Robert van Mourik
Introduction
In our recent papers on historical beliefs and schisms in the church, we have highlighted the difficulties evident in our established religious belief systems based on a world view we can no longer identify with and accept. If we want a coherent worldview, then we must consider these traditions but also apply our own minds, in the light of current knowledge and, with prayer and reflection, choose what makes sense to us. It is a personal journey embracing an adult faith. In this and subsequent papers we will be exploring what adult faith education represents today.
On our Facebook page we include this quote as an indicator of our journey:
“When you are confronted by evidence that the faith in which you were brought up no longer provides an adequate explanation for the nature, meaning and purpose of your life, you have three choices. You can refuse to accept the evidence and continue as before. You can abandon the faith you grew up with, because it proved to be inadequate. Or third, you can accept the new knowledge and use it to develop a more mature understanding of what lies at the core of your beliefs.”
(John Feehan, The Singing Heart of the World, 2012, emphasis added.)
The concept of the Kingdom of God is one we have heard about from our early school days but what does it mean? We can hear the phrase and assume its meaning; we may be swayed by its monarchical and patriarchal language. Is it a destination we seek after our death or is it something else? The expression is often attributed to Jesus, but can we ascertain what he might have thought of it? The evangelist, Matthew writes “Seek first the kingdom of God” (Matt 6:33), suggesting this search should be our primary endeavour, suggesting something more than a destination.
The following notes draw heavily on Diarmuid O’Murchu’s video “The Christian Archetype of the Kingdom of God.[1] We recommend viewing it (27 minutes) and then revisiting these notes.
Importance of Language
In a previous paper [2], we have reviewed the history of monarchies, the divine right of kings and the origin of patriarchal thinking. These concepts underpinned the worldview and writings of the early evangelists and the language of the gospels. However, Jesus’s native Aramaic was never written down and the Greek records were translated into Latin leading, perhaps, to a distorted understanding of what was originally intended. However, in 1943, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divinio Afflante Spiritu, provided guidance on the most opportune way to pursue biblical studies, reducing reliance on the Latin bible and encouraging an understanding of the underlying languages and cultural contexts. This opened the way to increased scholarly research and, increasingly, by non-clerical scholars.
A new understanding of the linguistic history led to refinements in language, e.g., a change of “kingdom” to “reign” of God in an effort to avoid using the word “king”. However, the Greek root Malkuta means ruling or governing that also empowers everyone else to rule or govern. Thus, O’Murchu prefers Companionship of Empowerment implying a sense of mutuality. Judy Cannato redefined kingdom of God as the Field of Compassion [3]. The patronage model that existed for two millennia is now being reconsidered as an alternative companionship model structured along lines of mutuality.
Comment: The monarchical and kingdom language represents patriarchal, top down, authoritarian structures hence the problematic language and misconceptions about the meaning of the phrase.
Current writers
In his homily, Inwardness [4], Fr Patrick Richards writes that the kingdom is wherever goodness is and that goodness keeps growing in little pockets all over the place. His homily is based on Jesus’s report in Mark: “What can we say the kingdom of God is like?... It is like a mustard seed, which at the time of its sowing in the soil is the smallest of all the seeds in the earth; yet once it is sown it grows into the biggest shrub of them all and puts out big branches so that the birds of the air can shelter in its shade.” (Mark 4:26-32)
Comment: That is more suggestive of the influence of the Holy Spirit, an influence that leads to a more contemplative, open-ended understanding of the kingdom. It also suggests that the kingdom is a here and now earthly concept rather than an afterlife “heaven”. It is evidenced by the wonderful charitable and humanitarian work performed by organisations and individuals every single day in every nation on earth by adherents to all faith traditions.
Elizabeth Johnson writes:
“If separation is not the ideal, but connection is; if dualism is not the ideal but relational embrace of diversity is; if hierarchy is not the ideal but mutuality is; then the kinship (i.e., companionship) model more closely approximates reality. It sees human beings and the earth with all its creatures intrinsically related as companions in a community of life. Because we are all mutually interconnected, the flourishing or damaging of one ultimately affects all.”[5]
Comment. Dualism is reflective of either/or thinking, e.g., male/female, right/wrong, in/out, and does not embrace the reality that many ideas exist on a continuum of definition, that they might represent diverse concepts that are better understood through a contemplative mindset rather than through the application of rigid black/white rules.
O’Murchu says Jesus had a world view of all creation, not one focused on saving souls.
Comment: Again, “saving souls” implies a dualistic view, you are saved or not, whereas, as his meeting with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well demonstrates, Jesus embraced and included everyone he met.
The Jesuit scholar, Roger Haught, writes: “The rule of God refers to the intention of the Creator, the way God desires creation to be, especially human existence in a community that includes relationship with the wider life of the planet… The rule of God represents no small insight. It symbolises being drawn into the mystery of God’s intention for the universe. It opens up a framework of how human beings should live and what they should live for in this world.”[6]
Comment: This is a far more expansive understanding of a dynamic process, not reflective of a static, once-off creation of the universe.
