True to our native land, p.38
True to Our Native Land, page 38
It is God who defines and orchestrates justice, or fairness, according to Luke. Whether the injustice comes from human-to-human misdeeds or whether it emanates from personal wrong, God justifies or makes right so that good may be done. Furthermore, in each instance Luke shows how important it is that people initiate the call for justice. When we call, we expect God to answer. When we cry out, we anticipate divine response. In God’s kingdom or my edit “kindom,” the social politics shift social power dynamics by valuing those considered the least and ensuring their well-being. In the words of activist Fannie Lou Hamer, “nobody’s free until everybody’s free.”8
The members of the United States Supreme Court bear the title “Justice.” Implied in the nomenclature is the precept that all nine of these persons will make right whatever wrong has occurred. The first African American to serve on the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall, had a history of “making it right” through his legal work with the NAACP. His key role in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka school desegregation case changed the course of America. In 2022 Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first African American woman under the title “Supreme Court Justice.” May she continue the legacy of “making it right.”
18:18–43, Giving It All Up
In this fourth take on riches and wealth, Luke moves from the foolishness of hoarding goods (12:13–21) to an imperative to sell everything and give to the poor. Unlike the parable of poor Lazarus, who did not reap earthly benefits, Luke now advocates that the poor must reap on earth. The poor must receive here and now from the wealthy. Any rich person who gives to the needy will in turn gain treasure in heaven.
A protesting Peter reminds Jesus that he was one of the first to leave boat and business to follow him. Jesus assures Peter that he will get everything back now and in eternity. What family, what material goods the disciple foregoes for the kingdom of God, God will restore.
The African American church can use a text like this to address the dangers of prosperity preaching. Jesus did indeed say that whatever the disciple lost for the kingdom of God would be restored now. The key to interpreting that saying is the phrase “for the kingdom of God.” Too often name-it-and-claim-it theology is rooted in a narcissistic, self-centered materialism aimed at self-betterment. Goods lost and regained for the kingdom must be used to help the poor and thus further the kindom on earth.
19:1–10, Another Repentant Tax Collector
In Jericho Jesus meets a rich chief tax collector. Zacchaeus’s job and title readily associate him with Roman culture and imperialism. Unlike the previously portrayed tax collectors, however, Zacchaeus no longer desires to be connected with ill-gotten economic gain. His desire to pay the poor shows his willingness to cleanse himself of any Roman monetary “dirt.” Jesus commends Zacchaeus’s character, because Zacchaeus understands that one’s heavenly relationship with God is connected to the good one does on earth. It is only after the tax collector confesses his wrongdoings that God saves him. The story does not end with spiritual reconciliation. Like the woman bent over for eighteen years (13:10–17), Zacchaeus is restored socially and racially “because he too is a son of Abraham.”
19:11–27, More Lessons on Enslavement
Luke continues to uncover problems of social stratification. In yet another subversive comment on the Roman occupation, he admits in this parable that not all enslavers or rulers were liked by their subjects. The three months’ wage each enslaved person possesses should yield more money. However, the owner’s encounter with the enslaved who does not invest provides a more honest assessment of his nature. This nobleman is not trustworthy. He takes what does not belong to him and benefits from the work of others. The enslaved’s past experience with the enslaver served as a backdrop for his refusal to use the owner’s “gift.” In the end this distrust proved accurate; the owner reneged and took back what he gave to the enslaved.
In an effort to boost the economy and national morale during the COVID-19 pandemic, the US government issued stimulus checks in 2020 and 2021. These “free” checks sent many people to banks, check cashing shops, and online shopping. For some, the pre-refunds were long overdue. Others received the money with skepticism. Surely the government does nothing for free. What is the catch? Like the enslaved whose unpleasant experiences with his owner caused him to distrust the up-front wage, many African Americans who too have had horrifying experiences with government red tape and the Internal Revenue Service did not trust the “free” money. Free is not always free. Did the stimulus moves of the US government end up hurting the poor, and African Americans, who are disproportionately poor? Perhaps the economic overtures were political ploys for a party trying to find its way. Many would say “yes,” since the money only provided a temporary means to buy some items, while the long-term institutional shift means that the government now has less tax revenue to help provide the social safety net that is so important for the deserving underserved.
19:28—21:38, Jesus in Jerusalem: The Future and the Future of Death
19:28–47, Freedom and Death
The desire to kill Jesus intensifies now that he is in Jerusalem. The Son of Man, who has come to proclaim the good news and to do good by setting captives free, realizes that Jerusalem means him no good.
Acting on behalf of freedom is a dangerous undertaking. The more Fannie Lou Hamer dared to register Mississippians to vote, the more Sunflower County officials harassed her and her family. Malcolm X’s fiery speech about “chickens coming home to roost” spurred his assassination. The more #BlackLivesMatter organizers decry the killing of Black bodies such as Tamir Rice, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and Sandra Bland to name a few, the more some contend it’s about “all lives.” Fighting for freedom is a dangerous endeavor. These social justice accomplices realized it then and even more so now. Jesus had this a-ha moment. Nonetheless, the fight for freedom must continue despite the cost. That is the message behind Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’s ministry.
