SENSELESS SEX IN THE BIBLE

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

 

~ Reinhold Niehbuhr ~

 

It is ironic that in this nation, where the right of an individual to be an individual was first inscribed into a constitutional bill of rights, there continues to be a struggle over affording such rights to LGBT individuals who are only seeking equal protection under law and within the framework of societal norms to marry the person they love, to establish their homes in peace, to raise their children without fear, to contribute to their communities, and to serve their nation with honor.

Promoting and preserving the human and social rights of LGBT individuals is very important to the welfare of this nation and the world.  That they are being questioned and threatened by some ultra-conservative groups and individuals within the United States on the basis of religious freedom is disturbing and has the potential of undermining the very thing they are purportedly trying to save.  I quoted Reinhold Niehbuhr's prayer, better known as the serenity prayer, because it marks a milestone in religious thought and provides us with a paradigm for how to think religiously and how to move forward. 
 

Let me be very clear from the onset of this post:

Homosexuality is not a disease, and it is not a disorder, whereas homophobia is both a social disease and mental disorder.

I know LGBT individuals who are caring, contributing, and creative people.  I have worked in mental health all my life and I can attest, first hand, how disordered homophobia is.  Homophobia is not just a mental disorder, it is a dangerous mental disorder that has resulted in the murder of people and it can spread socially.   

Since religion and, in particular, a certain understanding of Christianity is at the heart of a tragic and dangerous devolution by politicians into theology, I thought it would be good to pause and consider what exactly politicians are basing their political theology on.  So what I am offering is a quick excursion through Biblical texts upon which some are basing a right to openly to display their fear and opposition to the LGBT community in destructive ways.
 

In Western and Mideast culture the discrimination and persecution of homosexual individuals is connected to Abrahamic monotheism and its one prohibition against homosexuality.  It has taken centuries, after the rise and establishment of Abrahamic monotheism as the predominant religious perspective, for LGBT individuals in the West to gain some acceptance to live openly as such.  In fact, the social acceptance of LGBT individuals is so new that there are still laws on the books in some U.S. states that engaging in any homosexual activity is illegal. 

A RELIGIOUS PROBLEM

Discrimination against LGBT individuals is a religious problem that, thankfully, a growing number of Christian and Jewish denominations are owning and are finding, as Niehbuhr said, the courage to change their ways because there have always been homosexual people from the dawn of human existence and there always will be homosexual people.  The fact is this is not going to change. Homosexuality cannot be eradicated.  Homosexuals cannot be converted. Now that these facts are out of society's closet, it is doubtful that homosexuality can ever be suppressed back into that closet. 

As one LGBT slogan puts it, "Some people are Gay.  Get over it!" 

That the rights of gay and lesbian individuals has become connected to the issue of marriage is new, but looking at marriage in ancient societies might help us "get over " the fear that surrounds that issue.  Without going into a great deal of detail, let me provide a thumbnail excursion into the historical identification of the problem as associated with the rise of monotheism in the ancient kingdom of Judah. 

SEX IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

As early as the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, the wise King Solomon understood, what almost every king understood at the time, the importance of making alliances in order to protect one's kingdom.  Alliances at this time were sealed through marriage and Solomon made a lot of alliances, around 700 by the Biblical record.  With marriage comes religion. 

Solomon didn't require that his wives change their religion.  On the contrary, it was understood that in allying one's self through marriage one accepted the gods and goddesses of that partner's kingdom of origin.  The temple in Jerusalem soon became a center for polytheistic worship.  At this time, the idea of only one God was not a consideration.  Strict monotheism comes relatively late in antiquity. The Hebrew scriptures will attest to that.  Along with those religions came religious practices, many of which involved sexual rituals for the purpose of ensuring fertility of the land. The connection between agrarian fertility and sexuality goes back to prehistory.  Sexuality in all its forms became part of these rituals, including homosexuality. 

Fast forward to the reign of King Manasseh, Solomon's great, great. great... grandson, several generations later.  Manasseh was the longest reigning monarch in the Kingdom of Judah, some fifty-plus years, and by many accounts his was one of the most successful reigns.  He is particularly noted in the Book of King and Chronicles  for "re-introducing" idolatry to Judah (it was always about and around the area) after his father, the more biblically respected Hezekiah, banned it.  Manasseh was particularly devoted to and set up shrines around the countryside to the Canaanite and Phoenician goddess, Asherah and the god, Mollech.  He is reported as having fully participated in these rites, including the sacrifice of his own children.  He also erected shrines to these gods and goddesses in the Temple of Jerusalem.

Included in the Temple cult were male prostitutes presumably used for fertility rituals, but the term prostitute indicates that these male individuals were used recreationally, implying  casual sexual relations with men outside of ritual.   So when the theological concept that there is only one God, the God of Abraham, becomes firmly established in the kingdom of Judah, the Temple is purged of its idols, along with its male prostitutes.

 As monotheistic rigidity becomes the order of the day, the ability of kings to ally themselves to other kingdoms is curtailed and within a relatively short period of historical time, the kingdom of Judah falls to the Babylonians, the Temple is destroyed, and the elite of this kingdom are packed off to live in Babylonia.  What is evident, even in Hebrew scripture, is that those kings who married most and married well provided the best economic and political security for their kingdoms. 

SENSELESS SEX

So onto the topic of sex - Monotheistic scribes around this time asserted that only Yahweh is God.  They started writing down Hebrew oral tradition around the 7th century BCE  in what we have come to know as the Torah or the Books of Moses (some scholars would date some  parts much later than that).

[No - Moses did not write these books. They were ascribed to him to lend authority to them.]

In one of them, the Book of Leviticus, we find the first and only specific prohibition against homosexuality.

[No -  the story of Sodom (where the term sodomy comes from) and Gomorrah is not the first indication of God's disapproval of homosexuality - The entire Book of Genesis is neither fact nor history.  Its entire content is mythic (I will write about the role of myth in the Bible in future posts.) That the story of Sodom and Gomorrah may have been included to provide some backing for the prohibition against homosexuality and incest in Leviticus and monotheism.]

The Book of Leviticus (named after the priestly tribe of Levi) is noteworthy because it specifically is dealing with priestly function and life style in order to keep Temple worship pure and free of idolatry - thus we see the connection to male prostitutes in the Temple.  It is also an early theological work that is differentiating monotheism from polytheism by its vehement opposition to anything associated with the worship of idols and their practices.  This became particularly important in maintaining Jewish identity during the Babylonian Captivity.  As such, Leviticus is designed to establish differences between what becomes Judaism and other religions of the time.

Keep this in mind as you read the list of prohibitions that follow.  You will notice the biggest concern for these scribes was to address incest which apparently was widely practiced. 

I will be using the King James Version (KJV) throughout this post.

  * * * * * * * * * *
 

Leviticus 18 

 

 5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them:  I am the Lord your God.

 

6  None of you shall approach to any that is near kin of him, to uncover their nakedness:* I am the Lord.

 

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

 

8 The nakedness of they father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

 

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

 

10 The nakedness of  they son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for their is thine own nakedness.

 

11 The nakedness of they father's wife's daughter, begotten of they father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

 

12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister; she is thy father's near kinswoman.

 

13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of they mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

 

14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife; she is thine aunt.

 

15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law; she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

 

16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of they brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness.

 

17  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for thy are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness.

 

18  Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.  

 

19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for uncleanness**.

 

20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife to defile thyself with her.

 

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Mollech***, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God:  I am the Lord.

 

22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

 

23  Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto; it is confusion.

 

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

  



 * Nakedness is translated as sexual relations in other versions

** refers to a woman's menstrual period

*** Mollech refers to the king of  the Canaanite gods. This verse is understood to mean a prohibition against sacrificing one's child to this god, as in burning the child alive. - Manasseh?

 

  * * * * * * * * * *

 

 [A follow up to this list if found in Leviticus 20 which states the punishment for these offenses. With the exception of  Vs. 19 above, all of them resulted in being sentenced to death.]

 

I know this can be a tedious read, but take a close look at it.  If you have another translation, read this passage in it. Can you see anything missing? 

 

Let me give you a clue.  Look closely at verses 22 and 23.  Now do you see what's missing?

 

Why is there only a prohibition of men having sex with men?  Why not women having sex with women?  

 

The only thing women are prohibited from in this long list is the implied prohibition of  sex with one's father and not having sex with an animal. [Certain animals were associated with various ancient gods and goddesses.]   All the other prohibitions are being addressed to men.   Why is that?

 

Simple answer is that the authors of the Bible didn't understand the reproductive system. 

They didn't understand sex.
 

