Sunday, August 3, 2008

What is the kingdom of heaven?

Throughout the Gospel's Jesus refers to the illusive concept of the "Kingdom of Heaven." Last Crossings service we struggled with what this means. Is the kingdom a physical place? a political unit or group? a relationship with God?

In the service we looked at 6 parables about the kingdom of heaven...

The kingdom of heaven is like
  • a treasure buried in a field discovered by a trespasser
  • a valuable pea rl sought after by a merchant
  • yeast that makes bread rise
  • a mustard seed that grows into a huge bush
  • a net that catches fish, good and bad
  • "Then you see how every student well-trained in God's kingdom is like the owner of a general store who can put his hands on anything you need, old or new, exactly when you need it."

Our conversation placed the kingdom of heaven as faith and how these parables describe different ways that it can come to people. What do you think?

We then made a "kingdom of heaven" board where we cut out pictures from magazines that provided images that we could use as analogies to explain the kingdom of heaven. What would you post?


3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello,

Annie and I (Colin) came to worship with Crossings two weeks ago and thought it was great. Sorry we didn't make it this week, we were in the Bay Area visiting family. On an unrelated side note: are there typically more people that attend during the acedemic year, or is it usually a fairly intimate gathering?

I wanted to throw into the mix a couple of unique interpretations I have read from various people. Irish philosopher and "evandelist" Peter Rollins said this during and interview with Christian-run satire magazine Wittenburg Door:

"'DOOR: Why do you call Jesus a subversive prophet who signaled the end to all religious movements?'

'ROLLINS: One of the interesting things about Christianity is that Christ both founded a religion and yet signaled the end of all religions. Jesus said there will come a time when we worship in spirit and in truth rather than on one mountain or another. The parable of the mustard seed grasps this. It speaks of a seed becoming a tree that will provide a nest of birds. The traditional interpretation is that this tiny movement will become an institution that will house people. But then there is another interpretation which says that the birds of the air are symbols of evil. In this reading, the movement will grow into an institution that will house that which stands opposed to God. What if neither interpretation is true but rather they both are? In Christianity, we need both the priest and the prophet. If religion loses the prophet, it can become prideful and arrogant. If it loses the priest, then you end up with nothing but silence. Christ can thus be seen as founding an irreligious religion, a religion that critiques the idea of religion, a religion without religion. This is one way of understanding deconstruction.'"

I find this fascinating and food for thought. All interested can read his latest book "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief." It is written assuming little background in philosophy, but when you are finished you may want to stock up on the works of John D. Caputo, Jean-Luc Marion and Slavoj Zizek (which is ironic considering how he might detest what I am about to say!).

When I was in attendance there was a bit of discomfort at the parable of the fisherman catching both the good and bad fish in one net and discarding the bad. The parable of letting the chaff grow up with the wheat is another that make those who find themselves frustrated with the traditional views of the afterlife squirm a bit. I was a bit shy to open my mouth at the first meeting, so I figure that I will post my thoughts about these parables.

The goal of the kingdom of God is not to rid the world of evil. What I learn from these parables is that I will grow up alongside weeds and wheat, myself often uncertain which I am! From this perspective it is clear that it is absurd for me to try and rid the field of chaff; this would be a rather difficult task as a shoot of wheat. With this view in mind, the parable of fisherman becomes clearer to me.

Now, these verses to some may seem to suggest some sort of annihilation eschatology. People can't help but read their views of the things to come into these verses (which I am about to do as well!). The traditional view says that the wheat or bad fish are like those who will suffer eternal, conscious torment in the fiery pits of hell and the wheat and good fish are rewarded eternally with heaven.

Perhaps I read with a much "earthier" sense, but I think that this breaks down primarily because the traditional view is not annihilation but eternal torment. It further breaks down when one stops and realizes that the concept of Hell is a fuzzy one, and even further when one begins to give voice to the minority report that suggests that we are simply using this text to mean something rather than objectively seeing through the meaning of this text.

To me the message is simply reflects Jesus' version of the Shema, when it is written that tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Perhaps the message isn't one of eternal destiny but of our earthly relations with my neighbor, and I must learn to refrain from judgment and to love without the respect of persons, to be more like Jesus and his acts of radical love for the "bad fish" and "weeds" of society.

Sorry for the intensely long post! I will see you all again soon.

best,
Colin

Anonymous said...

The second paragraph should have said "evandalist" instead of evandelist, sorry for the typo!

Leslie said...

Hey Colin, thanks for your comments; I'm glad you and Annie enjoyed your time with us. I'm kind of new to Crossings myself, so I'll let others speak about the attendance question, though I think there do tend to be more people when school is in session.

Jesus can certainly be seen as subversive - I think it's not hard to argue that many of the religious leaders of his time, as recorded in the scriptures, thought so. I also appreciate Rollins' comments (and Wittenburg Door generally). Christianity is in many ways a religion of paradoxes, in my view, and I think the tension between the priest and the prophet, and Jesus creating a religion without religion, resonate with that.

Speaking for myself, I would look forward to a day when we could worship in a way that transcended doctrinal distinctives - if that's possible for us humans, with our strong desire (need?) to have rules and boundaries and labels on things. I'd like to think it's possible. The central teachings and acts of Jesus are indeed radical - so simple, yet so difficult to truly emulate and attain to.

I hope you and Annie will be able to come back and worship with us again. We're also going to be starting an informal Bible study / discussion group during the week, which you and/or Annie might enjoy as well.

Best,
Leslie