Being Human to the ‘Other’
January 5th, 2009 by JohnO
When we try to understand just who we are, we inevitably turn to our families and communities. Closely tied to our perception of ourselves is the perception of everyone else, specifically those not in our community. This is what ‘the other’ is. It is the group of people that you define yourself over and against. Generically, for the Christian ‘the other’ is the non-Christian. You could map out the groups along all sort of barriers and lines. The “haves” and the “have-nots”, the Catholic and the Protestants, African-Americans and Caucasians, are all good examples. The problem comes not with the intrinsic differences – but rather the perception of the ‘other’.
One of the unusual aspects of Jesus’ ministry was to the ‘other’. He went to the poor, the disenfranchised, the marginalized, the outcasts, the sick to proclaim God’s Kingdom, and to these he invited and declared to be righteous, in-the-right. Meanwhile, any traditional route of the messiah-claimants of Jesus’ time were “fighting the good fight” hashing it out politically with Rome’s client-rulers, chief priests, Pharisees, and all the other rival Jewish groups. Jesus’ treatment of the other is incredibly radical.
Jesus recognizes the humanness of the other. He recognizes that they too are made in God’s image. Jesus enters into a relationship with the other. He recognizes their needs and fulfills it. Jesus, as the opening of Matthew and Luke tell us, is the new Adam, the new image of God. Because of sin, we are broken images of God. Jesus’ origins result in his perfect reflection of God. Jesus is the human being we are all meant to be.
One of the problems with denominations and sects is the demonization of the other. Each of the Jewish sects in the first century did this. The Muslims and Christians did it in the Crusades. The Catholics and Protestants are still doing in Ireland. The “haves” and “have-nots” have done it routinely in Europe in civil unrest and revolution. The African-Americans and Caucasians did it in South Africa during and after aparthied.
We have to recognize the humanness in everyone around us. In the prostitute. In the homeless man you pass on your way to work. In your dysfunctional family members. In your misunderstood co-workers. In your inappropriate friends. In the people that go to that other church on the other street. In the people that do not go to church at all. In the people in your church you think you know – but you don’t really know.
And then we have to be the human being that Jesus was. A real human being, not a broken imitation of the image of God. We have to enter a relationship with the other. That is the only way to be human. That is the only way to share the Gospel. That is the only way to show people Jesus.
Yes – God values everyone. He wished that none would perish but all would come to know Him and His son. Why do you think this attitude develops, especially amongst Christians?
I think that is human nature. It is part of how we develop in a community and society. “The Other” is a natural definition, not inherently good or bad on its own – it just means someone not like you. The true image of God, as shown by Jesus Christ is to embrace and take care of the other. The false broken image of God, as shown by us who are fallen is to demonize and take advantage of the other.
Albert Nolan’s Jesus before Christianity is good on this too
And so did Jesus with the Pharisees.
Didn’t Jesus recognize the humanness of the Pharisees? They were human all right, but that didn’t mean he wouldn’t expose them for what they were; Stephen did the same before they killed him.
And so did Paul with Hymenaeus and Philetus, so did John with the ones who denied Christ came in flesh, naming them “antichrists”. Paul even says such people are accursed (Gal 1:8-9). For him, they are false apostles, deceitful workers, false brothers (2 Corinthians 11:13; Gal 2:4). Why would he say such terrible things??? Didn’t he recognize their humanness? Of course he did, only that this characteristic was irrelevant regarding to that which they were doing.
So why are denominations and sects demonizing each other? Because they honestly (I assume) think the other ones are from the same class as the apostles and Jesus combated. They obviously believe these are the tares the Devil sowed during the night.
That many of these groups who are demonizing others are really misguided, it’s another story.
JohnE,
I think you’re misunderstanding when I write “the humanness of the other”. I don’t mean, “oh, look he has a head, two hands and two feet, he is a member of the human race”. I do mean “that is a real person with real emotions that was made in God’s image just like me“.
Jesus does not consider the human Pharisee’s or priests the ultimate enemy. He sees them doing the enemy’s bidding. But he doesn’t de-humanize them and treat them horribly. He does refute them and call them names, but it is first, a minority of the time, second usually tied to their own de-humanizing efforts of their other, and third, prophetic in defense of who he is. None of these events should ever be looked upon by us today as “justification” for the way we treat other people.
I think Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees et al., was an attempt to bring them to the point of repentance. I don’t think he was just attacking them because they deserved it or any such thing. He genuinely loved them and gave them exactly what they needed to change. We also know that many Pharisees joined the Jesus movement in Jerusalem subsequent to the resurrection of Jesus (as reported towards the end of Acts).
JohnO,
I understand that, but you mentioned the problem of denominations and sects demonizing each other. My point was, the fact that the Pharisees, or Hymenaeus and Philetus, or the antichrists, or the accursed ones, were real persons with real emotions, did not count in them being “demonized” by Jesus or John or Paul.
