The last post that I had on here about fundamentalism caused quite a stir at the website http://www.justgivemetruth.com. In the controversy I caused I was told that unless I was born of the Spirit I couldn't understand the Bible because the Truths had to be revealed to me by the Spirit, and no man-knowledge could show me these. I was asked who Jesus was to me, and this was my response. The moderators on this site believe that speaking in tongues is the initial sign of receiving the Spirit. Everything else should be self explanatory. Instead of saying directly who I thought Jesus was, I gave them a short (very much abridged) spiritual journey of sorts as it relates to the question. Here it is:
I start my spiritual journey in 10th grade.
I was not "saved" as you may say, nor was I actually baptized. I was raised Catholic in
Over the next 2 years I started reading the Bible more and attending the FCA at my school, leading the music when needed to at Fifth Quarters and other FCA events. The Jesus I knew in high school was God. All I knew about Jesus was in the Bible, and I believed it because it was the Word of God. Jesus was one with God and all it took to go to heaven was to confess that Jesus died on the cross to save the world of its sins, and then when I repent of my own sins I would be forgiven so long as I believed it was Jesus who did it (Pray this prayer and you're in!). Jesus was the cosmic communicator that would save me from the wrath of God so long as I prayed in his name and confessed him Christ and Lord and Savior and all that stuff. That is who Jesus was to me in High School.
It should be noted that I did not come to a Jesus on my own terms. The Jesus I came to know in high school was the Jesus that I was conditioned to know. It was the Jesus that my friends claimed, it was the Jesus that FCA claimed, it was the Jesus that certain teachers claimed, but I can honestly say that most of what I knew about Jesus came from either shallow readings of the Bible or what I felt like people around me believed. It was not my own soul that accomplished my belief, it was the manipulation and peer pressure of those around me who I felt must have been right.
I went off to college an eager student wishing to learn more in order to validate his own beliefs. That is worth unpacking a bit. I was pretty confident in what I knew. I was pretty confident that the Bible was inerrant, and that if it said it, that was the end of it. Proof texting worked on me (What I mean by "proof texting" is taking a single verse or phrase out of its biblical context and using it to back an argument or point; I have hence learned that this one of the most irresponsible ways out there of reading a text). I did not go to college to have my beliefs changed; I went to learn more so that I would know that I was right (which I believe is unhealthy).
My first religion class freshman year was Old Testament survey. I learned a bunch of stuff about the Old Testament as a whole, but the class was pretty shallow because there's just so much to cover. However, one of the most valuable things I took from that class is that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but it was a collection of documents that were weaved together by a later hand. Stories told multiple times in different ways, texts that would have been impossible to have been written by Moses (like his death in Deuteronomy 34, which actually implies strongly in verse 10 that it had been written long after this event), passages that would only make sense if they were read by a much later audience (such as the reference to the kings of Israel in Genesis 36.31), and evidence that has been researched over the past few hundred years all led me to the conclusion that I could only take the Pentateuch seriously (and hold it to its true value) if I acknowledged that it was a rich collection of traditions that were brought together as a composite tradition of Israel.
This allowed me to break free of the idea that it was somehow dictated to man by God. It became more and more apparent the more I studied it that it could not have been such, and that it actually makes more sense and becomes so much more valuable when that view is discarded. This of course changed my view of the New Testament as well. I could now make sense of the Gospels in a way I never could before. I realized that these were recorded traditions about Jesus, and I should understand them as such.
As I furthered my studies from this class onward (into New Testament studies and Christian History), I came to see that the "inerrant" view of the Bible is very new, and that what many Christians claim as the way to salvation (Inviting Jesus into your heart and the likes) is really a very new phenomenon that would have fallen on deaf ears more than a few hundred years ago. This radically changed my view of salvation.
