Social Psychology and
Theology in Mark 3
I am writing this blog as a reflection on concepts drawn
from two major fields of psychology that strike me in my study of Mark 3. In
this post I look at social psychology concepts related to group leadership and
formation. In the next post I will look at lessons from the perspective of
Clinical Psychology.
Group
Identity
Mark opens his gospel with a statement about the identity of
Jesus as the anointed one and Son of God (1:1). Who is Jesus? That’s a question
offered as guidance on one theme to guide people studying Mark’s gospel (e.g., Martindale).
My focus on group identity comes from a consideration that
Mark is writing to people after Jesus has left his earthy ministry. In short, Jesus
as leader is no longer visible to his followers. I suggest at least one of
Mark’s aims is to identify who Christians are, but perhaps more importantly,
who they are not. In this chapter he also identifies the legitimate leaders as chosen by Jesus himself.
Many writers (e.g., Horsley) have provided some sense of the
historical backdrop to the life of Jesus and the early Christians. Roman power
imposed order on the people in their conquered lands. Depending on the degree
of threat, rebels met with public beatings and painful death. Roman emperors
were the strong men no one dare challenge.
In Mark, Roman influence is in the background but breaks
through into our consciousness in references to Caesar, Herod, and the
Herodians. I see dual efforts at work and wonder if they were not part of
Mark’s intention.
First, Mark separates
Jesus’ group from Jewish rebel groups. By clearly identifying Jesus and his
followers with a spiritual movement he separates Christians from militaristic
Jewish rebels who were intent on exorcising the evil Roman rulers from holy
lands. There were rebellions throughout the empire. And there were militarists
looking for a warrior Messiah.
Nevertheless, there are subversive elements in the gospel
suggesting that at least the Jesus movement was about freedom from oppressive
bondage as witnessed in the exorcisms and healings. The Romans were of course
responsible for the lived experience of bondage in the life of ordinary Jews.
If the Romans and Jewish leaders worked together to crucify
Jesus who was viewed as a political threat, they could easily work together to
kill Jesus’ followers. Someone has to tell the real story and make it clear
that Jesus and his movement never were a threat to the power of Rome.
A second aim is to
clarify the Jesus’ group within Judaism. It’s easy for contemporary
Christians to forget that Jesus and his followers were Jews with centuries old
laws and traditions. They met in synagogues not churches. And they visited the Jewish
Temple not some other religious building. Modern Christians have heard of
groups like Pharisees and Sadducees but hearing the names does not offer much
in terms of understanding how their groups intersected with other groups.
Mark presents people named Pharisees and Herodians as if
they were groups in opposition to Jesus and his growing group of followers (3:6).
Another group known as scribes are also mentioned and associated with
Pharisees. Although we do not know a lot, we get the impression the Pharisees
were particularly concerned with a strict adherence to the Mosaic law including
how and where to worship God, maintain the Sabbath (1-6), and comply with
purity codes.
In contrast to avoiding a presentation of Jesus as a threat
to Rome, Mark does not hold back on presenting Jesus as a threat to some Jewish
groups. Jesus and his movement are about new ways of worship and interpreting
old laws (Chapter 2). The Sabbath challenge (3:1-6) is a clear example of
change as not only does Jesus offer a different interpretation of the Sabbath but
his followers would eventually give up the Sabbath in favor of honoring the
first day of the week.
Crowds are
not groups but members of a crowd may become group members. Mark mentions the
crowds in 3: 7-12. They follow Jesus but are not members of his group. However,
Jesus status is enhanced by their presence in three ways.
First, it’s human
nature to count heads at any rally or gathering. Size implies importance. We
see this in churches that count people and in news headlines touting the huge
or minuscule crowds at a political rally or sporting event.
The second
characteristic of the crowd is their diversity. They are not just from Jesus’
home province but they come from Judea and elsewhere. Many people view him as a
religious teacher and leader.
Third, we see an
odd testimony that poses a problem. Some members of the crowd are identified as
“unclean spirits.” They identify Jesus but he does not want their testimony.
Ironically, Mark includes their testimony as if it were important. Christian
leaders continue to be careful of those they permit to speak in church.
Christian organizations are quick to cut off members who stray from the party
line or have been caught in some behavioral act judged undesirable.
Group
Leadership
Groups have leaders but their styles may vary. A common contemporary
classification of styles includes authoritarian, democratic, and laissez faire.
Jesus is clearly
authoritarian in his selection of followers (3:13) and combative dialogue
with outgroup spokespersons such as the Pharisees. In his status as the Son of
God he claims the ultimate authority and is appropriately pitted against the
Roman Emperor. Although in Mark, Jesus’ savvy answer about paying taxes separates
his focus on a spiritual kingdom from the concerns of Caesar. Mark chooses not
to present Jesus and his movement as a threat to Rome. Of course he wasn’t a
threat because in a physical sense, Jesus was long gone by the time Mark was
writing.
It would also seem that Jesus is matched against the
official Jewish leaders such as the High Priest. Ironically, at the time Mark
was written, Roman delegates chose the Jewish High Priest and not the priestly
clan using a quasi-democratic approach of casting lots. Rome was in control of
official Judaism.
