In
my previous post, I suggested that, theologically speaking, to be human is to
be an economic migrant.
This
is, of course, a vulnerable existence. And so human beings have always
connected together in covenants.
Just as our being economic migrants is rooted in God, so covenants are also
rooted in God and in the relationship between God and humanity, Creator and
created.
Covenants
are based on the understanding that every person has a sphere of influence over
which they are the autonomous (not absolute) ruler. Even a new-born baby,
entirely dependent on its mother, exercises such power through crying. Even a
dead boy on a beach has a sphere of influence – one extended exponentially
through the spheres of influence of others, through the medium of social media.
Covenants
are a way of extending our personal sphere of influence, not by conquering the
sphere of influence of another, but by pooling our spheres with their combined
resources.
This
approach is rooted in God, the Ruler of the Universe, who, having established
that human beings should rule the spheres of themselves and (collectively) of
the earth, seeks covenant relationships in order to unite our spheres.
Covenants
are built on our shared experience of being economic migrants. That is to say,
I will share my resources with you, should you need them, because someone
shared their resources with my ancestors when they were migrants and/or with me
and/or I might need someone to share their resources with me and/or at some
future point my descendants will need someone to share their resources with
them.
This,
too, is an experience God enters into, in Jesus – who first (in his
incarnation) migrates from a fulfilled land in order to extend fruitfulness;
and subsequently (as the child of a political refugee living beyond the borders
of her own country, in Egypt) migrates in order to experience fruitfulness.
Covenants
have, largely, been subsumed under less personal and more pragmatic alliances.
But where these fail, covenants become visible again.
Families
offering rooms in their homes for refugees might not be a fully thought-through
response – though it is unlikely to be an offer made lightly. Further
reflection reveals it to be something deeper than a desire that something,
anything, should be done. Are we witnessing the return of the covenant? In this
moment, it is too early to say: a covenant is not only a decision made, but a
decision lived-out. But, in this moment, it is at least possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment