29

Church and SCM: Doing Our Common Mission

By Archie Lee

Jeremiah's Letter to the Exiles

The theme of the CWP '95 is To Build and To Plant taken from the Book of Jeremiah. It is therefore appropriate that we study passages from Jeremiah, particularly Jer. 29:1-7:

Jeremiah sent a letter from Jerusalem to the remaining elders among the exiles, to the priests and prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had departed from Jerusalem to Babylon, after King Jeconiah had left Jerusalem with the queen mother and the eunuchs, the officers of Judah and Jerusalem, the craftsmen and the smiths. The prophet entrusted the letter to Elasah son of Shaphan and Gemariah son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah had sent to Babylon to King Nebuchadnezzar. This is what he wrote: "These are the words of the LORD of Hosts the God of Israel: 'To all the exiles whom I have carried off from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Marry wives and beget sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters and you may increase there and not

30

dwindle away. Seek the welfare of any city to which I have carried you off, and pray to the LORD for it; on its welfare your welfare will depend.'"

The letter of Jeremiah to the exiles in 597 BCE (Jer. 29:4-7) has a special appeal to the Hong Kong Chinese. Many of us were refugees who escaped from mainland China, our homeland; either involuntarily or by choice and settled in the British crown colony of Hong Kong in those years after the Communist Party took control of China.

Some of us thought that the stay in Hong Kong would be short and before long, they would go back to China. An imminent return would be conceived us a hope and a possibility. Like the Israelites, we had to face the difficulty of whether to settle in a place governed by foreigners. The word of Jeremiah has been well heeded by these emigrants to Hong Kong. We have given up the hope of immediate return. The history of Hong Kong in the past 50 years or so testifies to our acceptance of the situation under the rule of a foreign power. We worked hard to make our settled life in an alien land a miracle. Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Marry wives and beget sons and daughters.... (Jer. 29:5-6). From our experience, this command to build houses, plant gardens, get married and marry children's children is meant for long-term stay to establish oneself in a city.

This invitation of Jeremiah would not present any problem to Hong Kong Chinese. We have done very well to make Hong Kong a prosperous city. We have sought the well-being of Hong Kong with the same understanding that our well-being is bound up with the well-being of the city.

The Jews, who were sent into Exile from Jerusalem, having lost their country and their homeland, would have however found

31

Jeremiah's word unacceptable. Being defeated by the Babylonians who destroyed the royal house of Judah, the Temple of Yahweh, and the city of Jerusalem, the people would have seen this as the greatest tragedy for the whole people. The king and the royal family, together with the people, were taken captive and exiled to Babylon. A shattering experience that called the faith in God into question. Should the people cooperate with the enemy and submit to Babylonian authority or revolt against it (at least a non-violent demonstration and protest must be staged), were some of the questions people at that time had raised.

Seen from this perspective, the word of Jeremiah came as a shock. It certainly is a revolutionary idea to settle in a foreign land with no certainty whether the God of Jerusalem has been exiled with them in this land of the enemies. It was the traditional belief that each piece of land and each group of people had its own protector god: Mardak was believed to be the God of the Babylonians while Yahweh the God of Israel. But Jeremiah advocates a pro-Babylonian political stance.

Daniel Smith observes that the letter is an important political document to the exiles, advising them to abandon violent action against the new political authority (1). Jeremiah's letter is in reality in favor of the policy of accommodation to and cooperative political activities in the new situation. Intermarriage with Babylonians was not explicitly ruled out. Theologically speaking, the call to pray to God for the well-being of the city was an innovative idea, which hardly made sense to the exilic community of that time. It really was a great challenge that Jeremiah put forward to the religious leadership.

(1) Daniel L. Smith, Jeremiah as Prophet of Nonviolent Resistance, JSOT 43, 1989, p. 102

32

No wonder the letter is grouped together with chapters 27 and 28 to form a block of text under the theme prophetic conflict because there were other prophets who supported patriotic actions and anti-Babylonian policy. These prophets championed a short stay in Babylon and a speedy return to Jerusalem. They appealed to the saving acts of God in the past and God's faithfulness to the people. They relied on the faith traditions of Israel and drew on the compassion of God to the people and the promise of God to the house of David, as well as to the temple of Jerusalem.