I began to read the New Testament not as one book, but as a collection of works by different authors. I ceased interpreting Paul by what John had wrote, or interpreting Luke by what Matthew wrote, because I saw this as irresponsible. It would be like reading Wordsworth and interpreting it through Blake. Most of the New Testament authors were probably not aware of the other literature that was to become New Testament canon. Surely Paul was not aware of the gospels, and one could justifiably question whether or not Paul would have agreed with literature such as the gospel of John. He may have called it heresy! We cannot know for certain. All we can do is give each book the respect it deserves by trying to understand the context in which it was written.
I began to learn about the priority of Mark, and how it was probably the earliest Gospel and then Matthew and Luke used it as an outline of sorts (sometimes copying verbatim from it) and then expanding using their own traditions (M and L respectively) and both using a common source (that has since become known as Q). This allowed me to understand more clearly what each Gospel's emphasis was. For example, Mark perhaps viewed Jesus as temperamental and quick to anger (In Mark 1.40-44 shows Jesus healing a man and then "sternly warning" him and kicking him out. In 1.41 Jesus is moved with "pity," but other manuscripts have "anger." When Mathew and Luke retell this story, they copy almost verbatim, and then leave out that sentence. They also leave out the stern warning and the sending away (Matthew 8.2-4, Luke 5.12-16). Mark also records in 3.1-6 the story of Jesus healing a man and getting angry at those around him. Mathew 12.9-14 and Luke 6.6-11 retell the story but leave out Jesus' anger), whereas Matthew and Luke omit parts in order to show that Jesus was not. I began to see how Matthew spiritualized certain things. Luke has Jesus saying "blessed are the poor" (Luke 6.20), whereas Matthew's Jesus says "blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT" (Matthew 5.3, emphasis added). This allows me to see that Luke viewed Jesus as caring about the poor and oppressed, whereas Matthew made it more universal, and allowed anybody to be able to relate by interpreting Jesus' saying as a promotion of humbleness. Both of these I believe to be true, that Jesus had an emphasis on humility and lived by example, but that he also genuinely cared for the poor and the outsiders of society. I believe this was who Jesus was and how we should be, but I do not believe he delivered the speech twice. I believe that the tradition existed (either oral or written), and then each gospel writer interpreted it to promote their view of Jesus. This is how I can make sense of it.
Then I studied the gospel of John, probably the latest of the gospels. In it Jesus is very different. Jesus doesn't tell a single parable in John (whereas he supposedly never taught in anything BUT parables in the synoptics Matthew 13.34), he never conceals his identity (Andrew proclaims him as the Christ in the 2nd chapter whereas Jesus doesn't want people to know yet in the synoptics).
There is much to the Gospel of John that I feel is important to take note of. John contains the highest Christology of the canonical gospels. John was the last of the gospels written, and is probably 60 years removed from the death of Jesus, and the community that produced the gospel probably lived in an isolated area, perhaps in
What should be seen in these stories is that there is a lot of symbolism. Jesus told parables of God, he told stories to tell us truths about God, but the stories or parables would not necessarily true themselves. Did the story of the prodigal son actually happen? I highly doubt it, but that wasn't important. The importance was that God is like the father who sees his son while he is still far off and runs out to meet him in love. The stories that the author tells may have some historical basis, but for the most part they appear to be illustrations that may not have happened but are used to reveal something about who Jesus was to the Johannine community that produced the gospel.
So the question is that of validity. If the stories that are told in the fourth gospel are not historically factual, then do the abstract truths hold? Well, I would say that as far as they can be understood, yes, they do.
As I'm sure you can see, there are consequences to this view. One such consequence is it makes you think for yourself too much. It is really easy to NOT think when you think the Bible is just dropped down from God. All it takes is looking it up like a dictionary, and let it dictate your life for you. When you admit that men wrote it using the traditions they had and developed their own opinions and theology (that may be different than other NT books such as the gospel of John vs. the synoptics), it opens the doors to some legitimate questions.
