00:00:11.550 - 00:00:34.190

Welcome to our feature interview for Insights, the faculty journal of Austin Seminary. I am William Greenway, editor of Insights and professor of philosophical theology. The author of our lead essay for the fall 2021 issue of Insights is Dr. Bridget Green, a professor of New Testament here at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

00:00:35.560 - 00:01:34.160

Professor Green earned her PhD at Vanderbilt University, where she wrote on Luke 18, 1 through 20, The Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of God, and Social Relationships, under the supervision of Fernando Segovia. Professor Green is an ordained Presbyterian USA minister and is or has been on the editorial boards of Critical History of Race and Religion, Horizons in Biblical Theology, and the New and Old Testament Library series. She is or has served on the board of directors of the Presbyterian Outlook, the Mountain Retreat Association, better known as Montreat, and the board of trustees of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. She has written numerous articles in the area of biblical studies with special focus upon issues of class and race, which is obviously related to the lead essay and insights that we will be discussing today on Kingdom and Kingdom, the Promise and the Peril.

00:01:36.080 - 00:02:00.320

She has also worked as a consulting editor for Westminster John Knox Press as their biblical studies acquisitions editor. And I close with this because I'm both sad and proud to say that Bridget will soon be leaving us to take over duties as vice president of publishing and editorial director at Westminster John Knox Press. And that's a big deal. This is not a place with a ton of vice presidents.

00:02:00.320 - 00:02:21.760

That is a significant position where Bridget will be influencing the publication direction of this major theological press. I'm happy, I'm sad for us rather, Bridget, but I am happy for you and WJK. Now, let me note that an abbreviated written version of this discussion will appear in this issue of insights.

00:02:22.560 - 00:02:50.480

Let me also say that we may pause briefly in the middle of our discussion for those who may want to divide this interview into two parts for use in group discussion. Again, the title of Professor Green's essay, which we will discuss today, is On Kingdom and Kingdom, The Promise and the Peril. Welcome, Professor Green. We are looking forward to hearing your insights about Kingdom and Kingdom language.

00:02:51.280 - 00:03:10.640

Thank you, Bill. I'm glad to be here with you. Now, you were asked to choose any theme and any topic for this issue of insights. And of all the things you could have chosen, what made you chose to focus on language as a theme?

00:03:11.600 - 00:03:38.080

And of all the things you might have chosen, what made you choose kingdom and kingdom as your topic for this essay? Great question. Well, language as a choice has everything to do with the fact that one of the major sets of courses I teach at the seminary are in Greek exegesis. And so I teach a variety of courses on the different canonical texts in the New Testament.

00:03:38.600 - 00:03:53.920

And when you teach the Greek New Testament, your focus is really on language. And you see the ways in which the language can be interpreted. You see the way in which vocabulary has multiple definitions and meanings.

00:03:54.240 - 00:04:22.400

And so there's an element of fluidity that comes with interpretation while still having the stability of the context to help you understand what the author is trying to say. And so even now, language shifts every once in a while. There's certain words that may mean one thing today, it means something different later, or they have different connotations. They have different weights of meaning from one community to another.

00:04:22.720 - 00:04:40.480

And so that brings us to the word kingdom. Kingdom is a complex term. It's one in which many of us are familiar in terms of reading it in the Bible, especially when we recite together the Lord's Prayer, thy kingdom come, thy will be done.

00:04:41.600 - 00:05:10.400

And because of our particular U.S. context of being a democratic society, there are elements about kingdom language that we aren't as familiar with because that's not what we deal with on a day-to-day level. But also, kingdom language is understood and recognized to be very hierarchical, can be oppressive. What if you have a tyrannical king or queen?

00:05:11.240 - 00:05:51.120

And so we recognize that it has a lot of negative weight, even though our ecclesial language is uplifting because we're asking for God's kingdom. And then you have a term that was introduced in our ecclesial circles relatively recently as part of the 21st century ecclesial lexicon, kingdom. And kingdom is this word that Adia Sasa Maria Diaz has used in her work and a lot of folks in theology and biblical studies as well as the church have picked up on. And kingdom language has been,

00:05:51.400 - 00:06:27.200

for some communities, a preferred word because it helps us understand us being together, particularly in Christian contexts as a family. We're part of the body of Christ and in that we are sisters and brothers in Christ, God being the father or the parent head. And it is a language for many that has a value of shared experiences, mutuality, support, and respect. However, not all kendoms or families are idealistic.

00:06:27.200 - 00:06:48.720

Some have different issues for different reasons. Elements of accountability are different in a kendom and families, for example. Just think about, you know, as a parent, the ways in which you try to get your children to follow rules or comply to certain things and the way they may resist. What are the elements of accountability?

00:06:48.720 - 00:07:19.920

Or when you have a wayward cousin or a wayward brother or sister, what are the elements of accountability? And so as much as I really do appreciate and applaud and use the word kingdom in various ways, I also see that kingdom is still a relevant term. Because when Jesus was talking and doing his work, he wasn't just talking about the interrelationships between or among individuals, he was talking about having a shift in how society actually functions.

00:07:20.240 - 00:08:01.800

And so kingdom language is political language. It's sociopolitical language. And so what happens when we really pay attention to the sociopolitical elements of thy kingdom come, thy will be done, along with our ecclesial ideals of coming together in love and in justice and how we treat one another. What would you say is in Jesus's time, because this is what you do in the article so effectively, is the dominant understanding of kingdom and what is Jesus's relationship, understanding of kingdom and relationship to that and family as you describe?

00:08:02.000 - 00:08:13.040

And then maybe you could say the same thing about kingdom. What would kingdom have signified in Jesus's context to his audience? And how would that differ from how Jesus used the word kingdom.

00:08:13.400 - 00:08:39.880

Okay. So if Jesus were to use the word kingdom or understanding of family, I think the first thing I would bring up is that family includes those who aren't blood relatives. And so oftentimes when we think about plant family, we think about bloodlines, DNA, patrilineal or matrilineal lineages. You have two gospels that start with the genealogies.

00:08:39.880 - 00:09:12.800

And so there's definitely an element of family being important. I think also the understanding that the kinship is developed because of shared ideals and shared values, which is different from, well, we're all in the same space and we all came from the same people. So that's why he can say when his family comes up to see him and someone in the crowd says, hey, Jesus, your brother and your mother and your brothers and sisters are here.

00:09:13.000 - 00:09:18.840

And he asks the question, well, who are my brother and sister? Who is my mother? Right? And then that question

00:09:18.920 - 00:09:44.480

and isn't one to invalidate his relationships with his bloodline relatives, but to say that his kinship is actually expansive, it has grown. And so how does that, how do we understand that and think about in terms of our interactions? Back in the 1st century, fictive kinships were normal. And what does that mean?

00:09:44.480 - 00:10:18.840

That means that you will have various families who were not necessarily who will come together, work together, be a part of a particular kinship through these non-bloodlines relationships. Some of those relationships were political, some of them were economic, some of them were connected to being part of similar belief systems or religion or even in terms of being Jewish, right? They are referred to often

00:10:19.120 - 00:10:53.280

as the sons and daughters of Abraham, reconnecting to that kinship. But we look at Paul, for example, particularly Romans, and he outlines the ways in which a community of people have been engrafted into that family tree of the sons of Abraham. So we have this very expansive understanding of kinship, including a large number of people who aren't necessarily relatives, but who come together because of shared understanding belief, values, God, and so on and so forth.

00:10:54.320 - 00:11:13.840

And the challenge of that too, in so many ways is, in some of Jesus' apocalyptic sayings, he talks about brother be against brother and sister could be against sister. And so there's this understanding that there's tension that can come in family. So what do you do with that?

00:11:13.840 - 00:11:39.680

How does that play out? And on what basis does that play out? So the understanding of, I think that Jesus brings the conversation around kinship, even though that's not the word he uses, he uses more sibling language, I think reflects both the promise and the peril that I hope I scratch at at least a little bit in this essay.

00:11:40.120 - 00:11:54.360

And then with kingdom. Can I bring you just right there for a second? Could you give us more a sense of the peril of the kingdom language? I mean, how, because in the essay you talk in ways that I found really interesting.

00:11:54.360 - 00:12:32.080

And if you don't know a lot about 1st century studies, you're not aware of how kingdom functioned sociopolitically within the Roman Empire and such. Could you just say a word about that and how Jesus, I mean, I'm assuming that what you're talking about, which was largely new to me, would not have been new to Jesus's audience, would have been the dominant notion of kingdom such that when he's talking about family or siblings or children of God, and they refer to God as Abba, Father, he's doing something very different there than would have been the norm in that context.

00:12:32.600 - 00:12:37.440

Is that correct? And could you unpack that a bit? Oh, yeah. Yes, sure.

00:12:37.760 - 00:13:13.120

So one element in 1st century, that 1st century Roman period of the common era is the understanding of pater patria. And that is the language of father of the country. And that's the title that the Roman Senate gave to its Caesar. And Augustus Caesar, actually, just to go a little bit into classical Roman history, Augustus Caesar actually created

00:13:13.800 - 00:13:56.080

as part of his propaganda machine, this understanding of what the idealized family is and the way in which being this idealized family plays into being an idealized Roman citizen. And who is the most ideal Roman citizen? Caesar himself, being the father, being the example. And so all the subjects under the empire, including Little Palestine, is part of this fictive kinship, this national identity that's being formed with Caesar being the head.

00:13:56.720 - 00:14:45.160

And some of this language that I might be using may be familiar when you think about the ways in which Paul kind of turns it on his head. in First Corinthians in terms of a little bit of the household code and God being the father head in that respect. The danger of that is what happened in that sociological paradigm that the Roman political arm developed is you then have little little potters, or as Elizabeth Schizoferinza will put it, little curios and curios, little lords, who are head of their own domains.

00:14:45.720 - 00:15:31.440

And so that same type of fictive kinship, familial, political, economic paradigm is dispersed in society in these other ways as well. And the peril of that is in the sociopolitical sense, when one is a part of this type of kinship, you are, especially as one who's quote, dependent upon this this lore dependent upon this head of household, that dependency is one in which you have both an economic and political indebtedness to this person. And that can be very dangerous because

00:15:32.640 - 00:16:27.440

families become dependent upon this person to help them get loans, become dependent upon this person because they might be working on their land and therefore receiving their wages. They are dependent upon this person in the hopes that their political strategies will also help protect them, which isn't always the case. And so it actually is a very it has the potential, let me say, and most likely played out in many ways to be a highly, not only hierarchical, but on some level abusive type of situation because of the ways of subservient, being subservient and being subordinated to this either person or this particular family that is the head of all these other families.

00:16:27.760 - 00:17:03.760

And so that can get really precarious especially if you're a person who is poor, without resources, have no type of privileges, whether by gender or class or ethnic identity or geopolitical space. And so Jesus was quite aware of that entire situation. Herod was on some level a pater of Palestine.

00:17:03.760 - 00:17:39.760

That's not the language that we see in the Bible, but in terms of doing the history, the ways in which Herod used the various Herods, mind you, use their power in order to have various families to submit to their own ideals. And so it's pretty dangerous. And so when Jesus turns it on this head, this is where you get an understanding that Jesus's rhetoric was a rhetoric of resistance, right?

00:17:39.760 - 00:18:01.040

So Caesar and the Roman apparatus was a jealous mistress on some level. And what I mean by that is it was, or jealous mister, what I mean by that is there is an understanding that, yeah, you can worship other ways.

00:18:01.040 - 00:18:23.280

You can do other things, but what you will not forget is that Romus is superior. What you will not forget is that Caesar is the Lord and is the reason why you have what you have. What if you're having further conversation about another lordship? What if you're having a conversation by another Messiah?

00:18:23.520 - 00:18:44.640

This messianic language is not language that's exclusive to Judaism. This messianic language was also language that Rome used in terms of understanding the work of Caesar. So this kingdom language, this kingdom language, actually has far more political tentacles to it than it may appear.