Social Diversion of Prophetic Conflict

A dramatic scene can be cited from Jeremiah 27. Jeremiah was commanded by God to put cords and wooden bars of yoke on his neck and to see King Zedekiah (27:1-2). Jeremiah was reported as saying to the king:

If you will submit to the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people, then you shall save your lives. Why should you and your people die by sword, famine, and pestilence, the fate with which the Lord has threatened any nation, which does not serve the king of Babylon? (27:12-13)

Prophet Hananiah objected to the words of Jeremiah, took the yoke from the neck of Jeremiah and broke it, saying before the people: These are the words of the Lord: 'Thus will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will break it off the necks of all nations within two years’. (28:11)

Jeremiah then heard the word of God again commanding him to tell Hananiah that though the latter had broken bars of wood, in their place would be bars of iron. The text records the word of God as follows: I have put a yoke of iron on the necks of all

33

these nations, making them save Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. (28:14).

What can we learn from this instance of prophetic conflict in Jer. 27-29? Firstly, there is a political dimension to this conflict. It does not always concern exclusively with theological issues. Disagreement and conflict between prophets were sometimes due to different political positions. If we examine conflict and disagreement situation within the Christian community, we shall come to appreciate and understand the socio-political dimension of the biblical text. Secondly, the issues at point in Jer. 27-29 relate to the role of prophets and their relations to tradition. Prophets are not imaginative originators of traditions but creative interpreters of faith traditions in the present situations. The conventional way of understanding cannot cope with the new circumstances, which call for a new perspective. Prophecy was seen in the Old Testament canonical setting as a social phenomenon, interpreting the law and its tradition in new social context.

For this matter, the final canonical understanding of the law and the prophets is that they are closely interwoven. The lawgiver, Moses, is portrayed as the prophet whom God spoke with face to face (Deut. 18:15-18; 34:10). Moses in the Deuteronomic tradition is understood as one who expounds and interprets the law to the new generation before they enter the Promised Land (1:5). Deuteronomy is then called the second law. Jeremiah is also perceived as following the footstep of Moses, the prophet par excellence. It was in the tradition of the commissioning of Moses that Jeremiah was commissioned (Exodus 3-4 and Jer. 1:4-10). It is also noted that God authorized Jeremiah to represent God to pull down and to uproot, to destroy and to demolish, to build and to plant (1:10). These six verbs are used in other passages with God as the subject (12:14-17; 18:7, 9: 24:6; 31:28, 38, 40; 42:10; 45:4). Moses was also described as acting as God in his

34

mission to the Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). The last prophetic book in the present form of our Bible, Malachi, also concludes with a note on the Law of Moses: Remember the teaching of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. (Malachi 4:4)

The Vision of Zechariah

On the significance of interpretation of the teaching of our faith tradition for a new situation and the need to have innovative ideas, we shall turn to the second chapter of the Book of Zechariah. It is reported that Zechariah saw in his vision a youth holding a measuring line in his hand and Zechariah said to him: Where are you going? The youth said: To measure Jerusalem, to see what is its breadth and what is its length.

An angel came forward to meet the angel who had been talking with Zechariah and said: Run, say to that youth, Jerusalem shall be a city without walls, because of the multitude of people and cattle in it. For I will be to her a wall of fire round her, says the Lord, and I will be the glory within her. (Zech 2:2-5)

This vision gives a powerful image that challenges any intention to build walls to strictly define a community or to protect the interests of anybody for human existence. In a word, any plan to exclude others from participating in our religious traditions or social groupings will have to be called into question and scrutinized. There is however a further level of meaning which can be recovered from a sociological study of the text.

This vision of Zechariah is best understood against the other rebuilding models. Ezekiel has presented a notion of restoration in contrast to Zechariah. Ezekiel sees Jerusalem as a fixed entity with well-defined boundaries and the temple being the centre with the priesthood taking the leadership role. Zechariah advocates a

35

well – populated, unwalled city with peace, stability and security in the protective care of Yahweh. The glory of Yahweh. The glory of Yahweh symbolizes Yahweh’s holiness that will be accessible to all (2). Zechariah challenges the standard temple ideology, which is represented by Ezekiel and Haggai. Jerusalem, as a city without walls is a new conception of God, a god who is not being localized in the temple, but whose presence dwells within the people. The wall of fire and the glory of Yahweh symbolize divine presence in ancient traditions. It is a creative and innovative idea, which grows out of the exilic experience and molds the future reconstruction. A new theological orientation that has profound significance for the understanding of God and the identity of the community.

