>Plentiful Redemption=

The first of two conferences by Michael Brehl C.Ss.R. given to the chapter of the Denver Province in January, 2004.

Introduction
Shift in Images of Redemption
Redemptorist Identity: A Personal Reflection
Redemption and Redeemer in the Hebrew Scriptures
Aspects of Redemption
The Example of Jesus
Redemption and Redeemer in the New Testament
Redemptorist Tradition
An Image of Redemption for Today?

Introduction:

It is with some >fear and trembling= that I approach this topic of >Plentiful Redemption=.  As you know, the theme chosen by the XXIII General Chapter for this sexennium is >Giving our lives for plentiful redemption=.  If we take this theme seriously, then we need to begin with an exploration of the meaning of >plentiful redemption=. 

I served on the Central Preparatory Commission for the Chapter.  As we began our work, we sent a questionnaire to each (V) Province in the Congregation.  Each community was invited to respond, and each (V) Provincial Preparatory Commission sent a synthesis of those responses to the Central Preparatory Commission in Rome.  On the question of the theme for the sexennium, most responses suggested that we continue the good work begun by the XXII General Chapter on Spirituality - but that we focus on the meaning of Redemption as an integral dimension of our spirituality and our mission. 

The Instrumentum Laboris prepared by the CPC before the Regional Pre-Chapter Meetings took >Redemption= as the keyword for theological reflection upon our present reality as a Congregation.  The Instrumentum spoke of redemption in terms of reconciliation and liberation.  It proposed >Giving our lives for plentiful redemption= as the theme for the sexennium.  The Regional Meetings accepted this theme. Subsequently, so did the General Chapter. 

>Redemption= was certainly a leitmotif that continued to surface during the Chapter deliberations.  Personally, I found it enriching to listen to the experience of confreres from other cultures who struggled with the meaning of redemption for people today.  Fr. Sean Wales from South Africa gave us a very rich retreat conference on >Dimensions of Redemption=.  One comment from Fr. Raphael Gallagher left a particular impression on me.  He said that as Redemptorists we need to struggle with the question of redemption and its meaning, which is no longer as clear as we had once thought it was.  Even if we do not come to clear answers, it is important to be engaged in the struggle to uncover its meaning for today.

The General Chapter asked the General Government to prepare a Communicanda, with the assistance of experts, which would address this question of redemption for us.  That is one of the reasons I approach this topic with a little >fear and trembling=.  I am not an expert, and I don=t want to pre-empt a Communicanda.  However, I hope that these reflections might help us to struggle with the question.

Shift in Images of Redemption

It seems to me that in the 1960=s and 70=s, our Christian culture, at least in the west, went through a massive shift in self-understanding, with very real implications for the meaning of redemption and its connection with human experience.

For generations, Christian preaching began with the fall (expressed in the story of Adam and Eve), and the human need for redemption from sin and alienation from God.  The atonement for this sin and alienation was the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.  The price of our reconciliation was his blood.  The very reason for the Incarnation was so that God could repay the price of our guilt through the sacrifice of his life.  Convinced of the sinfulness of each human being, personal redemption through the blood of Jesus became the hope and the longing of each Christian.  Integral to Christian understanding of redemption was the connection between human sin and divine sacrifice. 

This understanding of redemption deeply influenced Redemptorist identity and mission preaching.  We were preachers of the eternal truths, deeply aware of human sinfulness, and offering the grace of absolution and the devout life.  We were extraordinary confessors, generous with our time and our counsel.  We were involved in the greatest mission possible - heaven and hell hung in the balance, along with each human soul.  Our motto - copiosa apud eum redemptio - reminded us of the central part God had called us to play in the drama of human destiny and eternal life.

And then, things started to change - quickly.  This vision of reality no longer moved people in the same way.  The focus of human and Christian identity shifted from >sin= to >grace=, from >redemption= to >creation=, from >sacrifice= to >celebration=.  God=s love became the dominant focus of Christian preaching

Redemptorist Identity: A Personal Reflection

In 1974, I met the Redemptorists.  In 1975, I joined the Congregation, and began theology in Toronto.  It was not long before I began to feel some slight discomfort with our name: >Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer=.  I wished that the Vatican had left us with Alphonsus= original choice: Congregation of the Most Holy Saviour.  Unfortunately, there was another group called the Canons of the Most Holy Saviour, so our small congregation was designated >the Most Holy Redeemer=.  At that time in my formation, I would have preferred >Saviour=.  My theology studies were teaching me a renewed sense of that word.  Its linguistic and biblical roots were examined, to reveal that >saviour= suggested wholeness and liberation, health and healing.  >Saviour= sounded more biblical to me than >Redeemer=. 