00:18:45.040 - 00:19:21.440

Yeah. And one of the, you say, you know, Jesus hears we've been aware of this, but one of the things you point out in the article is, you know, so you're describing this, I mean, literally patriarchy, hierarchy, where Caesar or the Caesars are at the top, Herods or the Herods and the other kings and the other kingdoms within the empire are below him, and then you have a hierarchy of families below that, all of whom are then dependent upon, for their very survival, the patera familius who's above them. But all that in a context, as you say, there, in which 90% of the population

00:19:21.840 - 00:19:40.880

is living beneath the poverty line. Which also, you talk about a jealous mistress. Well, it's also a mistress or a mister who's very well aware that if 90% of your people are above or below the poverty line, you better keep a firm grip on things or you're going to have an open rebellion on your hands, right? Which actually happens in 73.

00:19:40.880 - 00:20:19.440

And you actually have in Jesus' time even a rebellion to the zealots are in the countryside who are rebelling. So there's a, you need to have a force to sustain that and language that's undoing that by giving a different vision of kingdom, it then becomes extraordinarily dangerous language to the authorities. I mean, this is just a wonderful picture for us to understand Jesus's context and suddenly you have more of a sense of the threat that was posed, why he's crucified, the whole question, render under Caesar's, all of that, all these things, the degree to which those questions had mortal implications.

00:20:20.800 - 00:20:35.360

in this dialogue is significant. And it's interesting here because what you end up with just then is then this tight tie between kingdom and kingdom. Whereas sometimes we think of these as two very different concepts. One is private, it's about the family.

00:20:35.760 - 00:21:01.280

The other is about political reigns. But actually that's a modern way of splitting those two concepts, which you're kind of pointing out doesn't apply in Jesus' time. Let me segue you back to where I cut you off from, which is then to do the same thing, which you started to unpack already, since in some ways in the 1st century, kingdom and kingdom are overlapping modalities in people's lives.

00:21:01.440 - 00:21:20.160

But let me go back to that and have you just pick up on that as an overlapping modality. And then also how Jesus's language then is very much transforming what people would have understood to be kingdom quite naturally at the time, which looks very different, as you're arguing, from what he's putting forward. Can you unpack that a bit? sure.

00:21:20.160 - 00:22:01.600

So the thing with, I think one place to start is the people never probably had an idealized understanding of kingdom. Kingdom, outside of thinking about the Davidic line of David and Solomon, the kingdoms within for the Jewish population in 1st century Palestine is one that is hugely shadowed by all the empires that have come and had conquered. of this small little region.

00:22:02.440 - 00:23:00.720

And so, you include Babylon, you include Persia, you include Assyria, then you have Greece, and then you have Rome. And in about a 600, 700 year time span, Palestine was an independent nation for just under a century, like maybe about 60 years or so. So they're very aware of the danger of kingdom, let alone the fact if you look at the Old Testament texts, and particularly in 1st and 2nd Kings, and also in 1st and 2nd Chronicles, you have even among themselves, more often than not, you have stories of kings who did not obey God, who were disobedient in a variety of ways that the way the text describes it adds to the harm and the destruction that they actually receive.

00:23:01.040 - 00:23:26.960

So in some ways, you're like, in what world would kingdom have been an ideal situation? In 1 Samuel, there's an illustration there that I think I include in the essay, when the people of Israel have had judges for centuries. or at least decades in terms of leaders. And, they're now among other nations.

00:23:27.200 - 00:23:44.480

And like, we want a king, we want a king too, just like everybody else. And Eli's like, are you sure about that? Because once you have a king, that means your sons and daughters are no longer yours. That means your land will be confiscated for his use.

00:23:44.800 - 00:24:10.400

your livestock will be confiscated for your use. When you want a king, when you're asked, what you're asking for is you no longer having the type of independence and agency as people as you do now. So even at the outset, the scriptures delineate that this whole kingdom thing isn't necessarily the best thing ever. So what you have here

00:24:11.120 - 00:25:10.480

In Jesus' gospel, in Jesus' good news that he's bringing about a kingdom of God, it is one that is supposed to basically be the antithesis of all of their understanding of what a kingdom is. It is 1 in which the poor are uplifted and not constantly pushed further and further down in terms of their own social and economic standing. It's one in which people can get healing as opposed to maybe finding a miracle worker or having all this money in order to have the type of nutrition to be able to just eat and to have access to water and to spirits and other things that wouldn't actually help accelerate how quickly their bodies will ail and so on and so forth.

00:25:11.200 - 00:25:33.360

He's bringing a kind of good news that will liberate the oppressed. 90% of the people are below subsistence level. in the way in which the economy is built upon that. That's oppression in of itself, but along the fact that under Roman rule, their bodies aren't their own.

00:25:33.480 - 00:25:54.480

What do I mean by that? means that they could, that the Roman authority could take people away in terms of servitude and forced labor. That means that they can be killed or abused without anyone coming to their rescue.

00:25:55.240 - 00:26:43.440

And so in so many ways, Jesus is like, no, I have, I'm giving you an understanding of a way of operating and being that is not a zero-sum game. That is a way in which you're not in competition with everybody just to survive, but a way of being in which we will bring together our resources and we will bring together, bring ourselves together to uplift and to learn and to grow as opposed to deride and to set aside and to do those types of things that renders communities apart. And then a key element to all of this is this isn't Jesus just preaching to the poor.

00:26:45.480 - 00:27:01.200

And we often come to that. And I'm going to kind of lean a little bit in my dissertation work just a bit in terms of this element that I want to lift up. In Luke 18, verses 1 through 30.

00:27:02.040 - 00:27:28.480

Jesus is telling parables and you're clear that he's among a crowd of people. The first two, verses 1 through 8 is the parable of the widow and judge, verses 9 through 14 is the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Verses 15 through 17, Jesus is out of storytelling mode and is an example of Jesus's mission in which he's blessing the little children.

00:27:29.040 - 00:27:46.240

In Luke particularly, the story is Jesus is blessing the infants. And then starting at verse 18 is the story of a certain ruler, rich ruler, asking what he can do to be saved. And why do I bring up those stories other than the fact to just plug in my my dissertation for a half a second.