20:1–47, What’s in a Question?
Determined to trap Jesus, chief priests, scribes, and elders present three significant questions to him.
The first question is, “By what authority are you doing these things? Who is it who gave you this authority?” Jesus’s temple teaching disturbed those troubled by his ministry. But who told him he could do this? Who in authority authorized his teaching? It is not important to his opponents that Jesus is doing good work.
The second question, “Shall we pay taxes?” is really not about paying taxes. Jesus’s opponents already knew the answer. The scribes were trying to hinder the work of jubilee. It is not uncommon in the Black church for budget and other financial meetings to become all-out brawls. Stances against a living wage increase for the pastor, duels that develop over a dollar increase for the maintenance staff, and fights that erupt over money for new ministries are really not about the money. The whispers about “where the tithes and offerings go” are often not really about cash flow. Such disgruntlement is often the result of a spiritual disorder that hides itself behind a fiscal facade.
On Whose Authority?
In some African American congregations, power struggles between pastors, official boards, and other ministry leaders can confuse and dilute any good work that takes place. Arguments over whose idea it was or who chairs the effort produce disarray and force ministry to be delayed because of pride. Disagreements over who was empowered or authorized to sign a document can manifest itself in spiritual stagnation. Thus a church does not grow, and its surrounding community does not reap the congregation’s potential harvest.
The last question, “Whose wife is she?” is yet another means of entrapment. The Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection, yet they ask a question about it. The key lies not in the question but in the context that produces the question. In Luke’s day, the status of a woman was tied to that of a male relative. Her identity and social belonging were situated outside of herself and her gender.
The matter of a women’s identity and social belonging remains unsettled today in many contemporary societal arenas. Particularly in some denominations in the Black church, women have been restricted from holding many high offices or performing many authoritative, which is to say, ordained, functions. Yes, there are exceptions, such as the late Rev. Dr. Prathia Hall Wynn, as well as other Black women serving large pastorates in California, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. And as of 2022, a second woman is at the helm of the Hampton University Ministers’ Conference. Yes, there have been a number of African Methodist Episcopal and Episcopal Black women bishops in the past three decades. Women serving in “appropriate” places like the usher board, the choir, or the nursery cause little debate. Women pastors, however, unsettle as many “sisters” as church “brothers.” This lack of support for female pastoral leadership persists, despite the impact African American women preachers and orators like Elizabeth, Jarena Lee, Virginia Broughton, and Maria Stewart have had on the Black church and the broader American society. C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya underscore this:
Both historical and contemporary evidence underscore the fact that black churches could scarcely have survived without the active support of black women, but in spite of their importance in the life of the church, the offices of preacher and pastor of churches in the historic black churches remain a male preserve and are not generally available to women. . . . This issue continues to be a controversial one for the Black Church.9
21:1–4, Widows and Offerings
A widow’s pension is the Social Security benefit she receives when her husband dies. In some special cases, depending on her husband’s retirement status, a physically infirm wife might even be able to retire early from the assistance of “widow’s benefits.” In each case the wife’s income is dependent on her husband’s. Unfortunately, in most cases the benefits were not substantial. For a grandmother taking care of grandchildren or even great-grandchildren, the payment barely allowed for subsistence living. The pay could even have been equal to something like the two copper coins the poor widow contributes in Luke’s story. Though the coins would have meant much to her, they were of little real fiscal value.
In discussing this widow’s actions, however, Jesus does not condemn the amount. He says instead that what she has offered cannot be calculated. Because she has given out of her heart, what she has given is of more value than what any rich person who gives painlessly out of their excess could contribute. It is not the amount given but the commitment and belief of the giver that matters.
In some congregations, leaders raise offerings by asking people who can give a certain amount to stand. This “bidding” usually begins with $100, then proceeds to $75, $50, etc. While it is fiscally profitable, spiritual shame can be involved. The implication is that the person who does not or cannot stand has a lower degree of faith. The implication is that the person who gives at the lowest level, like $10, is less honorable than those who can afford to contribute higher amounts. Jesus reverses such inappropriate attempts to connect faith with public giving. The widow put in more, because she contributed out of what she did not have and she did so humbly.
21:5–37, Signs
Jesus addresses the ensuing crises between Rome and Judea. He gives various military, physical, and natural signs that will serve as a warning that trouble is brewing. People should heed the warning of the signs.
Common among the elderly are sayings about “signs” of things to come. Achy and/or arthritic bones often denote a coming thunderstorm. If a person’s eye is jumping or shaking, bad news is headed to her or his household. For some an itchy hand means someone is about to make money. If a person has burning ears, then someone is gossiping about him or her. People want to know and understand why things are the way they are and why things happen the way they do. Signs help in this light. The words of Jesus ring true; every generation seeks a sign. From a sign that change will soon come to a sign of comfort in troubled times, every generation, even this present one, seeks a sign. We seek signs to find a sense of security about our lives, a sense of control over the precarious nature of our lives in the same way that seeking and understanding signs about the coming of the kingdom would help folk in Jesus’s time feel less unsettled about the turmoil going on all around them with the Roman occupation of Palestine.
