The Messiah's Gatekeepers

From the Sketches in Messianism series

In the previous post I explored my misgivings about the idea that we might all, collectively, be the messiah we wait for. There is a parallel idea I want to sketch alongside it here; another pattern by which messianic agency has often been absorbed into the keeping of certain parties.

In this case, rather than claiming to be the messiah, a particular group claims special access to the messiah, and special knowledge of messianic affairs. They become, effectively, managers of the messiah's estate. They say something like: the messiah is coming but isn’t here yet. In the meantime we will hear your questions, queries and concerns. And if you wish to partake in the age to come you will need to apply via our office, as official executors of our clients wishes...

This is a lot of power. It's not difficult to see similarities here between the Christendom mentality and the secularised messianism of progress described previously. One way absorbs messianic authority by claiming to be the messiah. The other claims messianic authority by appointing itself the earthly manager of messianic affairs, for a time, while the messiah tarries.

A well known messianic saying goes thus: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except by me.” These words have become rather notorious. Christian apologetics has left a deep power footprint on them. An echo whispers after: “...and no one comes to the messiah except through us.” The insinuation is that one must acquiesce to the Christian religion which acts as messianic gatekeeper. This is, of course, quite contrary to the sensibilities of the First Century messianics who were often whipped and beaten for maintaining that the messianic life had no gatekeepers, and that religious belonging and conversion were of no consequence whatsoever.

For myself, the heart of the matter can be found in the question of messianic autonomy and otherness. The messiah cannot be spoken for. The managerial messianism of Christendom was often inclined to colonise and appropriate messianic autonomy. The results have been strikingly similar to the secularised messianism of Progress. Both approaches serve up more power to the powerful by eradicating messianic autonomy or by appropriating it. Meanwhile, the messiah remains an autonomous other, who may well confound all presumptions and expectations.

I’m wanting to highlight a common correlation in these portraits of messianic hubris. The more messianic autonomy and knowledge is enclosed by whoever it may be, the greater the power they may wield. On the other hand, where messianic autonomy and otherness are held sacred, and left be, there is a corresponding posture of creaturely smallness, of powerlessness; a weakness almost, which reveals itself to be an astonishing potentiality of its own.