BIRDS AND BEES IN ANTIQUITY

 



So let's deal with the facts about sex at the time in which Leviticus was written.  Have you ever noticed that in the Bible if couple is childless it is because the woman is considered "barren?"  

 

What ancient people understood about sex is intimated in this list prohibitions.  It demonstrates an understanding that if a male and female of any species  or possibly between species had sexual intercourse the result could be offspring.  The term barren when applied to a women was an agrarian simile.  Seed doesn't grow in land considered barren, where the nutrients necessary for growth were lacking.  Likewise a man's seed (sperm) would not grow in the barren field of a woman's womb, thus being childless was a woman's problem.

Ancient people could only base their understanding of sex on observation and making the connection between cause and effect.  They knew that women had menstrual periods which played a role in the reproduction cycle, that men produced seed, and that sexual intercourse produced offspring.

"To every thing there is a season...  "A time to be born and a time to die; a time to plan, and a time to pluck up that which is planted" Ecclesiastes 3:1&2 

That's it. 

Since men obviously had seed, it apparently was never considered it to be ineffective seed, even though one could have deduced that from agriculture. The problem with proving that, however,  was that it could only be demonstrated if a man's wife was impregnated by some other male.  If that occurred (and it did) both the man and the woman involved would have kept quiet or face being publically executed.  You don't hear about "barren men" or male erectile dysfunction in the Bible.

 

The lack of a prohibition of a woman having sex with another woman didn't mean women didn't have sexual relationships with other women back then.  History will inform you that they did. It's just that it didn't matter.  Why?  Well... one can think of several reasons why that might be the case.  First of all, polygamy was practiced by men in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah at this time as referenced in these prohibitions and found in verses 8 & 9.  Depending on how many wives one had, this meant that not all would have had sexual relations with their husband on a regular basis.  You can catch my drift where this is going.

The other reason for a lack of prohibition on the subject is that women, in general, didn't account for much unless they bore children, especially sons. They were considered property (like a field).   Sons were not only important to the man in the patriarchal system, but if a woman in that system failed to have a son to look after her should her husband die, she would have no viable means of support and either had to rely on the beneficence of a husband's brothers or other relatives and that didn't happen often.  In fact, prophets in the Bible consistently demanded justice for the widow and the orphan.

The closest one can get in the Hebrew Scriptures to anything close to a prohibition for women and sexual identity is in Deuteronomy 22:5 which deals with cross-dressing:

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

There's no real explanation for this verse found in the text.

SEX IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
 

What did Jesus say?

Jesus never specifically addresses the topic of sex.  He talks about marriage and he only addresses the issue of marriage because he was asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. 

Here's Matthew 19:3-6:

 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 

4  And he answered and said unto them, 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

 5 And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh: wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'"  [KJV]

The same story is repeated in Mark 10.  

Jesus is talking about heterosexual marital relationships.  What one finds in Jesus' narrative is that marriage was understood to be a "binding relationship." Jesus's strong statement of the two being no more "twain but one flesh" is a clever means of protecting women in these relationships. If the man wants to divorce his wife, Jesus is saying he is, in essence, tearing out his own flesh.

Jesus had a knack for not addressing issues that weren't specifically brought up.  Since no one brought up the topic of homosexuality, Jesus didn't address it.  That may leave some to conclude that Jesus being Jewish  we can assume he would have frowned on it.  Maybe...  but...

As demonstrated with by the above exchange he had with the Pharisees on marriage, it's obvious no one at the time would have taken any of Jesus' responses for granted.  Why else did the Pharisees approach him about something they already had the answer to?   Jesus was very good at throwing curve balls at his detractors. There is simply no way of knowing what Jesus would have said, and we must leave it at that.  One cannot contrive from Jesus' comment about marriage what his attitude towards or view of homosexuality was.

Marriage amongst common folk were also about establishing proprietary claims in antiquity.  Marriages were largely arranged for that purpose.  The poorer two people were the more likely they married for love and/or protection.  Nevertheless, females continued to be treated like property than anything else, and if the couple of an arranged marriage ended up loving each other, (and we can assume many did) good and well, but if they didn't, as noted in conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees, it was understood a man could easily dump his wife with little or no cause to which Jesus said, "No."

Who one married back then was not a personal choice. Those who fell in love and sought marriage needed to seek approval from their fathers or a male patriarch.  Traces of this ancient practice is till found in many Christian weddings in the form of "giving the bride away" as in when a priest or minister says, "Who give this woman to this man?  - an echo of a past where women were considered the property of their fathers until married off. 

