What’s more, I was lucky enough not to live at arms length from those who were poor. Our family and the work of my parents had us building relationships with those who were poor. I got to listen to, had friendships with, and walked side-by-side with those who were struggling with poverty. These experiences and relationships have changed my life. Now, being formed by these relationships, I find myself continuing to walk with those who are poor. This has led me to work in prisons, homeless shelters, and in communities in South Africa where my hope is that I can be in solidarity with those whose lives are spent struggling against that which systemically causes, creates, or keeps people in poverty. This is, after all, a struggle for justice.

One reality, however, that continues to cause confusion, especially among Christians, is the question of whether the gospel message deals with economic or material realities. One verse that has caused much confusion is Matthew 5:3, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

This verse begins one of the most powerful and revolutionary “sermons” or teachings ever articulated. The Sermon on the Mount, as it has become known, flipped many assumptions, expectations, and understandings of the day upside down. In fact it continues to do so. It articulates a seeming foolishness that we are called to trust, follow, and embody. In our world it seems to make no sense to love our enemies, go the second mile for those who are willing to exploit, forgive and pray for those who persecute us. Yet this is the upside down logic Jesus provides.

This sermon’s revolutionary nature is noteworthy. When we moved to Bolivia in 1980, the dictator Garcia Mesa had just come to office. Mesa made a list of books that were banned to Bolivian people. Included in this list were Matthew chapters 5-7! Why would a ruler ban these chapters? Because he recognized the danger they posed to his power, authority, and rulership. Mesa recognized that if his citizens were actually to practice what is taught in these three chapters, he would have a difficult time achieving his political goals. These chapters are revolutionary!

Unfortunately, we often interpret these passages (and even Jesus’ life and teachings in general) in ways that dilute its revolutionary character. We mold and interpret these passages in ways that are easier and safer to grasp, both politically and economically, so that, if we are in a position of power, we don’t have to feel too threatened by its message. We alter its good-news message so that it does not have to affect our positions of power and status.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,” is one such example. Sometimes it seems that North Americans gravitate towards Matthew’s rendition of the Sermon on the Mount as opposed to Luke’s version, perhaps in part because Matthew seems to “spiritualize” the situation—“Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matthew) as opposed to “Blessed are the poor” (Luke). Surely, it is thought, the good news is not just for the poor. For this reason we tend to understand that those who are spiritually poor are also somehow blessed. Surely, one might say, the gospel message isn’t making an economic statement. Matthew’s rendition provides more ambiguity than Luke’s, making its message easier to swallow, especially if we are not in a position of poverty.

Matthew 5:3 has been variously interpreted, with the hope that its ambiguity can be clarified. Several elements in this verse affect how it is interpreted. Let me identify some of these:

• Some translations include the verb “to know”: “Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor…” (Good News Bible). The Greek text does not include the verb meaning “to know”.
• Matthew’s version, as opposed to Luke’s, includes “in spirit.” The Good News Bible states, “spiritually poor”. These versions seem to reduce poverty to a form of spiritual poverty.
• In the Greek text, “spirit” is a noun not an adjective. The noun appears with a definite article “the”. The impact of this article is not present in many translations. In English this changes the meaning drastically. Instead of “Blessed are the poor in the spirit” (the poor who walk in the spirit), it is “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (those who have a poor spirit or who are spiritually poor). If the sustantive character is maintained, it points to a spirit that exists within poverty that is also foundational to the character of the kingdom of God. In other words, there is a particular spirit that the poor possess that is blessed. Author R. J. Suderman in Calloused Hands, Courageous Souls: Holistic Spirituality of Development and Mission states “…The poor recognize their dependence on others, understand human interdependence, see the evil of oppression, comprehend that their situation is unjust and struggle for the change they deserve. In other words, the spirit of the poor is a blessed spirituality.”
• The Greek text could also be translated: “Blessed are the poor through the spirit.” This translation puts the poor in a favored position. The word “with” could also be an option (“Blessed are the poor with the spirit”).
• “Blessed” is often used in a passive tense. In We Belong to this Land author and scholar Elias Chacour suggests that Jesus used the word ashray from the verb yashar. Both very active words that mean to act, move, turn around, repent or put oneself on the road.

These elements provide a potentially different way of translating this verse. If we were to incorporate these insights, it could read:

“May the poor get up, move, walk, and act in-with-through the spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Put this way, the phrase sounds familiar and is in line with other teachings of Jesus:

• It affirms that the Spirit is with the poor.
• It suggests that the Spirit of the poor fits very well within the coming kingdom of God.
• It encourages the poor to move in the direction of the kingdom that has arrived.
• It suggests that as the poor move toward the kingdom, the kingdom will also be revealed in the world.