>Redeemer=, on the other hand, sounded archaic.  In theology classes, we didn=t examine it from the Biblical perspective.  Instead, we studied redemption in systematic theology, and learned the Anselmian perspective on the doctrine.  It held connotations of fallen, depraved humanity and a just God whose sense of justice demanded the sacrifice of his Son.  Jesus was the >blood-price= of our redemption, to atone for the offense sin gave to divine justice.

At that same time, Matthew Fox was growing in popularity as a spiritual writer.  He wrote of >creation-centred= theology and spirituality, as opposed to fall/redemption-centred theology and spirituality.  One of my classmates, a religious from a different institute, asked me why our Congregation still hung on to that >outmoded image of Jesus as Redeemer=.

To be honest, I didn=t lose any sleep over that question.  But I did not identify too closely with the title >Redeemer= either.

In 1979, I was sent to Newfoundland for my first appointment.  Pastoral ministry began to affect my sense of identity with the Redeemer.  At funerals, as we prayed the final commendation, the haunting >Song of Farewell= - AI know that my Redeemer livesY@ - really stayed with me.  These words from Job 19 brought great comfort, not only to the mourners, but also to me.  I started to notice other references to the Redeemer in the Scripture readings for daily Mass, especially in Second Isaiah. These references were always strong, moving, and comforting.  Then, preparing for the feast of All Souls in the early 80=s, I read an article by Fr. Carroll Stuhlmueller, C.P.  Commenting on the passage used as the first reading, from Job 19, he explained the significance of the Redeemer in the Hebrew Scriptures as the >nearest blood relative=.  Reading this article, I sensed that it was not by accident that we were named the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer - and I began to explore a rich, renewed and Biblical understanding of the Redeemer, and the Redemption he brings in abundance.

Redemption and Redeemer in the Hebrew Scriptures

After reading that article by Stuhlmueller, I began to look for other articles or authors who wrote about the Biblical roots of >redeemer= and >redemption=.  These are not easy to find.  This subject might make a good doctoral thesis or critical study.  However, there are still sufficient articles to deepen our understanding of the biblical meaning of this subject.

The first references to redemption encountered in the Hebrew Scriptures are rooted in the tribal society and legal system of Israel.  The root word for these references is >padha=.  It is used to refer to ransoming a property, or even a person, from a debt.  One such reference is the >blood-price= paid to ransom Jonathan, the son of King Saul.  These references point to the importance of the tribal society and the close connections between family and society.  They offer a means of ordering the resolution of debts and conflicts, while protecting the integrity of the people of Israel.

For Redemptorists, the more important root word for redeemer in the Hebrew Scriptures is >go=el=.  This word (and concept) comes from the family structure of Israel.  It refers primarily to the nearest blood relative of the person in difficulty.  The family structure of Israel was very important.  Remember that the concept of personal resurrection or life after death is a much later development.  The first notion of eternal life was through the family.  The individual >lived on= in his/her children and grandchildren.  So important was this concept that if a married man died childless, his nearest male blood relative was to raise up a child for him through his widow.  This responsibility is part of the story of Ruth and Boaz - the ancestors of David, and thus of Jesus.  But this is not the extent of the familial responsibility of the go=el.

The go=el - redeemer - was that relative, bound to the person in difficulty through blood, who was obliged to come to the aid of the one in trouble.  For the Israelite, it seems that the worst fate possible was to be cut off, isolated, alienated and alone.  This was the source of Job=s distress.  He seemed to accept the loss of his wealth and livestock.  It was the loss of his family, the friends who sit some distance off and do not understand him, his growing isolation which was the source of his distress and confusion:

AHe has alienated my brothers from me,

my relatives take care to avoid me,

my intimate friends have gone away

and the guests in my house have forgotten meY

my breath is unbearable to my wife,

my stench to my own brothersY

all my dearest friends recoil from me in horror: 

those I loved best have turned against me@ (Job 19:13-19).

In response to this situation of loneliness, Job cries out:  AI know that my Redeemer livesY he whom I shall see shall take my part@ (Job 19:25-26).  There is one who will not abandon Job, one who will stand by his side, who will share his fate.

Is it any wonder that this ideal of the go=el - the redeemer as the nearest blood relative - becomes the best-loved image for God and God=s relationship with Israel during the days of the exile?  This ideal may never have been fully realized in family relationships in Israel.  However, its promise and hope continued to grip the hearts of the Israelites.  In Second Isaiah (40-55), it becomes the dominant image for God, beautifully expressed in passages which continue to stir our hearts.

AAnd now, thus says the Lord who created you, Jacob;

who formed you, Israel: 

Do not be afraid, for I have redeemed you;

I have called you by your name, you are mine. 

Should you pass through the waters, I shall be with you;

or through rivers, they will not swallow you up. 

Should you walk through fire,

you will not suffer and the flame will not burn you. 

For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour. 

I have given Egypt for your ransom,

Cush and Seba in exchange for you. 

Since I regard you as precious,

since you are honoured and I love you,

I therefore give people in exchange for you,

and nations in return for your life. 

Do not be afraid, for I am with you@ (Isaiah 43:1-5).

            I have redeemed youY you are mineY you are honoured and I love youY do not                   be afraid, for I am with you.  This is God the Redeemer - who constantly says of himself in this book of Isaiah that AI am the Lord, your Saviour, your Redeemer@ (Isaiah 49:26).

When Israel believes that Athe Lord has abandoned me, the Lord has forgotten me@ (49:14), God responds:  ACan a woman forget her baby at the breast, feel no pity for the child she has borne?  Even if these forget, I will never forget you.  Look, I have carved you on the palms of my hands@ (49:15).

These beautiful passages speak of a familial, blood relationship between God and Israel.  God is to Israel as mother to child, father to child, but also as husband to wife - widowed and abandoned no longer:

AYour Creator is your husband

- the Lord of hosts is his name -

and the Holy One of Israel is your RedeemerY

in everlasting love I have taken pity on you, says the Lord your Redeemer@ (Isaiah 54:5,8). 

These passages (which have found beautiful expression in popular contemporary hymns such as Be not afraid; I will never forget you; Though the mountains may fall and many others) speak to us today as powerfully as they spoke to the exiled and lonely people of Israel so many years ago. 

Echoes of this understanding of redemption are found in the psalms, in Ezekiel, and elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.  But it is in Isaiah 40 - 55 that the biblical understanding of God as Redeemer of Israel is most powerfully expressed.  And it is in these passages that I think we might recover an understanding of redeemer and redemption which speaks to the hearts of contemporary people who suffer the same alienation, disappointment, isolation and loss as the Israelites in exile.

Aspects of Redemption

It seems to me that there are three aspects of this understanding of Redemption which are highlighted in the Hebrew Scriptures:  restoration; liberation; relationship/communion.

Redemption is about restoration.  This presumes that human experience is deeply permeated and affected by loss.  In the first biblical references, this loss is usually the loss of land or possessions.  It is connected with debt.  >Blame= for the loss is not necessarily imputed to the one suffering the loss, nor is it necessary for guilt to be personally acknowledged in order to be redeemed.  Sometimes, this loss is the direct result of sin.  At other times, it is the result of injustice or manipulation.  What is important is the proper restoration.

But the loss which needs redemption might be much more serious for the whole people than the loss of possessions.  It can be the loss of homeland, of children, of dignity, of hope, of reputation.  While not meaning to minimize personal responsibility for such loss, God claims the title of Redeemer regardless of guilt, and then calls the people to conversion of heart.

Redemption is about liberation.  The need for liberation always presumes enslavement and oppression.  Again, sometimes this enslavement is the result of the >sin= of the person or people enslaved.  At other times, enslavement is the result of injustice - the sin of others.  What is most significant is that the Israelites cannot attain freedom on their own.  They need a redeemer. 

This sense of Redemption as liberation is reflected in our Constitutions and Statutes (cf 5, 6).  It is not sufficient to preach individual liberation only - but we must also address the communal dimension.  Indeed, this is of primary importance (C. 12).  It is as part of a community, belonging to a people, that individuals experience the fullness of redemption, and celebrate its mysteries.  Redemption must lead from slavery to freedom, from sin to forgiveness and reconciliation, from oppression to mutual respect and interdependence.

Biblical redemption is always about relationships.  It presumes bonds as intimate as the bonds of blood.  The powerful image of the go=el redeemer is based on familial bonds, blood relationship.  It is a passage from alienation to communion.  Relationships are transformed.  We see this in the images from Second Isaiah:  parent/child; husband/wife; brother/sister.  We recognize it in the suffering and the hope of Job.  We celebrate it in the story of Ruth and Boaz - >your redeemer has become your husband=.

Cain=s rhetorical question makes no sense to a people who know Biblical redemption:  AAm I my brother=s keeper?@  Asking the question is itself an indictment.

The Example of Jesus

In the Hebrew Scriptures, it is God who is the Redeemer of Israel.  God takes this title explicitly in the Book of Isaiah.  Even Moses, the great prophet who leads the people out of Egypt, is never called >redeemer=.  Rather, he is the prophet through whom God brings about their liberation.  Moses is clear that the exodus is God=s mighty deed, not his own.  God is the one who becomes the nearest-blood-relative who commits himself to redeem his people.

In Jesus, we see this word take flesh.  Jesus is the incarnation of that image of God.  He becomes human to become the nearest-blood-relative - not only to a particular human being or human family (e.g. Joseph and Mary), but to every human being and every human family.  In the Incarnation, we see the absolute commitment of God to solidarity and closeness to the human family as our real flesh-and-blood next-of-kin.  Jesus shares our blood, which now courses through his veins.

Jesus transforms relationships.  We see this time and again in the Gospels.  For example, his relatives think he is out of his mind, and come to take him home where they can keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn=t get into trouble.  And Jesus responds:  AWho is my mother?  Who are my brothers?@  Those who hear the word of God and do the will of God are now his family.

Jesus calls the disciples his brothers and sisters, and teaches them to address God as >Abba, Father=.  This very prayer is a lesson in redemption:  if God is >our Father=, then we are brothers and sisters to one another.  Not only is our relationship with God transformed - but so are our relationships with one another. 

The implications of this new way of relating become apparent as Jesus reaches out to the outcasts and the alienated.  Consider the leper who approaches Jesus for healing - against all Law, custom and boundaries.  AIf you want to, you can heal me.@  AOf course I want to@ - and he touches the leper - Abe healed.@  In this encounter we contemplate the meaning of redemption.  The leper - who must stand alone, tear his clothes and ring a bell to warn any unwary passerby, who becomes the >living dead= cast out of family and society, who never knows another human touch - this leper is touched by Jesus.  Echoes of Job 19 resonate in our minds as we see him healed, and sent to make the sacrifice which will restore him to community.  But he is redeemed in that touch alone, with or without a cure.  There is one who will not make him stand alone, there is one who will stand beside him.  In that touch, Jesus stepped out of his culture, religious practice, perhaps even his family, and became >unclean=.

Whenever I hear that gospel passage, I cannot help but think of a woman who came to speak with me many years ago.  She had just returned from a large city where she had gone to be with her son.  On his deathbed he had called to tell his parents not only that he was gay, but that he was dying of AIDS. His parents were shocked.  It was too much to accept.  They were angry and disappointed. Deeply hurt, they felt betrayed. They traveled to see him, unsure what to say or what to do.  At first, it was very awkward.  After a few days, he expressed a desire to be touched.  He hadn=t been touched or held in a long time.  His mother climbed into the bed with him and held him in her arms.  He died a few days later, with his mother holding him.  I don=t know if that young man saw a priest or went to the sacraments.  His mother wasn=t sure either, though she tried to make it happen.  But I believe that he was redeemed - through that loving embrace of his nearest-blood-relative who broke through the fear and the isolation and >touched= him.