00:27:46.640 - 00:28:30.800

It's because this crowd included, if you actually back up into the last verses or the last pericope or major text in chapter 17 that immediately precedes chapter 18, Jesus' crowd actually includes Pharisees, it includes rulers, as well as including the poor, as well as including tax collectors and various laborers. And so he's not just messaging this one particular group. His message, his conversations are with folks who are a part of the socioeconomic and political landscape in different ways.

00:28:31.520 - 00:29:05.040

And so this coming together in terms of sharing of resources and sharing of privileges is also a conversation that he's having with those with privilege. Pharisees were a group that had a lot of privilege. They had a political privilege as a unit. as well as having some economic privilege, if you dig a little deeper in the story of the Pharisee and a tax collector, you have to ask the question of, how is it that you have so much in your abundance that you can give 10% of everything?

00:29:06.360 - 00:29:31.520

where that 10% is not something that will mean food from one of your children or what have you. This Spictus Pharisee in this particular story is one with means. The certain ruler, right? In Luke, he doesn't go away sad in terms of when Jesus says to him that he must give everything,

00:29:32.200 - 00:29:55.600

or distribute everything. But the fact is that you understand as a ruler, he has much to give and to distribute what he has among the poor, which isn't Jesus telling him to become poor. It's Jesus telling him to share what he has as part of being in community together. What kind of kingdom is that?

00:29:56.360 - 00:30:24.160

Right. What kind of kingdom is that when you're asking your rulers to dispossess enough so that everyone around you may not have to come crawling and begging for you, begging from you in order to have what you need? let alone the fact that this is a stark contrast. And Jesus is using his rhetoric very powerfully against the Roman Empire, against that which is happening in his own sociopolitical situation.

00:30:24.800 - 00:30:39.200

And it is in those ways in which he's clear, he knows where his message is going to take him. Yeah. He knows what's happening. It makes me think, you know, we, oh, I'm sorry, keep going.

00:30:40.000 - 00:30:57.360

I was going to say, just real quick, in Luke, there's an example of the Pharisees who basically tell him, you know, tone it down, Herod is looking for a way to get you. Well, why would Herod be seeking him out in the 1st place? Herod was not known as a religious figure. right?

00:30:57.760 - 00:31:23.440

Because the message that he's offering is so powerful. We also, we always think about resistance in terms of military resistance as a way of overcoming oppression, but the power of rhetoric is deeper and it's longer lasting. And so the folks understood that what Jesus was preaching was deeper and longer lasting, and that's why he can go from Luke to Acts. Yes.

00:31:23.920 - 00:31:47.680

And he's tying into the prophetic tradition as well, right? Completely. And the prophets are, of course, notoriously short-lived because the kings they prophesied also tended to not want them around for very long. As you're speaking, I'm also thinking, you know, I was going to ask you later about the Lord's Prayer, of course, which you already mentioned, but we say it so quickly, thy kingdom come, thy will be down on earth as it is in heaven.

00:31:47.920 - 00:32:08.480

But in the context you're talking about, in which everyone is really quite aware of what a kingdom looks like and what an oppressive kingdom looks like. I mean, you're talking about 700 years of oppression culminating in 90% of the population living beneath subsistence level under a kingdom. So these people know all the downside of his kingdom.

00:32:08.720 - 00:32:36.640

But then Jesus is pointing something very different, as you say, in which, you know, his message of a kingdom is going to be a complete disruption and upending of this, which makes me think that when we pray that Lord's Prayer, really, what in the 1st century they may have heard was the thy, right? Thy kingdom come. We're not talking to any kingdom, we're talking about thy kingdom come, which means immediately that is some of the most heretical

00:32:38.160 - 00:33:00.600

anti-Caesar, anti-Herod, anti-Patefamilius, anti-this impressive structure, you can imagine. I mean, that is what gets Jesus crucified, is the threat that his rhetoric is posing there. And I wonder, hearing that thy, all of a sudden, I'm going to hear that thy a lot more now when I say thy kingdom, that this is not just any the old kingdom.

00:33:00.600 - 00:33:22.720

This is actually a radically prophetic, different kingdom. And that Jesus is Hearers, in a way maybe we don't, would have been immediately resonating with that and understanding it. You've said so much here, and my questions are not just all kerfluey. We're completely-- but let me pick up with-- there was something definitely I wanted to go.

00:33:25.200 - 00:33:51.840

let me have you reflect for a moment on that, then this tie between kinship and kingdom. Because the other thing you talk about is not just the peril of kingdom language, which we're aware of, but also sometimes which we don't think to say as quickly, the peril of kingdom language. And can you talk about that a bit more? The promise of it, of course, is our idealized, you know, what we all would dream of as the family.

00:33:52.480 - 00:34:03.040

And we all seem to have a vision of that. But you also, you take some time to talk about how that could be perilous as well. Could you comment on that? Yeah,

00:34:06.320 - 00:34:29.600

It's an area that I will try to talk about with some sensitivity. Not all family systems and units have been helpful. For a number of people, there's trauma attached to being part of a family. And I think that we have to be, we have to pay attention to that.

00:34:29.640 - 00:35:00.240

I think I recall in seminary years ago, how we need to be sensitive in our God talk and constantly referring to God as Father, because there's an understanding that not every father was a good father, not every situation was a good situation. And I think that's something we have to be mindful of. And I think also we have to be mindful that every kinship

00:35:01.920 - 00:35:28.080

doesn't result in the way that we would like it to be. So what do I mean by that? one area of which I mean by that, particularly one, in our Christian community, we tend to use kinship language as inner circle language in reference to other Christians and other believers. And as I point in the essay, you know, there is biblical

00:35:30.080 - 00:35:57.520

references for that. I mean, Jesus says, those who are my sisters and brothers are those who are hearers and doers of God's word. Well, we can understand the hearers and doers of God's words to be other disciples, to be other Christians. And so we can have a very narrow view of who the kinship actually is in reference to.

00:35:58.120 - 00:36:36.640

And so that means we can be very very good in sharing and having compassion and wanting justice and advocating with and for other people who share our same values, our same beliefs, who we consider as kin. But then that means that there are folks that we're considering who are not kin. And therefore, we don't necessarily extend that same level of generosity, that same level of compassion, that same level of justice, that same level of concern for those who fall outside of that circle.