The situation of the poor will change with the presence of the kingdom. The poor are both the principle subject of the inauguration of the new kingdom and the necessary objects of its benefits. It is the poor and their situation that will be drastically transformed with the coming of the kingdom. R. J. Suderman writes, “Their situation will be transformed because the lack of equality, the oppression and the hunger and mistreatment that we understand as part of the situation of the poor in our world do not coincide with the character of this kingdom.”

R.J. Suderman suggests that this highlights the preferential option of the poor in God’s plan: “God opposes the oppressors, the wealthy and the powerful, who struggle to keep the situation as it is.” What’s more is that the spirituality found in poverty aligns with the spirituality required by God to enter the kingdom. Suderman continues, “To recognize the injustice that surrounds us, to discern the roots of oppression, to depend on the direction of the Holy Spirit, to share what little one has with the needy, to open oneself to new revelations of God and to recognize one’s dependence on God and our human interdependence are only some of the characteristics already present in the world of the poor and in the purpose of the kingdom of God.”

Such an alternative understanding moves us away from the ambiguous translation that somehow blesses a poor spirit. Poverty itself is not blessed. This understanding does not advocate that those who are poor should remain poor. This verse does not speak about poverty: it speaks about the poor. This alternate reading highlights that the spirit that the poor possess aligns better with what the kingdom of God is about, and with the economic, political, and social realities that are associated with the kingdom.

Blessed indeed is the spirit that the poor possess for it is a revolutionary spirit that challenges the political and economic assumptions that do not match with God’s alternative kingdom.

This article leans heavily on Calloused Hands, Courageous Souls: Holistic Spirituality of Development and Mission (R.J. Suderman, Monrovia, California: MARC books, 1998).

(Andrew Suderman is a Mennonite Church Canada worker in South Africa and is the Director of the Anabaptist Network in South Africa. Check out this and other columns in their Alternative News.)

Being different

One thing that I find so inspiring in South Africa are the countless people who do and participate in miraculous activities day-in-and-day-out as they strive to make their community better. In working for the Anabaptist Network in South Africa, my wife and I have the honour of meeting different people all around the country and listen to the different ways these people, these normal people, do extraordinary things; often risking their own comfort, their own well-being, and their own security in order to help others. They demonstrate day-in-and-day-out an alternative way of being; a way of being that seeks the well-fair of someone else over their own; a way of being that serves others rather than themselves; a way of being that strives towards peace and justice, not just for themselves but for everyone. It is a different way of living.

Why do I say that this is a different way to live or a different way of being? I say this partly because we are regularly encouraged to focus on ourselves, our own well being, and our own happiness, rather than on someone else. We see this regularly portrayed in T.V. commercials where happiness and success is depicted as getting the keys to the car we always wanted, growing one’s business in order to afford the luxurious life, where bigger is better, where success means power, where power means influence, and where influence means progress. The focus tends to be on the self: securing one’s own success, power, and influence.

Throughout the Bible, however, we find God embodying and asking us to embody a different method, one that challenges the assumption that success, influence, and power is gained by focusing on oneself. In fact, God’s method often turns these assumptions upside-down.

In I Samuel 16:1-13 we find Samuel being instructed by the Lord to go to the house of Jesse because God has chosen a king from among Jesse’s sons. Samuel, although scared that Saul, the king that is being replaced and rejected, will retaliate, goes to find this king that God has chosen from within Jesse’s household. Jesse, although not sure whether Samuel comes in peace, welcomes Samuel into his home. The purpose of Samuel’s visit, it is made clear, is to find the one whom God has chosen as the next king and to anoint him.

Jesse begins by bringing the one who would be the most obvious choice – his eldest son who is presumably a tall, handsome young man—a description that is strikingly similar to that of Saul (1 Sam. 9:2), the previous king who is being rejected. Samuel is told, however, not to look at the young man’s appearance as the Lord has rejected him; the Lord is moving away from the Saul type.

In response, Jesse then brings the second eldest son, the next likely. But he too is not the one who God has chosen. Jesse then brings the third, then the fourth, and eventually the rest of his sons—all seven of them. None of them, however, is the one whom God has chosen.

Samuel asks Jesse whether these seven sons, incidentally the number of sons an ideal family should have (Tsumura, 420), are all the sons Jesse has? Jesse admits that there is one more – the one who is tending the flock of sheep; the eighth son, the youngest son.* This is the one! The eighth son, the youngest; this is the one! God tells Samuel. “Arise, anoint him; for this is the one!” (1 Sam. 16:12).

