men and women does not merely make woman secondary in relation to God, it also gives her a negative identity in relation to the divine. Whereas the male is seen essentially as the image of the male transcendent ego, or God, woman is seen as the image of the lower, material nature. Although both are seen as “mixed natures”, the male identity points “above” and the female “below”. This is what we have to deal with as we struggle to understand who God is.

The female has been reduced to the human partner as servant to God. For e.g. in the prophet Hosea, the marriage symbol is taken over judgmentally as a diatribe against the “harlotry” of Israelites, who prefer Baal, the vegetation and rain God of the Canaanites, to Yahweh, the nomadic patriarch.

Yahweh is depicted as the angry and threatening husband who will punish his bride with summary divorce. But the strange thing is it is in this very same book God who is angry like a husband is also depicted as a mother who is tender and who through her tenderness redeems her children from bondage. In Hosea 11:4 God is imagined like a mother who bends down to breast feed her child who is tied down and cannot lift its head up.

This kind of change from a husband image to a mother image became necessary because male patriarchal images prove too limited to represent the variety of relationships to Israel that Hebrew thought wished to express. In view of this biblical affirmation, I want to appeal to us all that images of God must include female roles and experiences. In other words, images of God must be drawn from the activities of peasants and working people, people at the bottom of society. Most of all, images of God must be transformative, pointing us back to our authentic potential and forward to new redeemed possibilities. Occasional use of a mother image alone for God, however, will not solve the problem. A greater recognition of the fact that God is the ultimate source and origin of both genders and that God is as much Mother as Father will certainly help. However, we also need Jesus the Mediator and Liberator who mediates and liberates by becoming primarily as a friend and companion who shares the plight of the entire victim sector. This is where Jesus makes sense as the Mediator and the Liberator.

In the Wisdom tradition, the female image appears as a secondary persona of God, mediating the work and will of God to creation. This powerful way of describing God is helpful, especially in understanding God’s action in Jesus Christ, for Jesus the incarnated second person of God although was a man is spoken of as the Wisdom of God which is conceived of as a feminine reality. Let us now analyze the works of God in Jesus Christ.

Jesus The Mediator

In Christianity, the idea of a second persona of God expressing God’s immanence, the presence of God in creation, revelation and redemption was taken over to explain the divine identity of Jesus. Hence Paul reminds us that:

“We are preaching a crucified Christ...

Who is ... the wisdom of God.”

1 Cor. 1:23-24

Who is Jesus Christ? Jesus is God, Immanuel, God with Us. In other words, Jesus Christ is the mediator, or the revealer of the mind of God, as well as the reconciler of the human beings to God. This Jesus (presence of God) becomes the image of God’s mediating presence of love, peace, justice and mercy of God, i.e., reconciling Israel (people of God) with God. Through Christ, God embraces all people, especially those who are oppressed, and finally liberates them from the powers of oppression. In Jesus, God becomes whole, uniting the male and female side. In the time when all things become one and God is “all in all”. It is therefore a great fallacy of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions to give importance to the maleness of Jesus.

One can clearly see the works of Jesus identifying with the oppressed. God in Christ creates a new thing for in Christ there is neither male nor female. Jesus the Christ unites both in himself and annuls all dominations without annihilating the distinctive attributes of either.

Mother Afua Kuma helps us through her prayers to know who Jesus is.

“Chief among chiefs,

when you stretch forth your hand,

widows are covered with festive beads while orphans wear kente (cloth).

Humble King

Your words are precious jewels

We don’t buy them, we don’t beg for them

You give them to us free!

Chief of lawyers,

to whom we bring our complaints,

You stand at court and defend the poor.

Chief of police,

a big rifle stands at your side.

Jesus! you are the greatest warrior

among the soldiers.

You are the moon of the harvest month which give us our food.

Prisoners depend on you as

the tongue on the mouth.”

Who Is Jesus?

Actually this question was asked of the disciples by Jesus himself.

“Who do people say that I am?”

The Buraku believe, know and affirm God as a fellow sufferer and enabler. You and I will call that God Immanuel – the one who is with us in life. In other words, Jesus the human one is seen as the one who gives concrete expression to this eternal reality of God as Immanuel in the sufferings and struggles of human beings.

In order to understand Jesus’ suffering, we need to look at the cross and receive words from there.

And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?” – which means, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mark 15:34

The above statement connects with our human suffering – it is but an echo of all those who suffer in life. It is a place where we are included and saved, Jesus’ voice of pain and disappointment carries forgiveness and leads us into reconciliation. This is a time when his voice or cry brings us back home – mediating on our behalf so that we may be forgiven. We now can experience the love of God which is brought to us through the mediator Christ.

Everyone of us is included. Our work then is to bring people to God so that they may find forgiveness. Dr. Kim Yong Bock reminds us that it is difficult to speak about Christ, because he has been presented differently by others. For example,

“Christ has been portrayed as a crusader. Mission histories have presented Christ as conqueror. The Jewish Jesus in a very subtle manner, has been turned into an Aryan.”

I would like to add that the Africans, as well as Asians, always see Christ as the liberator, the one who sets them free from oppression, liberating them from poverty, alienation and discrimination. The way forward is to say that Jesus is Immanuel, the one who identifies with the broken people all over the world.

To affirm God this way helps us to see God as a fellow sufferer who has come to join us in order to set us free. This is the God who is revealed to us through Christ. In order to save people God becomes like them. God in Jesus becomes a victim of persecution in order to save those who are persecuted. God in Jesus becomes the slave in order to save the slaves. In this process God becomes voluntarily vulnerable and powerless. God becomes a black African to join in their struggle against the demon of the whites.

This is where the significance of the oppressed experience connects with the incarnation as a source of understanding the humiliation, pain and oppression of the oppressed. Hence they alone know in experience who Jesus really is.

Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu is very helpful and expresses to me what I feel in Christian theology. He says that:

“Christian theology is language about the liberating character of God’s presence in Jesus Christ as he calls his people into being for freedom in the world.”

Our goal through theology is to clarify questions raised by God’s people, exploring their faith and asking questions about what they believe in relation to participation in God’s liberating work in the world. That kind of liberating work is seen in the action of Jesus.

We have been saying that God in Jesus should make sense to the real questions asked by people. In South Africa we have been greatly challenged by our children. They have shown great commitment as was evident when 750 children of SOWETO were gunned down by the brutal white regime. They refused to accept the gospel of the missionaries who told them that the essence of the gospel was that everything they missed here on earth would be given to them in heaven. One child asked “Would I get shoes in heaven as my parents are not able to afford shoes for me here?” The missionary foolishly said “Yes”. Immediately another asked whether God was running a shoe shop to fit all different sizes? Immediately all the children laughed showing that they already knew that the missionary was trying to fool them or he himself did not know what he had come to proclaim.

The Soweto killings showed how much the children understood the real essence of the gospel that it has to do with justice and liberation, here and now first.

Reconciliation

When we talk about reconciliation, however, we should not negate Christ’s role as the enabler of the struggles for justice. Once again, we look at Jesus the Christ and how he deals with victims, as well as the victimizer. Through Christ’s works of reconciliation we realize that this is where repentance meets forgiveness.

What is reconciliation?

For me, reconciliation means to bring together that which should be together in a right relationship. In other words, it means to renew a broken relationship on new terms, and to heal the injury of broken trust which has resulted from an offense inflicted by one person on another. Here the victim has power to receive or reject reconciliation. This may shock you but if justice is the right relationship between persons, then reconciliation is the making of justice where there was injustice.

It is therefore the one who was hurt, who is able to forgive and set new terms for the relationship.

Maitland Evans’ perspective of power sharing (between Philemon and Onesimus) makes sense. He says that the initiative for mutuality, if it is to be real and effective, must come from the poor, or victim. When the initiative comes from the victim then reconciliation will be real and meaningful. When reconciliation comes from the victimizer – the victim views it with suspicion.

For example, even when Philemon embraces Onesimus in an act of solidarity that expresses his repentance, the structure of the relationship between them can change. The initiative of Onesimus releases Philemon, then the embracing will free and unite both, and finally lead to a real sharing of power. To illustrate the tension between the gesture of reconciliation and legitimate struggle for justice I wish to share a personal experience. One day I was buying apples from a street vendor. A white man parked his car on the other side and came up to the same vendor. He bought a whole basket of apples. He asked the woman who was the vendor to bring the basket upto the car although he could have easily carried it himself. Inorder primarily to help the poor woman who did not want to offend the customer I offered to carry it for her. When I approached the car the man kept me waiting carrying the load on my head and started chatting with a friend. When I asked him to open the boot he shouted at me and asked me to wait. Although I am an ordained minister I felt I should teach him a lesson. So I put the basket down and slapped him and walked away. In former times I would have been hunted down by police dogs. But now in free South Africa such people have a chance to learn. Without repentance reconciliatory gestures will only result in further hardening of heart on the part of the arrogant oppressors.