00:36:36.920 - 00:37:26.400

And unfortunately, as a church, we do that a fair amount. You know, we have a lot of conversation around what's happening in our church community, in our church homes, in our denomination. But when it comes to being in our neighborhoods or in our cities, here in Austin as an example, the ways in which we have people who are being zoned out because of schools or so on and so forth in places, I mean, for a variety of reasons, we may not see those folks as our kin and therefore extend the same type of advocacy on the behalf of others than we would for those we feel a closer tie to.

00:37:26.880 - 00:38:03.440

And I think in the name of discipleship, I think in the name of spreading the gospel, that's problematic. I think that plays into why you have a number of people who get a bad taste in their mouths when they hear about Christians and evangelicals and so on and so forth, because they think that there's this insular understanding of view in terms of who they understand should be respected and should be understood and heard and keeping everyone out. So, that in itself is also a bit of a challenge.

00:38:04.080 - 00:38:17.480

We use kinship language and Bill, you can appreciate this. Kinship language doesn't always include all creations. Right? I mean, we don't necessarily understand, animals and the earth.

00:38:18.000 - 00:38:32.120

Nowadays you say kinship, almost everyone when we say families, it would just be natural for everyone's thoughts to be completely anthropocentric. Yes. Which also is not consistent with the prophets. Exactly.

00:38:32.120 - 00:38:56.880

And so we can have this very narrow view in terms of our stewardship of the earth. And what does that mean? So yeah, I do think that this kindom language can be a bit perilous. And last but not least, I want to add, I don't know, I can't recall, forgive me if I include this in the essay, but I do want to say it now is we can use kinship language as an excuse to not be political.

00:38:58.440 - 00:39:26.560

And what do I mean by that? We can use, we can separate how we understand we operate out of our Christian values in the name of church with operating in our Christian values and the way that we vote. Operating from Christian values and the way in which we engage city conversations or legislative conversations.

00:39:26.720 - 00:40:04.240

Now, there's some communities, whether it's out of kinship or something else, or within the Christian family, who run straight to it. So it's not an either or. I'm not saying that whatsoever, but I will say that there are parts of our Christian community who, not in the name of assimilating, bending the world to our vision and our view, but just in the name of extending the justice that we believe God has called us through the Torah and through the prophets and how we operate in our daily lives.

00:40:05.160 - 00:40:37.600

And so I think that kinship language can be what happens in my house. or what happens in the houses that come together in the name of our share of faith and our discipleship. But that type of language does not go into the world, really. And is an example to the world by how we operate politically and not just in how nice we are or how we give to, or in our philanthropy or in our givings in many ways.

00:40:38.240 - 00:41:12.960

that it needs to extend into the decisions that we participate in society. And that's why I'm also a huge proponent of kingship, because kingship, you can't deny the political elements of what that word means. If we go back to the Lord's Prayer with thy kingdom come, thy will be done in this moment, in our context right now here in the US in 2021, I think often times when we think thy kingdom, we might associate that with the church.

00:41:14.400 - 00:41:50.000

We might associate that a little bit more closely in terms of our Christian community, that element of thy kingdom come. What would it mean if we applied the, because you had no church, right, in Jesus' moment, Jesus is creating a movement, right? There isn't that type of, this type of community that's fully formed and function with presbyters and bishops and all the things, right? So what would it look like if in that prayer, when we say, thy kingdom come,

00:41:50.640 - 00:42:28.560

that we are also envisioning the same level of disruptive social upheaval reversal in the elements of our society that are highly problematic, being the work that we're called to do with God. And it's not to say, which I think, I do believe that Jesus was not binary. I don't think it was a ones and zeros in terms of understanding the good or the promise and the perils, the kingdom. I think that, or kingdom, I think that there's a sense that in many ways, these elements are helpful.

00:42:28.560 - 00:42:59.760

You know, who doesn't want to aqueduct and have water flowing in places where you didn't have water flow before, right? So it's not necessarily to say that you tear it all down. But there are the elements that are oppressive, the elements that are against what is understood to be God's command to both love God and to love one another in these very substantial ways. You've unpacked the Ten Commandments and unpacked Leviticus and other and the prophets along those lines.

00:43:00.520 - 00:43:28.160

What would that really look like? And I think that's the part where the church is most challenged in terms of of the way in which we have conflated partisanism and politics. We don't want you to talk about politics because that means you're talking about GOP or Republican versus Democrat versus Libertarian.

00:43:29.200 - 00:44:00.000

And so we associate being political with being partisan. Being political is understanding and recognizing political comes from the Greek police or poleis, which just means city or people. In terms of us really engaging the place that we live with other people, the text is calling us to do that. And I think in saying that kingdom

00:44:00.080 - 00:44:36.640

come, I think that kingdom language is around being involved on a societal level and not just on this ecclesial level or not just on this more eschatological level in terms of thinking about the end times and what we're doing along that work, as opposed to, well, the realized eschatology is how do you make it happen on earth as it is in heaven? And that's the challenge that we're constantly working with every day. And all this reminded me of, I mean, I'm a theologian in part, right?

00:44:36.640 - 00:44:47.120

So I'm full. Yes. So Calvin comes to mind and the fact that he dedicated his institutes to King Francis, was it?

00:44:47.120 - 00:45:03.360

I think King Francis. I might be wrong about the King, but the King of France, at any rate. And what he then did in the institutes after this very, you know, sycophatic dedication, right, to the king.

00:45:03.680 - 00:45:44.640

But in the course of the institutes, he says, well, this is what a Christian king or a godly king or a real king would do. And what he lays out is the foundations for rebellion against a king who, it turns out, isn't a legitimate king, which in the next centuries actually is used that way, to overthrow and to resist kingdoms, literally, which are, on that basis, not kingdoms. And so, and it strikes me, I mean, we, in some ways, the, we talk about kingdoms being old, old institutions, but if you think as a kingdom, a kingdom being hierarchies,

00:45:45.360 - 00:46:27.920

which resemble that part of familias, where people's very ability to survive is dependent upon their fidelity to people who have the power of the economy, their economic survival over them, with really no democratic regress. I mean, not only is the world full of actual literal kingdoms still, which would want to be, which could be easily and quickly critiqued in this, but also de facto kingdoms, both at the national and maybe at the legal in terms of transnational regimes or other sort of institutionalized structures. And this then becomes a route for a protest against all of that and as an alternative vision.