Everything points away from David as being the logical choice. He was the youngest and presumably smaller. Yet it was David that Samuel wanted to meet. And it was David who Samuel anointed.

It’s important to pay attention to this act of anointing. There is a lot of meaning that goes along with anointing. Being anointed can serve as a sign of being set aside for a divinely chosen task (Tsumura, 274). It can also mark the transition in status (Tsumura, 274). David was anointed 3 times in his life: 1) by Samuel in Bethlehem (1 Sam. 16: 1-13), 2) by the men of Judah to be king over the house of Judah (2 Sam. 2:4), and 3) by the elders of Israel to be a king over Israel (2 Sam. 5:3).

In Israel, the act of anointing was also first and foremost a royal rite – an act of being anointed as king. The king was the anointed one, or messiah. This is what “messiah” literally means – “the anointed one.”

And so we are told that David, through the act of getting anointed by Samuel, has been set aside for a divinely appointed task. A transition in status has been marked, and his anointing serves as foreshadowing as to when he will become king. God told Samuel, “Arise, anoint him; for this is the One!” This One was the unlikeliest of people! This One was someone who most would not think twice about! It was the One who was not the most powerful, nor the logical choice.

“Arise, anoint him; for this is the One!” In having Samuel anoint David, God turns common sense and logic upside-down. We see a glimpse of God’s alternative method.

In John 9: 1-34, we find another interesting story that reveals God’s alternative method. In this story we read how Jesus heals a man who was born blind. This story begins with a theological question – who was it that sinned that made this beggar blind, him or his parents? The answer—neither. Jesus tells us that he was born blind so that “the works of God should be revealed in him” (v. 3). Jesus then, out of his own volition, without being asked, heals this poor man. This act is significant in that it demonstrates Jesus’ concern about the physical well being of others. The way Jesus heals the man is also quite interesting.

In this story we are told that Jesus makes clay from dirt and his saliva and anoints the eyes of the blind man (v. 6, 11). The creation of this clay is most often interpreted as a way of preparing medicine as it was believed that saliva had medicinal properties. It is this act of creating medicine which breaks the Sabbath law. It is because of this act that the Pharisees sought to punish Jesus.

This act, however, serves a dual purpose. The anointing of the man’s eye could also be making the statement that this man is being set aside for a divinely appointed task. As we are told later in the story, this man, in response to being healed, challenges the Pharisees, the ones who are in power, the powers that be, that their interpretation of the law and their understanding of the identity of Jesus are incorrect. This act of rebellion gets the beggar thrown out of the synagogue!

We once again find an unlikely person providing us with an example as to God’s alternative method and intention. We find someone who defies logic; someone who would not be the obvious choice. We encounter a beggar, a poor man, who is anointed and set aside for a divinely appointed task. It is this beggar, this poor man, who challenges the powers that be as he is the one who understands what it means to see the true light of the world. We learn from someone who most would simply ignore as to what it means to participate in the revolutionary act of declaring Jesus as the anointed one, as the Messiah!

We learn, however, that the consequences for declaring Jesus as the Christ can be severe. In this case the beggar is thrown out of the synagogue, a penalty that was quite severe in those day as the synagogue was the centre of community life. We are not told whether this man declares Jesus as the Christ, but we are told that the Pharisees throw him out of the synagogue—the consequence for declaring Jesus as the Christ (v. 22). This beggar was obviously making the ones in power uncomfortable enough that they decided to throw him out of the synagogue.

The Challenge

This story raises some questions for us. How do we participate in this alternative, logic defying, revolutionary story? Do we recognize the faithful responses to God’s will, responses that sometimes look terribly ineffective? Or do we write them off exactly as that – ineffective? Are we willing to participate in counter-cultural activities, recognizing that we may stand out? Are we willing, like the beggar, to call into question the very nature of power as it stands, which takes advantage of the poor, which benefits only a few, and declare that someone else is Lord, that someone else is the true light, that someone else is the anointed one and worthy of worship? How do we participate in or align ourselves with this alternative understanding of power?

These are challenging questions that can, I hope, cause us to think and revisit how we participate in God’s alternative method. My hope is that we can be challenged by them as we continue to wrestle as to how to walk faithfully as children of the one true light and as witnesses to this alternative way of being – a way of being where the powers have been overcome by the cross, not the sword; a way of being where the poor are the ones who are blessed; a way of being where we are called to serve others rather than to rule over others; a way of being where peace shall reign, not war.

May we continue to strive to be faithful to this alternative way of being.

*The account in 1 Samuel as to the number of sons Jesse has differs from the account found in 1 Chronicles 2:15 where David is depicted as the seventh son.