22:1—23:56, Jesus in Jerusalem: The Presence of Death
22:1–38, Before I Go
In v. 20 Jesus says that the cup poured out is the new covenant in his blood. The Greek word for covenant (diatheke) means “contract” or “testament.” Jesus at this last meal with his disciples leaves a will. It is a “living” will, given while he is still among them. This will gives instructions on what to do once he leaves. They are to recall his suffering and remember that they too have been called to suffer. This last meal is a memento of the time they spent in the presence of Jesus. This breaking of bread and drinking of the cup is an heirloom. Jesus passes it on to them so that they in turn may pass it to others who believe. Each time the disciples dine together, they are to remember Jesus, his mission, and his ministry.
Not only are the disciples to remember Jesus through their eating, but they are to also remember that greatness does not come from being served. True greatness occurs in service to others.
22:39–71, Prayer and Swords
Until now, Luke does not portray Jesus as a violent person. At his birth, the angels proclaim peace on earth. Jesus wishes peace on Jerusalem as he enters the city. However, death has a way of pushing other sides of a person to the surface. There is something about one’s own imminent demise that brings out another side of an often-pleasant personality. In this regard, Jesus is certainly human.
Although Jesus told the disciples to depend on the hospitality and kindness of others during their mission, at the point of his betrayal he told them not to trust anyone. Although Jesus told the disciples that the community they served was to provide their food, clothing, and shelter, at the point of facing excruciating pain, mocking, and beating, Jesus warned his followers to provide for themselves. Although his message was one of release, wholeness, and deliverance, when he was on the verge of suffering, Jesus instructed those who believed in him to get not one but two swords. The swords were not to be used to defend him; Jesus wanted them to be able to protect themselves. Violence begets violence. No, Jesus did not come with a sword, but those coming after him would surely have swords. Jesus was not worried about his own safety, but in his final instruction, his last will and testament, he wanted to be sure that his disciples were secure. The swords were for them, not him. He had prayed. They had fallen asleep.
23:1–31, They Conscript Simon
For only the second time in the Gospel (13:1), Luke openly portrays Roman officials in a negative light. There is no doubt about the Roman government’s involvement in the trial that proceeded against Jesus. Luke specifies that the chief priests and others take Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor. Since Jesus threatens Roman political order by claiming to be King of the Jews, he must appear before the political ruler of the Jews.
In addition, Herod Antipas of Galilee, another official appointed by Rome, is involved. Because Jesus is a Galilean, technically he falls under Herod’s jurisdiction. Neither Herod nor Pilate finds fault in Jesus. Still, Pilate makes a final decision to kill Jesus. He must be crucified. A Roman governor gives Jesus to the Roman military for crucifixion.
Not only does Jesus experience Roman abuse, but an African, one Simon of Cyrene, is a victim as well. Simon is a native of Cyrene, in what is now the North African country of Libya. In Jerusalem he is far from home. Luke does not designate him specifically as a Jew visiting Jerusalem in honor of Passover. Regardless of his reason for being in the city, what happens to Simon in the city is unpleasant. He is forced or conscripted to carry the cross of Jesus. “They” seize him; the same Roman officials who grab Jesus grab Simon. Roman brutality knows no racial boundaries; it is all-inclusive.
Why is Simon chosen? Luke does not specify. Perhaps he was a dark-skinned African with distinguishing Negroid features. Perhaps he wore unusual clothing indicative of his culture. What is clear is that Luke portrays Simon of Cyrene as displaced. He is dislocated and geographically out of line. He is a distant African from a dark, distant place.10
What does a reader do with Simon of Cyrene? From a literary standpoint, Simon represents those in Luke’s Gospel who are exploited by Roman compulsion. From a homiletical standpoint, this African serves as a harbinger of enslavement. His forced presence is a reminder of the African enslavement trade and the Middle Passage. From a spiritual standpoint, though pressed into service, Simon still helped Jesus carry out his liberating mission by carrying his oppressive cross.
23:32–47, Peer Pressure
Dying on the cross, Jesus experiences what can only be called peer pressure. He has a dialogue with two criminals who have also been sentenced to death. They are peers, colleagues of crucifixion. One hard-hearted peer tries to get Jesus to overturn their perilous plight. Like Satan during the temptation in the wilderness (4:1–13), he pressures Jesus to perform. A peer more sympathetic to Jesus’s plight intervenes on Jesus’s behalf. After confessing his guilt, he seeks affiliation with Jesus in his kingdom. Jesus assures him of a place in Paradise.
Many Black churches hold an annual Homecoming or Friends and Family Day. It is a day particularly designated for families to worship together, for persons who have been “absent” from the church to return, and for friends to invite their peers to church. Just as Jesus, dying on the cross, stresses the importance of peer affiliation and acceptance, so too do such church occasions highlight the need to receive all people and view all as children of God. On Family and Friends Day or Homecoming, those who have left the church as well as those who faithfully attend are given a place in “paradise,” a place where they can seek God’s most intimate presence.