In establishing Jesus authority, Mark shows him to have
authority over demons. It’s hard to ignore the possible references to Romans
and Jewish leaders when Jesus is portrayed as the one who can bind the strong
man and rob him of his territory.
In addition, Mark calls the spirits “unclean,” which
condition characterizes the possessed people as belonging to a different group
than the purity-focused Pharisees. The whole enterprise of casting out unclean
spirits also puts Jesus in close contact with the unclean and heightens the
interest in the meaning of the dialogue between Jesus and his Jewish interlocutors.
Group leaders know that for a group to survive they need
trustworthy leaders to carry out the aims of the group when they die. Mark
makes the identity of the chosen leaders clear (3: 13-19). As contemporary
readers we know little about most of these men yet presumably, contemporaries
of Mark knew the names. By naming names and identifying their authority, the
early Christians had a guide to who’s who and presumably to who is not who. The
list informs Jews and Romans of the official leaders of the Jesus movement.
The list omits Paul, which makes sense given his later
conversion (estimated
timeline for Paul). But the list may be important to those questioning Paul’s
status as an apostle- see his remarks in 2 Corinthians 11). Another point of relevance
is the biblical footnotes identifying a textual variation. Some manuscripts
have Mark calling the leaders “apostles” and others do not. Again, it is
noteworthy that Paul laid came to being an apostle.
What’s at stake? In his
charge, Jesus commands his chosen leaders to preach and he gives them authority
to drive out demons (14-15). Authority is a big deal in groups. After any
leader dies, leaders of subgroups often lay claim to take over the official
leadership slot. Leader conflicts happened in the early church. And they happen today.
Jesus authority is challenged in the Beelzebul episode at
the close of the chapter. The teachers of the law accuse Jesus as being
possessed by the prince of demons. Mark phrases Jesus’ response as an absurdity
using the well-known “House Divided” remark followed by a modus tollens argument.
Mark includes episodes of healing and exorcisms. Mark wants readers to know
that Jesus’ and his followers are at war with evil. Every healing and every
exorcism reveals their focus on the spiritual life and death struggle, which
culminates at the crucifixion.
Ingroup and
Outgroup
Mark offers a changing picture of ingroup and outgroup
statuses.
Ingroup and outgroup identification is an important
influence in how people function in groups. Under threat, group identification
increases. People are bound by strong attachment affiliations to kinship
groups. And it is no accident that Christians are identified as part of the
family of God. We lack details about the variety of groups within Judaism in
Jesus’ day but Mark illustrated the early formation of ingroup and outgroup
status.
In previous chapters we saw Jesus’ participation in John’s
Baptism revealing an affiliation with John’s group. But Mark also reveals a
feature of Jesus’ Baptism in the Spirit, which would mark his followers.
Clearly the violent opening of the heavens (1:10) when the Spirit comes to
Jesus at John’s baptism followed by being driven by the Spirit into the territory
of Satan (12-13) reveals a focus on the kind of group Jesus was forming. Jesus’
group would be spiritual warriors.
It turns out, Jesus is not just dealing with unclean spirits
but with people representing other groups who continually challenge his
ministry.
Jesus’ group consists of those he chose to be with him and
carry out his ministry—with a specific focus on preaching and exorcising evil spirits.
Ingroup members are in flux in Mark as for example, one of the twelve betrayed
Him. And in verse 33 we see the stark challenge: “Who are my mother and my
brothers?” The concluding verses in fact focus on ingroup and outgroup
membership framed as family and not family.
This ingroup-outgroup tension is common in all sorts of
groups and remains a factor today as evident recently in the Wheaton College episode over the status of Professor Hawkins. Group members and their leaders
are keen on maintaining boundaries. We all want to know- is he or she one of
us. Presumably ingroup people can be trusted but Mark reminds us that one of
the 12 was a traitor.
Connections
Facebook Page Geoff W. Sutton
Twitter @GeoffWSutton
Website:
Geoff W. Sutton www.suttong.com
Context Note
My specific context for this blog is the study of Mark’s
gospel with colleagues at church. My broader context is a career-long interest
in Social Psychology, especially the Psychology of Religion. But the bulk of my
career has been in applied psychology in the United States where many are
affiliated with Christianity. My work in Clinical Psychology also influences my
view of many verses in Mark’s gospel, which I will address next.
References
Betty, S. (2015). The Growing Evidence for "Demonic
Possession": Lessons for Psychiatry. Journal
for Spiritual & Consciousness Studies, 38(1), 36-60.
Busch, A. (2006). Questioning and conviction: double-voiced
discourse in Mark 3:22-30. Journal of
Biblical Literature, 125(3), 477-505.
Derrett, J. M. (1984). Christ and the power of choice (Mark
3:1-6). Biblica, 65(2), 168-188.
Horsley, R. A. (2005). Jesus and empire. Union Seminary Quarterly Review,
59(3-4), 44-74.
Skinner, C. W. (2004). 'Whom he also names apostles': a
textual problem in Mark 3:14. Bibliotheca
Sacra, 161(643), 322-329.
Taylor, N. H. (2000). Herodians and Pharisees: the
historical and political context of Mark 3:6; 8:15; 12:13-17. Neotestamentica, 34(2), 299-310.
No comments:
Post a Comment