There are so many other stories in the gospels which show us this same experience of redemption.  There is the woman caught in adultery who is brought just as she was to Jesus.  He will not join the others in leering at her nakedness, adding to her shame.  He will not raise his head until he can restore her dignity and send her on her way - albeit with a challenge to conversion.  There is the woman with a hemorrhage, afraid to admit that she has touched Jesus (her very touch carries >uncleanness= like a contagion), but in whom Jesus recognizes a daughter of Israel.  There are the demoniacs liberated at his word.  There are the sinners welcomed at his table.  Jesus makes himself the nearest-blood-relative to all these people, even when their own next-of-kin fail to do so.  His whole life proclaims restoration, liberation, and transformed relationships.

Redemption and Redeemer in the New Testament

In the New Testament, Jesus is never referred to as >Redeemer=.  He only speaks of redemption on a few occasions.  He will give his life as a >ransom for many=.  In the apocalyptic discourses, he urges his disciples to >stand erect, for their redemption is near at hand=.  Jesus may not refer to himself as redeemer, but he exemplifies what this means through his life and ministry.

Paul speaks of redemption in several places.  He speaks of the redemption/liberation from the bondage of sin which will embrace all creation.  He points out that in the blood of Christ, the barrier separating Jews from Gentiles (and any other separation) has been broken down, and that those who were far off have been brought near.  Peter reminds his readers that they have been bought with the price of Christ=s blood.

Traditionally, these references to the blood of Christ have been understood as references to his sacrificial death on the cross.  I wonder if they could also refer to God=s new relationship with the human family experienced in a tangible way by sharing our blood through the Incarnation - that he is blood of our blood, and flesh of our flesh.  Our creator has become our brother.

Redemptorist Tradition

This image of the Redeemer as the nearest-blood-relative has much in common with our Redemptorist tradition of >closeness to people=.  We have long identified with this quality as an integral aspect of our charism.  Pope Paul VI captured this dimension of our identity in his spontaneous Address to the Capitulars at the General Chapter in Rome in 1973:

AThis nearness to the peopleYtry hard to strengthen it.  If we want to save the world, we have to instruct, we have to give good example, we have to pray; but we also have to unite ourselves to the people by being in the midst of them.  We have to come as close as possible, even personally, to the classes which today are, as it were, the most distrustful of religionYBe among the people - get as close to the people as you can.@

Alphonsus was very conscious of this dimension of evangelization when he developed his program for parish missions.  The missioners were to go where the people were, visit them in their homes, get to know their situations.  Our habit was the garb of a poor priest, not the dress of the clerical nobility from whom he drew the first Redemptorists.  Our food was to mirror the food of the local people - and our lodgings were to be as humble.  Reconciliation was an integral part of the Mission - and not just sacramental confession and absolution.  Local feuds and grudges were to be addressed, and the wounds of division healed. 

Alphonsus insisted that our houses be established in >abandoned places=.  This was not so that they would be >out-of-the-way= and secluded to provide a monastic atmosphere for the confreres.  Rather, he intended that we live among those people to whom we were sent on mission, as a sign that we were committed to be in their midst for the long haul. 

I=ve often been struck by a particular image of Mary which Alphonsus had prepared for publication - >La Divina Pastora=.  In this image, we see Mary dressed as a shepherdess and Jesus in the clothes of a poor child from the backwoods of the Kingdom of Naples.  At a time when it was customary to dress Mary in the regal robes of a Spanish Queen, Alphonsus presents her as a >sister= to the ordinary people of the countryside - close to the people, nearest-blood-relative.

When Alphonsus addresses the question of the necessity of the death of Jesus for our salvation, he takes a somewhat different approach from other theologians.  He writes that one bead of sweat from his brow, one drop of blood from his finger tip, even one sigh straight from his heart, would have been enough to make satisfaction for our sinfulness and obtain God=s forgiveness (as if there was ever a doubt of it).  Jesus needed to die not to make satisfaction to an angry God, but to reveal the lengths to which God will go to redeem us, to share our human condition and convince us of God=s love.  As Alphonsus writes: 

AConsider that no one - neither father nor mother, wife nor husband, child nor friend - has loved you more than your God@ (How to Converse Continually and Familiarly with God as with a Friend, #2).

An Image of Redemption for Today?

This is not an academic presentation.  We do need to examine Redemption as a theological construct.  Personally, I await the Communicanda on this subject from the General Government.  Nor do I propose that we forget the longstanding tradition of Redemption as understood and expressed by Anselm and others.  But I am convinced that this theological construct is no longer adequate in itself to address contemporary concerns.