00:46:27.920 - 00:46:53.320

And sorry, my screen saver just went on. I'm sorry about that. In some ways, that makes us all the more pertinent. And then the key thing, I like what you're doing here, let me combine a couple of questions, is often I've heard this is a fairly strident debate on both sides, kingdom or kingdom.

00:46:53.920 - 00:47:42.720

And some people are just enraged if you use kingdom because kingdom's the language, and other people are just enraged if you use kingdom because kingdom's oppressive and kingdom is what we're after. And I was wondering if that was a part of your history in this debate, and if you were making a move that was not just about this debate, but about all sorts of debates that kind of end up focusing on this or that term, when you unpack the terms, it turns out there's actually a fullness of understanding where perhaps the people actually who are disagreeing have a large area of shared concern. It's just a matter of expressing things more fully and being aware of how one's using language and pointing out both, I mean, to go back to your title, the promise and the peril that can be associated with,

00:47:43.960 - 00:48:05.760

almost any term. I'm not sure of a movement or a critical phrase which has not been misappropriated and used against its intended ends. And I think of this across faith and wisdom traditions where this happens. And so it seems to me like you're also making a gesture

00:48:06.480 - 00:48:23.840

in terms of the way you proceed on this issue, which has implications not just for this issue, but for how we engage in these sorts of debates. I was wondering if that was in your background of your exposure to this, and that was part of what you were trying to do. Yes. So

00:48:25.040 - 00:48:54.840

I am aware of the strident viewpoints on either side for using the language kingdom and kingdom. In some ecclesial circles, kingdom is coming more greatly into the fore. And with that, they're pushing kingdom back. And then those who are pro-kingdom, sometimes it has far more do with the literal,

00:48:55.080 - 00:49:20.400

pluralism in terms of the translation of Basilelia in the Greek, which is actually kingdom and not kingdom, as part of it. And for those who want to be as true as possible in terms of being close to the text, you know, wanting to use kingdom and continue with kingdom. And frankly, you know, it's in our ear, right? How long have

00:49:22.320 - 00:50:00.160

we've read the King James Version of the Bible and how we've used kingdom and hymns and liturgy and so on and so forth. I think sometimes it has just to do with this is the word that I'm familiar with and therefore we need to continue. Well, let me break, let me, because what you say also in the article and actually citing Sasi Diaz on this is she thinks she has a more critical, theoretical sort of read on why that certain language has actually endured, which contrary to what it should mean.

00:50:00.160 - 00:50:20.840

Could you comment on that too? Because she wants to say, it's not an accident that this is the language we've become familiar with and that we've heard a lot. I just want to make sure you don't miss that here because it's a great. She makes an argument that the kingdom language also holds because those who are in power and who are in those places of being

00:50:20.920 - 00:50:38.440

in the kingdom want to continue to uplift it as part of the conversation, a part of the lingua franca, as you would. And I would not disagree. I think there's some truth to that. I wouldn't say it's the only reason.

00:50:38.440 - 00:51:33.280

I do think it's a line of reasoning that has contributed to that language over centuries and not just, you know, in the last few decades. The reason why I am a proponent of both terms is because, I do think rhetorically, they both have their strengths. I think that rhetorically, we're actually using both language, both terms from time to time. I do think that when you are in spaces of community that is so good at creating opposing teams, you will want to use kendom language to say that we're all here together with the same purpose, the same shared values, moving in the same trajectory,

00:51:34.000 - 00:52:05.200

prayerfully, faithfully living out the will of God. And so the Oscar Romero quote that is included that Asasa Diaz had in her article, when the soldiers had come in order to take over and to execute so many people, Bishop Romero, you know, says, we're all the same blood. Like, why would you kill your family?

00:52:05.200 - 00:52:22.600

Like, that's not how family work. That's part of the argument that he makes. He is hoping rhetorically the sense of, you know, you're killing your brother and your sister, would prevent what happens, which is the slaying of hundreds of people, including himself.

00:52:24.320 - 00:53:22.480

There are times, though, even the language around kingdom that it is understood to be so oppressive and hierarchical, which is true, but it's also helpful in terms of thinking about our call to help transform society. A kingdom, my family is an, I mean, we might be able to have an imprint in society in some ways, but my family isn't called, necessarily to be this huge force in transforming society, the way in which the kingdom of God, as Jesus proclaimed, is called to do. And what we lose in not using that kingdom language is the sense of responsibility to greater society, to the greater whole, and our spreading of the good news.

00:53:22.720 - 00:53:39.200

And the good news goes back to liberating the oppressed, healing the sick, releasing the captives. Sometimes we forget about, you know, the oppressed and the captives. It almost sounds like you're quoting the New Testament there. I know.

00:53:39.200 - 00:54:12.960

I mean, how dare I in so many ways. And so I do think that we need both. I think that one, we are doing ourselves a disservice if we think we have the language to encapsulate the divine work. I think that we do a disservice when we think our one word best describes what we're understand God is doing.

00:54:14.560 - 00:54:55.440

I think God's imagination and ability to literally create out of nothing helps us to understand that our language, our human language, may be flawed in being in fully describing what God is calling us to do. And so I do think that's why I think that there is definitely space for kingdom and kingdom language and why I would be in disagreement in trying to use one word over against the other.

00:54:55.760 - 00:55:32.480

Because I think in that way, we miss the point of the expanse of even of the expansiveness of the kingdom itself, where we're losing the point of the expansiveness of God's project through us. Yeah, I think that's what I love about your essay is in the end, it feels to me, and maybe you could say where you would agree or disagree with us, in the end, what you're saying is to people who have defended, you know, kingdom to the hilt, What you need to do is be very sure that you're aware of in naming the limitations of kingdom language, both because it can be apolitical and because a lot of kinship systems are not the ideal.