O’Murchu observes that the kingdom of God is not an escape from this vale of tears into a life hereafter. He considers two models of behaviour:
“In obedience unto death, follow after the ecclesiastical Jesus like a docile child” is a model that emphasises childlike behaviour; or alternatively, “I do not call you servants but friends”[7], a model that emphasises adult co-discipleship, serving and earthing the Companionship of Empowerment. For him, Jesus represents the human face of God radically visible on earth, accountable to the Companionship of Empowerment, accountable to a reality greater than himself. This calls on all Christians, not only the clergy, to be co-disciples with Jesus; it is not about power games but service to others.
Comment: This is a view radically different from the accepted tradition. Jesus never sought to be a king or ruler, he moved freely among the people, he did not seek comfort in spacious mansions like those inhabited by the Roman rulers or the Pharisees, but often experienced the harsh conditions and hunger that were the common experience of the poor. Jesus never held himself out to be a “priest” with clerical authority. In fact, he did not seek to establish a church.
Catherine La Cugna is a theologian known for her work on the Trinity:
“The life of Jesus is at odds with the sexist theology of complementarity, the racist theology of white superiority, the clerical theology of cultic privilege, the political theology of exploitation and economic injustice, and the patriarchal theology of male dominance and control.”
“It denotes an egalitarian way of interrelating, across all life forms devoid of all structures of imperial power and patriarchal institutions.” (1993) [8]
Comment: Such behaviour is entirely inconsistent with any monarchical or political ambition so any use of language such as kingdom or reign is misleading.
O’Murchu discusses the importance of the parables in order to understand this vision more deeply. They call on our imagination to act and think differently. In his parables, Jesus gave examples, not dogma.
Comment: Jesus exemplified a lifestyle that became known as “The Way”, he did not say to his disciples at the Last Supper, “these are the things you must believe”. The kingdom of God should not be equated with the church, or other structures of power and organisation.
O’Murchu proposes a model “Living the Vision today”:
• Working for right relationships at every level
• Transcending all dualisms, particularly the separation of the human and the divine
• Prioritising eco-justice
• Upholding and promoting non-violence
• Creating empowering communities
• Serving the energising Spirit
Comment: The brevity of these dot points belies the wide expanse of the underlying thinking. We have previously considered models of human development with ego-centricity at the simplest level moving through ethnocentricity, world-centricity and finally cosmo-centricity, a view that embraces everyone and everything, hence the above responsibility for ecology and the planet. It also implies mutual respect, acceptance and servant leadership such as Jesus exhibited, rather than top-down power and control structures. Finally, the driving force for creation is sourced in the Holy Spirit, a continuing flow in which we participate; evidenced in the continuing evolution of our universe over 13.6 billion years.
Richard Rohr redefines the kingdom of God: “The kingdom of God is the naked now. A world without human kingdoms, ethnic communities, national boundaries, or social identifications. That is about as subversive and universalist as you can get. But don’t think about it too much; it will surely change your politics and your pocketbook”[9]
And Elizabeth Johnson elaborates: “A flourishing humanity on a thriving Earth in an evolving universe, all together filled with the glory of God – such is the theological vision and praxis we are being called to in this critical age of Earth’s distress.”[10]
One Spanish theologian who particularly embraced a new understanding of the reign of God, as he reframed it, was José Pagola. [11] He defined the reign of God as a world of life, justice and peace. He emphasised that Jesus was always inclusive. His book is a worthy investment. He noted that “reign of God” appears 120 times in the synoptic gospels whereas “church” appears twice and never used by Jesus. He offered alternative interpretations of the parables, reflective of God’s love.
For Discussion
1. In your own words, what is your understanding of the kingdom of God in the light of this information?
2. How would embracing this view of Companionship change your expectations of “Church”?
3. James Finley said in a webinar: “What is God’s will? All things considered, what is the most loving thing I can do right now? For my body, for my mind, for this person, for this relationship, this family, this plant, this animal. This world, all things considered, how am I going to live my love? “ Comment.
4. Optional viewing Birdtalker: One (4 minutes)
2 SLSG, Historical Influences on Beliefs, September 2022, Robert van Mourik
3 Field of Compassion - How the New Cosmology is Transforming Spiritual Life, Judy Cannato, 2010
4 The Rosewood Table, Patrick Richards, 2017, page 136
5 Reported by O’Murchu in the video referenced in footnote 1
6 Reported by O’Murchu in the video referenced in footnote 1
7 Philipians 2:8 and John 15:15
8 Reported by O’Murchu in the video referenced in footnote 1
9 The Naked Now, Richard Rohr, page 101
10 Quoted in Radical Amazement, Judy Cannato, page 135
11 José Pagola, Jesus: An Historical Approximation, 2009, page 99
November 2022
Comments