One such question is why it should be worth anything. That is a legitimate but silly question. Why do we read Shakespeare? Why do we read Descartes? Why do we read anything? We read to enrich ourselves and to learn. When we read the Gospels, we can learn about God AND ourselves. We can learn about the effect that he had on his followers and his followers' followers. This is the best we can really know about him. We cannot look into the past yet; all we can do is read what generations after Jesus thought of him. We can read about how Mark saw him suffer, and how we should live sacrificially. We can see how Matthew saw him as a continuation and fulfillment of the Jewish tradition of the Annointed of God. We can read of Luke's Messiah who is universal and not bound by social taboos. We can read about John's Christ who was united with God and desired for all of his followers to be united as one as well. We can see how John's Jesus was so much more than a teacher confirmed and exalted by God.
Again, the question is one of validity. John's theology is late and farther removed from the person of Jesus than the Synoptics or the writings of Paul. In fact, Paul's Jesus is Lord and example. Paul was probably unaware of John's idea of Jesus as pre-existent Logos (cf. Romans 1). Does this mean it is invalid? Well, I am not willing to say.
What I AM willing to say is that Jesus had such a profound effect on his followers that he cannot be ignored. How else could his followers have led something so revolutionary, as fishermen? How could Paul, a Jewish Pharisee and persecutor of Christians have such a change of heart? He saw the risen Jesus. How could this man Jesus still be changing the lives of people 50 years later in the Johannine community unless he had a real presence with them. How could people be willing to die for a man they never met unless they could feel the presence of God?
Who is Jesus to me you ask. He is a man that cannot be studied enough. He is a man who changed the lives of his followers, his followers' followers, down to my own life as I strive to live for the Kingdom and glory of God. I never grow tired of reading and studying the Bible because I want to learn more about the effect that Jesus of Nazareth had on his followers. I can't ever get enough of Paul's writings because I am fascinated by the way in which Paul calls us to a higher righteousness for God. I love the universality of the gospel. I love the message of self sacrifice in the name of Jesus. I believe that the spirit of God lives in his people as it came alive in Jesus.
You probably think I'm still evading the question. Well here is my answer: Jesus is a mystery.
Have you ever seen the movie Phenomenon? It is about a man who gets brain cancer, and instead of shutting down brain function, it unlocks it. The result is genius and telekinetic power. The man tells people that he is not something magical or supernatural: he is the potential. He says that he has become the potential of everybody.
John tells us that Jesus was the incarnated Logos. This is not all that he tells us about the Logos. He says it was the light of all men. Genesis tells us that we are made in the image of God. This image, this Logos, this "divine spark" as it has been called, was incarnated in the man Jesus. Schleiermacher talks about a "God-consciousness." Imagine the moment, if you will, that you felt God with more presence than ever. Imagine one of the moments that you felt completely present with God; that his hand was holding you, that he was within you, and that you just knew that God was with you. Imagine that moment (or those moments). What if you could feel that all the time? What if your life was one consistent presence with God? This "God-consciousness" is what we only have a peek of. We only see it now and again (some more often than others). What if Jesus had this all the time? How would one live if they were at all times being inspired by the presence of God? What would it be like if the Logos and imago dei came alive in a person and took hold of their every being? I can only imagine, but I believe that this is who Jesus was. Nobody can deny that strange things happen; miraculous healings and mind over matter phenomenon are common. Who's to say that Jesus' miracles weren't because he was so in tune with nature and God that he had some amazing power of influence and charisma that bent the boundaries of the mind and body? I'm not a doctor, so I can't say what it would take to make the blind see or the lame walk. But people ARE cured. Jesus was calling us to become more than we had ever been.
You may say again that I am avoiding answering, and the only response I have for that is, maybe.
Because of the study I have put into the biblical texts, I cannot give a simple black and white answer. Can I with good conscious tell you that I believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? Well, no I can't, because the Christian definition of "Messiah" is very different from the Jewish definition, so as I have stated in a prior post, I cannot simply say "Jesus is the Christ" without some reservations.
I am not "avoiding the answer," I am simply sharing the reason why I am extremely hesitant to pass judgment on the man of Jesus. He called us to have faith in God, he called us to a higher morality, he called us to be more than just "religious," he called us to be true images of God as he was. When one looks at Jesus, one looks at God. There is no more physical way in which one can do that, I believe. Do I believe he was God incarnate? Well geez, I don't think there's a human being who ever lived that could explain that question. Even the Fourth Gospel shrouds that in mystery. That is what it is, a mystery. How does an infinite being inhabit a finite one? Well, I don't know, and neither does anybody else. It is beyond our comprehension. I simply claim ignorance. We are made in the image of God, and God breathed his spirit into us to give us life and consciousness, so couldn't one argue that we are ALL God incarnate? Before I get labeled a blasphemer I must say that this all depends on your definition of "incarnation." The Logos of God became flesh, according to the Fourth Gospel, and this Logos lived among us. But it didn't just inhabit the earth in Jesus. The Greek word there for "live" or "dwell" in John 1.14 is "skinao." This verb literally means to "pitch a tent" or even "tabernacle." It recalls the imagery of the Exodus and how the people would build a tabernacle (tent) whenever they stopped, and the glory of God (his very presence) would abide in it. This is the same way that the Logos abided in Jesus, according to this gospel. A very real presence of God lived in Jesus. This is how Jesus and the Father are One. But how then could he pray that his followers be One as He and the Father are One? Is he asking God to incarnate his followers? Isn't that what you guys claim he has done? If you are Trinitarian then the Holy Spirit is just as much God as Jesus or the Father is, so by claiming you have received the Holy Spirit and that it dwells inside you, then you are claiming equality with Jesus. It is the same imagery that the prologue of the Fourth Gospel depicts. Is this not what Jesus prayed for? Is this not why the curtain in the temple was torn? That we all may be one with God as Jesus was, that we all may be ever conscious of the presence of God, and that we all may live in the Spirit, not only in the Flesh (which is kind of mandatory), but in the freedom from sin and death granted to us by the grace of God?
Jesus is the Way, sure. But does that mean belief in Jesus or following his teachings? I can say wholeheartedly that I believe Jesus is the Way, but how I interpret it is probably not the same way you would interpret it. It's a metaphor, obviously, but most Christians probably interpret it to mean "if you're not a Christian, you're going the wrong way." I disagree. I think it means that the Way of Jesus is the Way. For example, if you have a cage full of prisoners, and one man goes to the front of the room and presses a blue button that opens the door and then says "I am the way" and exits, what he obviously means is that we should all go up and press the blue button to free ourselves. The prisoners are not to start debating about whom that man was, they are not to claim he is the way out of the cage if they only believe that he will get them out, they are not to believe this man is going to make anything better for them. They are to go and press the blue button to escape. If Jesus is the Way, I believe that means the teachings of Jesus are the way. For example, what happens if an observant man was scanning the walls for a way out, and because he is examining the walls he does not see the man escape? He works his way around the room, and he discovers the button, presses it, and escapes. He has found the way. Jesus told the story of those who say "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?" but Jesus tells them "I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers" (Matthew 7.21-23). I always imagine Christians in heaven seeing Buddhists getting in and claiming the same thing. The way of Jesus is that salvation. So I could say "Jesus is the Way," and you guys would agree with me, but I don't believe he is the Way in the same way that you believe he is the Way. I could say Jesus is Lord, but one would have to define Lord. Lord (Greek kurios) means master or leader, pretty much. Lord doesn't mean "God." So someone could claim Jesus Lord without professing any other Christian doctrine. They could say that Jesus is Lord and they will follow their master by selling everything they own and giving all of their money to the poor. That may be the only thing they do. You have a different definition (I do too) of Lord than that, but it's all interpretive.
No comments:
Post a Comment