Today’s denominations and sects do not deny that those who they think are the tares of Satan, are real human beings created in the image of God, with human emotions and so forth. Often they might even express pity for their apparent ignorance and wish they would turn to God. So I’m not sure what you mean by saying that these denominations de-humanize their opponents.
As to justification for the treatment some give to people, the only treatment I see from Jesus and Paul is mainly verbal; no one can ever justify persecution or ill-treatment of others.
They do deny that. They deny it when they refuse to have dialog (ex-communication). They deny it when they caricature. They deny it when they refuse to help the other. They deny it when they kill the other, as the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland did. They deny it when they cannot stop and consider the position and point-of-view of the other.
That is your interpretation. If I refuse dialog with somebody, I deny he is a person made in the image of God? Do I deny he has emotions just like me? Caricaturists deny their subject is made in the image of God and having emotions just like themselves? How does one follow from the other???
Sorry, the one does not follow from the other, it’s kind of a special pleading, a long stretch.
Did you read how Elijah was mocking the worshipers of Baal? Did he deny they were made in the image of God? Did Paul deny the ones he “demonized” were made in the image of God, just like him? Did John? Did Jesus? Please respond.
Agreed. But these are extreme cases of “demonization”. As I previously showed, Jesus, Paul, John “demonized” others on good grounds. But they did not kill them. Of course, Jesus will ultimately kill them when he comes with his heavenly armies.
I think it is my turn to point out that we are ignoring the ancient biblical context. We are importing our own 21st century context and sensibilities, into what was going on in the 1st century, and before that.
There is no such thing as “good demonization”, sorry. Refusing to treat someone as the image of God is what I’m talking about here. Sentences are not constructed to be legal binding words in each and every occurrence – get the essence of what I’m saying instead of stopping after each word to interject. Of course someone can refuse dialog and still treat someone as the image of God – I’d say it is very hard to do.
I’m not talking about the past – I’m talking about now, I’m talking about theology. I don’t think you’ve interacted at all with what I’ve said about Jesus, and now you say I’m being historically ignorant. Again, this feels like another case in which you are just ignoring the point of what I’m saying – and arguing other things.
JohnE,
I’m not sure mocking the worshipers of Baal should be used as a model for us today. What I am sure of is the clear description of love given in 1 Cor 13.
You don’t have to be sorry, because there is, and Scripture shows that plainly. That you cannot accept that, it’s another story altogether.
I was talking about the same thing, in the context of the “demonization” that you brought up. My contention is that today’s denominations do what the 1st century church did vis-a-vis the ones they perceived as twisting God’s truth. Of course, except when theses denominations persecute, treat wrong, and kill.
Which just goes on to show that you exaggerated. Jesus refused dialog with Herod and it had nothing to do with Jesus acknowledging or not that Herod was created in the image of God. That is what I’m saying, you are arbitrarily associating two things, when they have nothing in common.
My theology has its roots in the past. Also, “demonization” is not a product of the present, its roots are also in the past. But I think you refuse to talk about that past because the past – Jesus’, Paul’s, John’s example – is proving you wrong.
It’s your privilege to think that. I focused on the aspect I didn’t agree with. If there’s something I don’t agree with, I’ll speak up. May I?
You are not necessarily historically ignorant (but you could be, what do I know?), but you certainly ignore history when it comes to this “demonization”. So far you have done everything to avoid discussing the examples I presented.
Oh, I’m sure it’s just a wrong impression. I am very on-topic.
JohnE,
Feel free to break down communication, and build walls of categorization. It will serve you well so long as you think as you do. When you realize the disservice it does to reality I hope you’ll be able to free yourself from it.
Sean
I did not say we ourselves should mock idol worshipers just like Elijah did. I do not claim the same authority as prophet Elijah. I just showed that this “demonization”, as JohnO calls it, was going on among God’s people.
But if some people will say Jesus did not come in flesh, I will tell them they are antichrists according to John, without any apology or disregard to their being made in the image of God. And I will do the same in the case of people who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods on religious grounds (1 Timothy 4:1-3); will point out to them that they have fallen from the faith, paying attention to doctrines of the demons, according to Paul.
And I actually had the occasion of pointing this out to certain people. This doesn’t mean I’m going to mock them, refuse dialog, refuse to help them, persecute them, or kill them; but sometimes people need a cold shower to wake up. If I won’t show them what the Scriptures say about them, do I love them?
JohnO,
I do not raise any walls of categorization, they are already raised by God in the Bible. I just point them out to those who refuse to see them.
I’m not gonna do away with the categories of God just because today’s society worships political correctness. The Bible is the most politically incorrect book in the world, and that is never going to change.
JohnE,
You surely don’t know me. You don’t know what I have stood for in the past and stand for in the present. So I’ll let your comments pass on by if you actually think for a second that I’m being politically correct.