Our Task and Responsibility

In this context of defining our social mission and student ministry on university and college campuses, I would like to propose a similar frame of reference for our task ahead. What SCMs and the Christian academic community can contribute in Asia and the Pacific are new theological insights that develop out of our cultural roots as well as Christian traditions and address our contemporary social realities. This is an invitation I dare to extend to you again, knowing very well that you have been doing it all along, that is to engage in theologizing in Asia and the Pacific, taking seriously and making proper use of our cultural heritages and our social resources.

There are two aspects to our theological endeavor that we have to pay attention to. Firstly, we must affirm that theology should be liberated from its traditional domain in the privateness of the four walls of the Church. According to David Tracy, all theology is public discourse addressing three publics, the wider society,

(2) David Peterson, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, A Commentary (London: SCM Press), 1984, p. 169

36

academy and the Church. Whatever location from which a particular theology emerges, the genuine commitment to authentic publicness must be its hallmark³. Social concerns, political polity, economic involvement, religious and cultural pluralism, symbolic life, and moral values of our people are some of the many realms that concern our theological discourses. It is helpful if we can look into the three arena of theology to define SCM's role in them.

Secondly, Asian resources can be utilized fruitfully if they are critically re-examined so that their oppressive elements can be eliminated and their liberating forces emancipated. In short, theologians constantly do a critical re-interpretation from their respective social locations. I hope that Christians in Asia and in the Pacific could see themselves as interpreters of religious-cultural/social-political resources of the people and as mediators bringing them to interact theologically with our Christian beliefs.

With a strong theological orientation relevant to our social reality, the movement can then be further consolidated. We can contribute in terms of injecting creative thinking to Christian practical theology in the Asia-Pacific. Through participating in both praxis and critical imagination, young Christians can be trained and become mature in servant-hood and leadership for the mission of God in the Asia-Pacific region.

With the understanding of the relations of the prophet and faith traditions, we can come to see the prophetic role of SCM and the faith community of the Christian traditions in a different light. Not only that SCM and the church cannot be separated, but both roust work together and enrich the other. Going back to

(3) David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (London: SCM Press), 1981, p. 5

37

Jeremiah's advice in his letter to the exilic community, the commitment to seeking shalom and well-being for our society must be affirmed as the common social mission of both SCM and the church. Staying together to work for and pray to God for the well-being of our cities and countries are our imperatives. Our well-being is bound up with that of our society.

William Holladay is of the opinion that God has written a rude letter in Jer. 29 because it does not follow the conventional form of the Hebrew letter. Greeting of shalom is omitted at the beginning of the letter. Instead of God wishing them peace, what is being communicated is that peace is up to the people to seek and achieve. This reminds me of another post-exilic passage in Deuteronomy on the theme that life is for the choosing only. Moses is recorded as saying to the people:

See I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity... Choose life so that you and your descendants may have life, loving the Lord your God, obeying God and holding fast to God, for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land. (Deut. 30:15-16)

With this earnest speech of Moses to call for a decision to choose life and not death, let us, students and church leaders, commit together to the quest for life and look forward to a prosperous future when everybody lives in peace, justice and harmony all over Asia, the Pacific and beyond.

38

Procedures for Group Study

A. Read the following passages:

Jer 29:1-7.

Jer 27:1-2, 12-13; Jer 28:11, 14.

Zech 2:2-5

B. Discussion:

1. In concrete terms, what is well – being (shalom) in your situation and how can it be achieved?

2. Write a reply to Jeremiah’s letter (you can give your opinion on his advice or on the proper relations between prayer and praxis).

3. Recompose the vision of Zechariah of a city without walls and write an ending to it.

4. What implications does the image of a city without walls have on the mission of SCM and the churches?