In other words, reconciliation happens when the victimizer repents and the injured (victim) forgives, creating a possibility of a new relationship. Unfortunately, this ideal of reconciliation seldom is manifest, especially in cases of racist arrogance, rape or sexual violence. The problem here is that the victim’s hurt may be too deep for her or him to be able to forgive, or the victimizer’s denial, as well as unwillingness to take responsibility, may be too strong for him or her to be able to repent. The other serious matter to consider is that the victim may have no interest in reconciling a relationship with the victimizer. This is so when a marriage is broken because of wife battering. We must recognize the right of the woman to refuse to be reunited even when the man seemingly repents.

In spite of the above statement, reconciliation remains a worthwhile goal.

One act which can enhance the possibility of reconciliation between the victim and victimizer, is restitution on the part of the victimizer. When restitution follows from repentance, it is a concrete act which assures the victim of the victimizer’s honest intentions and desire to right the relationship. In the case of sexual violence, restitution may take the form of payment to the victim for medical expenses or payment to a rape crisis support centre for their services.

If restitution is voluntary, it may open a chance of reconciliation, but when ordered by the Court, chances of forgiveness are minimal. In short, restitution is one step that can lead towards reconciliation. Our brother Dhyanchand Carr reminds us of a distorted justice where God’s image is distorted and finally leaves the victim out of account. This scenario portrays God as more concerned to punish the law breakers than in vindicating the hurt victims of human wickedness. Carr emphasizes this by saying that precisely for the same reason, in as much as the victims are left out of account and are reckoned together with those who hurt them, there is a distortion of justice. Let us examine some ways that this can be done!

(a) The White South Africans need to be forgiven by the South African Africans.

(b) The Japanese nation need to be forgiven by the Korean, Filipino and other women (where one

hundred thousand women were violated).

inflicted on them.

(d) The man who has raped women needs forgiveness from the women he violated.

One can go on naming the victimizers who need forgiveness from the people they violated.

Carr concludes by saying that the death of Christ then should be seen as the death of Jesus, the Human One the Corporate Representative of the entire Victim Sector of all human history. In other words, Jesus offers forgiveness to all the repentant oppressors on behalf of the victim sector as much as on behalf of God.

The death of Christ should not be taken as a simple act, it challenges the oppressor, as well as the oppressed to focus on the issues of repentance, forgiveness, restitution and reconciliation. Although the above is difficult and seldom attained, it is worth looking at as a possibility. In doing so, we must realize that forgiveness or repentance alone cannot accomplish reconciliation. but when both meet, the possibility is real. When we have reached this ideal stage, only then, can the victim or victimizer be defined by the offense, but once again they are two human beings whose brokenness is healed and who can encounter each other anew.

Conclusion

I would like to conclude by saying that as workers of God we need to be very careful, when working with victims – people who have been violated in life. As healers of the wounds, we need to empathetically understand their pain. As mediators of God we need to stand between the victim and the victimizer. Remember that the victims are with Jesus, while the victimizers are challenged to repent. The only true repentance I know is that which is inspired by Jesus. He offers forgiveness on behalf of the victims as on behalf of God.

For example, let us read John 20; 23

“If you forgive anyone his(her) sins,

they are forgiven;

if you do not forgive them,

they are not forgiven.”

These are powerful words that share the depth and seriousness of work of reconciliation that points towards repentance and finally lead to forgiveness.

I hope we will continue to search for this dynamic work of forgiveness which comes to us from God through Jesus “the Christ”.

A Response to the paper

by Supaporn Yanasarn

Chaplain, Dara Academy, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Firstly, I would like to tell you that this is my first time to do a response among the theologians. It made me feel a little bit of being scared and excited. Though I am a chaplain of the school, I don’t know clearly about Christology – Ecclesiology Colloquium. When I was asked to attend this colloquium and respond to the paper. I felt like it was a blessing to me because I would have some time to learn more about theological concerns especially Asian Theology. So many things have enlightened me since I got all the materials and the paper from Dr. M. Masango and met all of you here.

What I am going to say in response to Dr. M. Masango’s paper is not only my opinion. I shared the paper among some women theologians in the seminary including ms. Sasitorn and Rev. Prakai. We had gone through the paper together and made the following comments:

1. The Connection of thought is broken. The flow from one point to another is not clear.

2. The background or more information of some parts of the paper.

3. When we talk about the victim and the victimizer, we have to realize or go beyond their situations – what is the cause to make them become the victim and the victimizer. As mediators of God we need not only to stand between the victim and the victimizer but we also have to think about how they could keep on being in the community – peacefully!

4. According to the fast growing of the world-globalization we ourselves often become both the victims and the victimizers.

cover l editorial l chapter 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 l 6 l 7 l 8 l 9 l 10 l