00:55:33.200 - 00:56:16.720

And so you also have to, and the people who do kingship language, kingdom language, need to be very aware of the dangers of the way it can implicitly be misunderstood to affirm the wrong sort of kingdoms, plus the patriarchy that's just embedded within the language. But on the other hand, to be able to take time to be sure to not just defend language, because it happens to be our language and we like it, but defend it because it's a picture of a counterpolitical movement. So suddenly the people who want to use kingdom language are really the political revolutionaries in the sense that Jesus was.

00:56:17.360 - 00:56:52.480

And at that point, you find them very much in kinship with the kinship people, because a lot of them are very politically interested. So what I like about the promise of your article is not just that it doesn't pursue this either or and what sometimes is vehement antagonism, but it shows where both groups actually have a lot of overlap in their concerns and should have a lot of shared territory in how they explain and interpret the use of both terms. And then maybe they're going to be wanting to use both terms with those explanations.

00:56:52.480 - 00:56:59.280

I like that. And the one thing I always say in my entry to theology class is don't try to find the right word for God. It doesn't exist.

00:56:59.440 - 00:57:13.720

They all, we don't have that. I think what you're saying, there's no perfect language. Multiply. Multiply your metaphors and keep track of where they can be harmful and where they can be good and just keep that in play and forget about getting the perfect word.

00:57:13.720 - 00:57:32.800

And I felt like your essay in very concrete, historically informed, detailed ways unpack that in this controversy. And that's why I think I really And I'm sure your dissertation does, it sounds like, to some degree as well. Is that, would that, did you, I want to make sure that, because I'm kind of summarizing what I would say.

00:57:32.800 - 00:57:42.880

I wish you had written the summary. You insolated it brilliantly, though. You really did. Let me raise, just, let's see.

00:57:43.360 - 00:58:13.200

All right, I want to just raise, One more issue, and then I just want to ask if you have practical advice for pastors or Christian educators in this review. So you emphasize the way, of course, Ada Maria Isazi Diaz, am I am I saying her name correctly? Is that correct?

00:58:13.200 - 00:58:23.760

As far as I know, yeah. Okay. And was a Cuban-American theologian, in some ways the mother of Mujerista.

00:58:24.880 - 00:59:14.400

Theology of Mujer is just a woman, so this is kind of a, and Mujerista is just a way of saying it's not feminist or woman as a kind of Cuban-American for her theology coming out of a Latinx perspective. But then it's not really clear precisely how that plays out in a pivotal way in the way you use and interpret her work. And at the same time, especially today, when there's so much emphasis on the role identity plays in our understanding and our interpretation and keeping track of that, it's impossible not to notice that you as a black woman, New Testament scholar, dealing with language,

00:59:16.400 - 00:59:43.920

to what I could see, don't really address it in any way which is identity specific. And I'm wondering, is that intentional? Is there something worse that you unconsciously or consciously are looking for us to take away from that? And so I just wanted to have some comment on that, particularly given this emphasis in the current context, it's almost impossible not to notice.

00:59:44.720 - 01:00:06.480

as somehow significant in its apparent absence. Yeah. I did not write this from a particularly a womanist perspective per se. And I didn't write it, you know, from a particularly African-American hermeneutic, hermeneutical way.

01:00:08.400 - 01:00:54.160

But at the same time, issues as relates to class, issues as it relates to politics, economics, and the ways in which I talk about kingdom language are just as much a part of my issues and concerns that are rooted in my class, that are rooted in my gender and rooted in my ethnicity as it would be for other people. And so it's not necessarily, well, one, sometimes, Bill, people can lose the argument because they're so focused on the personal identifying elements. And

01:00:55.600 - 01:01:27.920

that I can't say that I wrote it saying I'm going to not completely write myself into this essay as much as the way in which I'm very attentive, at least I try to be attentive to this argument as it plays out in all the communities in which I'm a part of and interact. And my communities in which I am a part of and I interact definitely includes the black community. It definitely includes being part of communities of women.

01:01:28.160 - 01:02:10.800

It also includes being in a city, in a society that is, according to the census, just most recently, slightly below 50% that is white. this being an ordained minister in a denomination that has a variety of sociological parties who are part of it in terms of race, in terms of class, in terms of gender. In some ways, Carl Jung is known to be set to say that which is universal is most particular. or that which is most particular is universal.

01:02:11.120 - 01:02:57.600

So my particular story still speaks to a more universal conversation. And this universal conversation speaks to my particular story without me saying, as a black woman, I argue, I believe, I see. What I hope that you see is as a as a budding scholar who is deeply interested in the message of the biblical text, who is shaped and informed by the life of all the churches that she has been a part of, and who recognizes for herself that her discipleship is not just one that happens within the context of a congregation, but in my lived experiences outside the walls of the church.

01:02:58.320 - 01:03:30.400

This is what I think some of the conversation needs to tend to. And so it's from that perspective that I write. I'm very grateful for the particularity through which Ana Maria Zaca Diaz writes using her Mujerista theology in understanding what is family and what is kinship and how she defines kinship. But I also know that her

01:03:31.560 - 01:04:09.760

description of family isn't the only, isn't exclusively Hispanic, Latinx description of family. It's one in which many communities would agree is what family is and how family behaves. And so I think that there is some merit, of course, in bringing in the more personal social location as part of that conversation. For me, that element is part of my kingdom work, part of my participation prayerfully, and the work of God has this political element.

01:04:09.760 - 01:04:43.320

And to be a black American in the US is political in of itself in so many ways, and the ways in which I have to engaged society. But at the same time, that burden shouldn't be exclusively mine, right? That burden of action, that burden of advocacy, that burden towards, you know, wanting to have justice for everyone and wanting to have access for everyone and accessibility for everyone is not the burden for those for whom those privileges and that which shouldn't be privileges don't exist.

01:04:43.600 - 01:05:08.080

But it's also a burden of those of us who have the privilege, who have the access, who are free to to engage. And so I think that is another reason why subconsciously, I don't feel like I have to write this as an African-American woman, because the issues at hand and the conversations I hope to have is one in which we all engage and we all see ourselves to be a part of. Yeah.

