Warning: Dialectical Theology Ahead, Big/Tiny Jesus

By Kelly

Today, inspired by Caitlin's entry of the Barmen Declaration, I'm thinking of Karl Barth. Specifically, I'm thinking of Jesus and his context. I think he was a little subtle. I know that this may seem like a really strange way to think about Jesus. Jesus performed grand miracles, he turned the social hierarchy on its head, and he challenged social norms. His ministry does not appear subtle to us. But when I think about it more, Jesus was a very unobtrusive man. He blended in (for the most part) except for when he completely stood out. Jesus is completely subtle, and a the same time, completely grand. Barth would find such paradoxical language appropriate language to use when discussing God, I think he'd be ok with this. I think he'd say, “Good job, Kelly,” or more likely, “Gute Arbeit, Kelly.”

So here's where I'm going with this: Jesus does the huge things, he make huge changes. But who calls them huge? What is his context? Yes, for the disciples their calls are life affirming events, someone Jesus healed would have had their quality of life transformed, those who heard his teachings saw completely new perspectives, but what about the rest of the world? This one man changed humanity for eternity and that is grand, magnificent, huge, enormous, [insert adjective] here. But to the rest of the planet he was just another guy, a tiny dot interacting with other dots.

Have you ever been to a movie that starts out with a shot of our solar system? The camera glides over to planet Earth, completely overshadowed by Jupiter and the sun. It pans into a hemisphere, then zooms into a continent, country, province, small town, and finally to the main character doing something completely normal and ordinary like sitting on a park bench taking with his friends. It makes me, sitting in the audience, feel tiny. I think it's cool that Jesus was also tiny. And in his context, he was even smaller than he would be today. There were no breaking CNN news reports scrolling across the bottom of screens reading, “Today's strange news: a Jewish carpenter called Jesus of Nazareth has healed a man diagnosed with leprosy, this is Mr. Nazareth's 26 th reported healing.” People in Turkey did not turn to one another and ask, “So did hear about this Jesus guy?”. Christ was tiny and tiny by choice. This amazes me because I have no idea why he chose it.

Barth points out in Church Dogmatics that the man Jesus, is truly exalted but is not as such a great man. “He has nothing of what the world counts as recognition and authority and honor and success.”

If Jesus had been a prince, born into a rich kingdom, with power and authority the way it is usually defined, he would not have been tiny. He could have been this monumental figure in history. When he taught, messengers would have been dispatched to carry the Word to every corner of the kingdom. When he performed a miracle, the world would have known and believed. People in Turkey WOULD have turned to one another and said, “The king of Israel has magical powers! He fed thousands of people with just a few loaves of bread!” Another would reply, “I know! Isn't that amazing? I heard he can also cure sickness and bring people back from the dead!” When Jesus said to give all your money to the poor, and led by example, can you imagine the global impact?

So why not take the easy road Jesus? Maybe he didn't want to condone the historical view of prosperity as righteous. Maybe he couldn't really represent mankind if he lived as so few of them did. Maybe this paradox Barth writes about, of humiliation and exaltation all rolled into one man, is really the key to who this man is. I had previously thought the humiliation of Jesus referred to the miscarriage of Justice, the execution, the mocking and betrayal of his final moments. I thought, what could be more humiliating than that? But now I think trying to change the world without a lick of authority or power to do so could count too.

One of my teachers once told me, “Jesus did not set out to be a revolutionary.” I most respectfully disagree. Because a revolution is basically three things: a drastic and far reaching change, an overthrow of the government by those who are governed, or a turn. And King Jesus of Israel, with his new and strange ways of governing, though far-reaching wouldn't have been as drastic as the carpenter who saved humanity, the man who brought humanity to God. His regime, though fair and charitable, would have been just that, another regime rightfully come into power. He would be King Arthur instead of Christ the King. Jesus was big in his tininess, and grand in his subtlety, and well, I think it makes all the difference.


Do you?  What do you think was important about the way Jesus performed his ministry?

Church Dogmatics Volume II First and Second Half-Volume: The Doctrine of God