David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel: New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007).

(Andrew Suderman is a Mennonite Church Canada worker in South Africa and is the Director of the Anabaptist Network in South Africa. Check out this and other columns in their Alternative News. This was a sermon that was prepared for St. Matthew’s Anglican Church in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, delivered on April 3, 2011.)

The other day we held one of our regular Anabaptist Network in South Africa (ANiSA) discussion groups. We began to tackle the book entitled Reconciling All Things: A Christian Vision for Justice, Peace and Healing written by the co-directors of the Center for Reconciliation at Duke University, Chris Rice and Emmanuel Katongole.

We began to talk about the title of the book. What is reconciliation? Do we need to reconcile all things? Is this realistic within the South African context? Is it realistic in general?

Is reconciliation realistic? A story that was told about a group that came together for a training event to explore themes of ecology and faith. As part of the process, this group underwent an intensive time together, working to build trust with one another so that they would be able and ready to delve into topics that waited to be explored. Building trust in this group was, at first, particularly difficult. The group was racially mixed, bringing together people who had particular assumptions about the other racial groups. This group, however, ended up coming together like no other group had as they broke down the barriers and assumptions that had been constructed and learnt about one another, about each other’s story, and ultimately gained a level of trust for one another.

Is this relationship, this trust, sustainable? This is a valid question. After such a workshop the participants will head back to their different contexts and re-integrate into the community they left; the same community that continues to hold the assumptions that they too held before coming together for this training. Is reconciliation realistic given that people will return and reintegrate into the contexts that continue the life inherited within an unjust context and system, which continues to be socially, racially, and economically segregated? Will the participants of this training event, where racial barriers were broken down, continue to feel part of the reconciled community when they head back to their given context?

Is reconciliation realistic? Is it possible to reconcile black and white? Rich and poor?

The answers to these questions depend on what we accept as “realistic.” What is the true story that is being told?

The question whether reconciliation is realistic is valid. It recognizes that all efforts made to reconcile peoples with one another and with God are but drops in a bucket in a world that is so much in need of reconciliation. The task we face is monumental. From the perspective of the Christian gospel, however, we are reminded that it is not we who reconcile, but God. We are invited to participate in God’s reconciling mission in the world. But ultimately it is God who reconciles us to each other and to God.

The gospel also reminds us that a new reality has already come into existence – there is already a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 6:15, Eph. 2:15): “if anyone is in Christ, new is creation” or “if anyone is in Christ, there is a whole new world.”* In other words, through Christ an alternative world already exists. The Apostle Paul sheds additional light on the reality of this alternative world; we have become fellow inheritors of the liberation brought through the Son (Gal. 4:5-7); the principalities and powers have been disarmed, made into a public spectacle, and have been defeated (Col. 2:15); and the sting of death has been taken away so that life may be victorious.

“Paul is explaining why he no longer regards anyone from the human point of view; why he does not regard Jew as Jew or Greek as Greek, but rather looks at every person in the light of the new world which begins in Christ. ‘The old has passed away, behold the new has come,’ is a social or historical statement, not an introspective or emotional one” (Yoder, 223).

This is the new reality. This is the new creation, the new humanity we participate in through Christ.

However, not everyone knows about this new creation or new humanity. This is a challenge. Yet another challenge is that we tend to forget that we are now participating in this new humanity. These are the challenges we face as the church – to make known the story about the new creation that is present and real where Jew and Gentile share as fellow heirs and partakers of God’s promises in Christ (Eph. 3:6). It is the responsibility of the church to make known what was once a mystery (Eph. 3:10). This is a difficult task; one that the church has not always lived up to. Yet, this is the task – to proclaim this new humanity as the new reality in today’s world, and then to live what we proclaim.

“It is the Good News that my enemy and I are united, through no merit or work of our own, in a new humanity that forbids henceforth my ever taking his or her life in my hands” (Yoder, 226).

And so, is reconciliation realistic? The answer depends on what we assume to be real. If we are a part of this new humanity made possible through Jesus Christ, then reconciliation is not only possible but is present and will continue to be present until all things have been gathered in Christ (Eph. 1:10). In fact, in light of this assumption, non-reconciliation is not realistic!

* John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994), pg. 222 – 223. This is an alternative reading of this verse. Most translations include a singular pronoun (“he”) to this verse, which, historically, has led to an individualized reading of this verse. In other words, most translations read “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation…” The singular pronoun (“he”) is, however, a later addition.

(Andrew Suderman is the Director of the Anabaptist Network in South Africa. Check out their Alternative News here.)