01:05:08.480 - 01:05:40.080

And that's where I thank you for that answer. And it, because it's kind of what I had a hunch afterwards is in a sense, with regard to writing from overtly, radically perspectival perspective and writing with reference, of course we all bring our perspectives in, writing with reference to more shared qualities, that you actually kind of performed a balancing act between those two. similar to what you did with Kingdom and Kingdom, simply by the way that you pursued this essay with your identity.

01:05:40.080 - 01:05:59.600

And I like what you said, like for me, of course, given all the norms, it would be easy for me to be the blank slate, right? But I'm Italian. So when you say kinship to an Italian, that is very particular sets of meanings, which are indexed there. We all come from that in some way or another.

01:06:00.040 - 01:07:53.600

But nonetheless, you chose to spoke to a level at which we all know what it is, to live under oppressive systems where people use their power over us in subtle ways to control, to marginalize, to disempower. And we all know what it is to be in families which are, probably most of us have seen families which are relatively healthy, and most of us probably have seen dynamics in families which are unhealthy. And so we bring that in, and we go with the ideal, and we come from our unique perspectives, but then there's this area of overlap. And so there's no absolutism there for you there either. I feel like I'm losing my thread here a little bit. But you focused on areas where, while there might be other topics you'd address, where the identity issue would be coming in more particularly, and the same for me, where I'd need to name that more particularly, And so you're not denying that. We're not denying there's places for that. At the same time, there's a place for this other gathering where there's going to be a lot of overlap. John Wall's notion of overlap kept coming into mind. So you have this area, particularly area that you don't want to lose, but you also don't want to lose that area of overlap. And I thought that in some ways you performed that by addressing, you know, speaking, identifying Sasi Diaz, particularly with a Muharista Cuban-American identity, but then focusing also on this area of overlap. And I thought that was also really interesting, how that was kind of all playing out in a subtext, for me at any rate. Well, I mean, here's the final question. And I just want to, I'm going to kind of just close it after that, but I just want to thank you for what I think is just such an insightful and valuable

01:07:55.000 - 01:09:23.520

an interesting essay. And actually, in some ways, maybe I'm wrong here, but sometimes these debates in the academy in particular are so vehement that making the move you're making here actually is a bit daring when you're talking about, to some degree, in some of the circles we're in, rehabilitating the kingdom language. and such. So I thought that was also daring on your part. But on the whole, in terms of what you hope for, both within the academy, in the classrooms, and also for pastors and Christian educators and what others take away from this and move out and how they use this in their lives, in their teaching, in their liturgies, in their sermons, what would you hope What would be the learnings that would come from this takeaway from your essay? Well, one hope is for those who've never heard of the kind of language that they will be introduced to this theological term. and that they will sit with it as a possible term to include in their ecclesial spaces or in their sermons or in their Bible studies and to do deep dives with it, as much as they can and it makes sense. And the same with the kingdom language. I think

01:09:24.480 - 01:11:11.360

Like I said, some of us are so far removed from the kingdom language that the true version that we have in our mind is one that is represented by, I hate to say, Disney or a Christian version of it. Right? And so. The Magic Kingdom is a kingdom that does not threaten the status quo. Exactly, And I don't say that by no means and disrespect, as much as we might need to think critically about when we use kingdom language, what are we imagining? What are we envisioning? And in that, what are the promises and the perils of it? Especially when you root that kingdom language more closely to Jesus's context, more closely to what the people were experiencing, and why would they ask for God's kingdom to come, and what would that look like? My hope is that just further study and conversation about these terms and how they apply in our lives today would be the best thing ever, I know, I think, and to not use them in an either or fashion, but to recognize that there is space in our God talk for both of these words and even more words that I haven't even thought of or considered in trying to describe God's activity and God's call for us to participate in that activity. One of the things I enjoy most about teaching at Austin Seminary is that we recognize that these questions that we're asking, these

01:11:12.080 - 01:13:07.880

thoughts that we are pondering have real life implications in many of our students' lives and those who they're called to lead and to serve. And it's a true gift and privilege to have this type of conversation, not in theoretics, but in the sense of, you know, what are the praxis elements? And please hear, I'm not downing the conversation and the theoretics because you have to get there sometimes to get to the praxis or in describing the praxis, right? Praxis comes first and the theory comes afterwards. But how do we continue to have these conversations of examining language that we use all the time, every day in order to be conscientious of our intention and when we are asking for us to live as the kingdom of God and when we're asking for God's kingdom to come? Yes, And I am going to say something because in a way we didn't get to the concrete, but we're set up for it, right? Especially, it seems to me anyway, and this is statistically the case, we're living in times of growing national and international inequities. And also growing disparities in political power, So even in nations which have democratic names, often increasingly they're functioning de facto as kingdoms in the old Roman Empire sense. So, I mean, that's where to bring up any of those examples concretely, then we would have to do very concrete analysis. We couldn't just do that off the top of our heads here or quickly, that takes more analysis. But what you have set us up for now that we've understood the political and social ramifications of both kinship and

01:13:08.000 - 01:14:44.640

kingship cause is the many ways where wherever we're seeing a growth in inequities, a disempowerment of people to have voice in all the ways, for instance, Gutierrez talks about a cultural voice, an economic voice, a political voice. In all of those ways, we are immediately called by both kingdom and kingdom language, by the gospel language you're talking about to actually speak out and make a difference. And that's a very concrete call. Is that That's my big amen to your essay. And let it be done. Right. Well, Bridget, thank you for a stimulating essay. Our talk has gone now for far longer than it should have, but I think it's been great. And so I'm hoping people will take time to discuss it. You've taken a turn, a debate, which can be fraught in the church. And this is a good example of what scholarship can do. Through good and patient and passionate scholarship and reading of the New Testament, you've found a way to let us see past maybe what might have been oppositions and maybe see a place for common ground, which is profoundly prophetic and profoundly consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. So Thank you so much for that contribution. And we're going to miss you here at Austin Seminary, but we're going to be excited to see the way in which you guide Westminster John Knox Press. So thank you very much, Bridget. Thank you, Bill. It was my pleasure.