Home | My Cartoon Books | My Books | Links | Contact

5

 

What Was the Basis for Jesus’ Practice in Welcoming the Marginal?

An exchange with Richard Burridge who is Dean of King's College London and Professor of Biblical Interpretation.

 

In his latest book Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics  Professor Burridge sets out his case that New Testament writers seek to establish Jesus as a model; as one who should be imitated in his practice of welcoming marginals. Examining this model in the light of one of the most burning ethical issues of our times – the practice of Apartheid in South Africa – Richard seeks to demonstrate that this ethic, in which even marginals find themselves included, gives Jesus’ practice a cutting edge over against all modern ideologies be they left or right wing. His final conclusion is clear: 'Whenever we are presented with a choice between being biblical and being inclusive, it is a false dichotomy - for to be truly biblical is to be inclusive in any community which wants to follow and imitate Jesus'.

Imitating Jesus is an important work and I am entirely happy with Richard’s thesis that it is the inclusion of the marginals which gives the New Testament ethic its cutting edge and which renders it superior to conservative, liberal and socialist ethics alike. However what interests me is where this cutting edge comes from and, unfortunately, Richard has nothing to say in his book on this score.

As far as I can see there are at least three possibilities.

• It could be that this ‘inclusion of the marginals’ is a hard-to-see natural law which Jesus was somehow able to grasp intuitively. This would mean that if the New Testament ethic is superior it is because it is inherently rational even though people may not necessarily yet have come to see it as such.
• Then again it could be that this ‘inclusion of the marginals’ was an ideal God revealed to Jesus some dark night. If that is the case then its justification would be divine authority rather than reason. However, this would make it problematic for all those who had not been taken by God into his confidence.
• Finally there is the ideological option which sees this ‘inclusion-of-the-marginals’ ethic as stemming directly from the Hebrew’s god-of-the-marginals perspective. This is my own position. Viewed in this light New Testament ethics are seen as superior simply because all of us know in the bottom of our hearts the truth which marginals see all too clearly every waking moment of their lives:  that nothing can justify the dustbinning of people.

My problem is that I haven’t yet been able to get Richard to divulge his own thinking on this matter! At a meeting in Kings College London in June 2008 to discuss his book and again in a letter shortly afterwards I attempted to put to him my question about the origins of the New Testament inclusion-of-marginals ethic, using ideology/religion as either/or alternatives. However, on both occasions he simply said that since New Testament writers would not have made a distinction between ideological and religious matters he could not answer my question. I decided therefore to make one last effort:

 

Dear Richard,

Thanks for your letter. You tell me you understand my question; however, since once again you don’t try to answer it I wonder whether you truly do. Let me therefore raise it one last time as sharply as I can. Let’s forget for the moment the ideology/religion dichotomy. Just tell me something I need to know about your imitation/welcoming-of-marginals pattern of thought, if I am to understand exactly what you are advocating in your book.

-Do you see the New Testament writers as asking us to welcome marginals as Jesus did because, in spite of everything, marginals too are made in God’s image?
-Or do you see the New Testament writers as asking us to welcome marginals as Jesus did out of pure generosity, and in spite of what marginals are, because God is love?
-Or do you see them as asking us to welcome marginals as Jesus did because standing where they do marginals are strangely blessed, making it to peoples’ advantage to be in solidarity with them?

I think you will agree one of the astonishing things the New Testament tells us is not only that marginals are blessed but that they go into the Kingdom before us. This seems to square with the third alternative, which is ideological, but not with the other two which are religious, the first being characteristically Catholic and the second Protestant.

But perhaps you have some other option in mind which involves none of the above all-too-obviously contradictory motivations? If so I would be interested to hear what it is since only then will I be able to attach the proper motivation to the ‘welcoming of marginals’ pattern you talk about in your latest work.

Here is Richard Burridge's rejoinder:

 

Dear Andrew,

... As I have said before, the first century writers would not have understood the distinction which you are trying to make between religious and ideological ideas. I also reject your contention that these are contradictory positions. In relation to your three points about the welcoming of 'marginals' (which I cannot see that you ever define), I do not see the first as being "characteristically Catholic", nor the second as Protestant, or indeed that the third point is ideological rather than religious - all three flow from the religious impulse that God is love, and became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. This is therefore the only answer I am able to give, and I am sorry if you are unable to accept it.

 

Richard raises some interesting points in his letter to which I shall try and reply later in the New Year.

 

Previous - - Next