(Resurrection, Rowan Willians, The Pilgrim Press, 2002)
The Resurrection of Jesus three days after his crucifixion was first proclaimed in Israel, in a specific place, at a specific time, to people with a particular history and memory. Luke insists that the memory must include the crucified: “this Jesus, the identifiable figure whose death was a public event, whose sentence belonged to a particular political process. Luke insists that the audience knows the things concerning Jesus the Nazarene (Luke 24:19). It is not a neutral audience, nor is it an innocent one. In this event of preaching the risen Christ, there are no “uninvolved bystanders.” Luke is saying that in the house of Israel, the people of Jerusalem, and their rulers and elders are those who judged Jesus, and had him killed. In Acts 4:27 Luke broadens the perspective in an apocalyptic sweep, Jews and Gentiles, alike, the “kings of the earth” personified by Herod and Pilate, as well as the house of Israel were the judges. Jew and Roman, priest and people, king and commoner: it is the city that condemned and rejected God’s holy child and it is to the same audience that the apostles are proclaiming the risen Lord. Luke is not making a generic sweep of Jewish guilt. Luke is defining the audience, Jerusalem is the city of the judges and condemners of Jesus and their guilt is historic, concrete and specific. Luke 22:66 gives us the assembly of the elders of the people, chief priests and scribes taking the initiative in delivering up Jesus to death. In Acts 4:5-6 the parallel is clear that it was the rulers and elders with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas…in Jerusalem, that pronounced the sentence. God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead and he returns as the judge of his judges.
To the extent that the leaders continue to judge and condemn the embryonic church and its leaders, it invites the judgment of its victim whom God has approved and exalted. Here we have a reversal of roles: the condemned and court change places and the victim becomes the judge. The risen Lord is not however presented as a judge but as a promise and evidence for hope. The rulers and people act in ignorance (Acts 3:17; Luke 23:34) and God gives grace for all who turn to their victim and recognize him as their hope and their savior. Healing occurs by the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 4:10).
If we then turn to the account of Saul’s conversion in Acts 9 we find the same insight taken a stage further. Saul is stopped on his journey to persecute and judge the church by a blinding light and accusing voice. The voice identifies the victims who Saul is persecuting as Lord – meaning they are extensions of the risen Lord as his body on earth. Jesus the risen Lord identifies himself with those whom Paul has oppressed, hurt or killed. Ananias came to Saul and said, “The lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17). The Lord who judges is the Lord who saves; the Lord who vindicates his oppressed witnesses also comes in their words and hands, to save their oppressors who are his as well. Acts 9 represents the turning point in the universalization of the salvation mission: it spread from Jerusalem to the Gentile world: it is a gospel for all.
Recognizing one’s victim as one’s hope is the theological message of Luke. The crucified is God’s chosen: it is with the victim, the condemned; that God identifies and it is in the company of the victim, that God is to be found. Anytime we set ourselves up to judge, condemn, exclude, or diminish another, we invite judgment and we turn away from the salvation of God. To judge is to be exposed to judgment. Conversion is the realization that we find vindication from the judge-victim relationship in a new relationship with the victim who is the source of renewal and transformation. It is important at this point to emphasize that we are all partially victims and partially judges. We have this condition in ourselves…indeed, Jesus may be said to be the only pure victim. We might also see the child as pure and innocent and therefore harm to the child is also to harm a victim. As autonomous adults we are rarely pure victim.
Only the pure victim can be merciful. Christian faith teaches us that conversion causes us to return to the victim in hope because Jesus is the only pure victim. Judgment here is also mercy and hope because of who that victim was and is. In the trial of Jesus, he gave no resistance. When suffering on the cross, he did not threaten, but forgave. Jesus offered no violence to any who turned to him in hope. Jesus did not condemn, resist or exclude, rather his character was one of universal acceptance (the woman, the Samaritan, the leper, the collaborator, the Roman soldier, all received grace and fellowship from Jesus.)
When God receives and approves the condemned Jesus and return him to his judges through the preaching of the church, he transcends the world of oppressor-oppressed relations to create a new humanity capable of loving relationships neighbor to neighbor and between humanity and God. If God’s love is shown in the pure victim without recourse to violence, it is hard to think of God as being on the side of any oppressive system or any form of violence. It is rather more likely to imagine that the powerless sufferer (innocent or guilty) is the one who receives the presence of God. Williams is not speaking here about law and morality or other types of judgment as discernment, discrimination and responsibility. He is speaking about exclusion in terms of who is of interest to God. Take the example of racism. Racism is not evil because its victims are good but because its victims are human. We share a common humanity. God is not with the victim in order to make us victims; that is a central message in the resurrection.
In Acts the emphasis is: “repent and believe”. The stress is on God’s forgiveness. Since the diminution of another also diminishes us, we are in need to repentance, reconciliation, and restorative justice. There is no healing of memory until the memory is owned and exposed as a wound. It is possible to be your own victim.
There is no justification without the resurrection. No rhetoric of “self-transcendence” can substitute for the recovery of the self. We are perennially susceptible to arrogating divinity in our image. The delusion is that this is my world, a world controllable by my will and judgment. The resurrection shows us that our act of will is not the finality we perceive it to be. God’s act as creator is capable of re-creation. God’s presence to the world is not neutral. God identifies with the victims in the world’s history and holds it all in memory. Since God is beyond our conception of time, all future possibilities are open. We cannot be more destructive than God is forgiving.
Thus the risen one judges not only our judgment, but our fear of judgment. We are born into a world that already has a history of violence. We adsorb our condition and culture hence, original sin, a sense of separation from God and each other. The good news of the resurrection is that we can have a sense of acceptance in God. Thus Paul could write, “For those who are in Christ Jesus there is now no condemnation.” (Rom 8:1) In the next session we move from looking at justification through resurrection to sanctification, the growth of the redeemed life in the spirit of each of us.
Discussion questions:
What situations or historical episodes come to mind when you hear the words, victim, violence, and oppression?
In what ways can a person be a victim? In what ways can we be oppressors?
What does it mean to receive forgiveness from the victim?
Can you give an example in modern history where this process of victim-oppressor led to reconciliation and forgiveness?
In what ways does this presentation by Archbishop Williams resonate or fail to resonate with your understanding of resurrection?