Frankly, sex was understood as sealing the deal. The first sexual encounter on the wedding night was (via examination of the bed sheets) proof of the woman's goods.  Marriage then and now is about establishing a proprietary covenant or contract of who is responsible for whom.

Check out Deuteronomy 22 again to see what kind of penalty a husband would have to pay for accusing his wife wrongly of not being a virgin after the first night of marriage.  Not much, other than being stuck with her for the rest of his life.

The issue of same-sex marriage is only an issue because gay and lesbian couples have been denied proprietary rights and responsibilities to each other.  That sexual orientation has become a concern for some is a clearly a religious concern, not a civil one. 

Paul

Lesbians finally received some press in the Bible by none other than the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans.  In the very first chapter Paul says this: 

24 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own heart, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 

25 Who change the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.  Amen. 

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:  for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet. 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." [KJV]

In a strict reading of Paul's letter to the Romans, one would have to conclude the homosexuality is something God bestows on people as a punishment for idolatry. Undoubtedly this goes back to Paul's understanding of the connection between idolatry and male homosexuality in Leviticus. Paul was probably reacting to all the nude statutes that literally covered ancient Greek and Roman cities, as noted in his observation " Who... worshipped and served the creature... ."

With all those very human-looking, nude gods and goddesses distracting or attracting a person, one's sense of sexual morality could be loosened.  I find his response revealing.  Obviously all this nudity and sexual frivolity was too much sensory overload for Paul.  It triggers for Paul a rather traditional Jewish response when he says at the end of verse 25, " the Creator, who is blessed for ever.  Amen."  Oy veh!

Paul, being Paul, will go on in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 6, to make a list of people who will have a problem making it into heaven:

7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another.  why do ye not rather take wrong?  Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 

8  Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud and that your brethren.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:  neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkard, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you:  but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

12  All thing are lawful unto me, but all thing are not expedient:  all thing are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

13  Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.  Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

One good thing (and there are good other things) about Paul is that he does not advocate violence against homosexuals or any one, as we saw in the Leviticus.  In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul's reaction is more about the looseness of moral conduct in the Greek and Roman society at the time(and they were very loose).   In particularly, Paul is concerned about such conduct amongst the member of the small Christian community in Corinth.

He identifies homosexuality in this context of seeing it used abusively, along with a number of other abusive behaviors.  It is the abusiveness in human relationship that Paul is really addressing.  As much as Paul might found some behaviors repulsive, he is stating that he knowingly accepted homosexuals into the church.

Paul is strongly advocated that difference is not cause to take legal action which he see as an obstruction to the Gospel message; something Christian political theologians should take note of.

 Paul makes an interesting statement at the end of this list.  He says: 

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:  all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."  1 Corinthians 6:12

In other words, what Paul is admitting that these situations exist (things that can't be changed), but not to let any one particular issue define one's life. For Paul the only true definition of a full self was to identify with the mind of Christ.

Let's be honest, we all have issues, and we all possess the capacity to make our own list of issues.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

What has been presented in this post demonstrates there is no clear mandate against individuals being homosexual in the Bible. In fact, the Bible makes the case that homosexuality has been around for a since the dawn of human existence and it is not going away.  Any prohibition against it found in the Bible resides within a specific context that argues against broad or universal application.

The fact is the Bible offers very little support to any of the human rights that have been identified since the abolition of slavery in the United Stated in the mid-19th century.

Let's face it, some individuals still haven't come to grips that slavery is wrong.   Some still struggle with the rights of women to vote and receive equal pay because the Bible is fairly prescriptive when it comes to how a woman should dress and act in public.  

If the Bible were taken literally, women would still be treated as property and made to stop wearing jewelry and makeup.  They would be made to stay at home, and away from the workplace.  Their lives would be totally dependent on men.  Slavery would exist because there is no prohibition against slavery in the Bible.  Paul's letter to Philemon provides proof of that.  The Bible simply does not address or provide answers to all our problems today because it is a product of the time in which it was written.

Insisting on a literal interpretation of Abrahamic monotheism in the sense that the Bible, a collection documents written over two thousand years ago, contains all the answers to all our questions today is sheer nonsense.  The insistence that one particular, minimally addressed issue of a bygone era, must define an issue of our day is the elephant in the room regarding the human rights of LGBT individuals.

There is a huge difference between the concepts of being People of the Book and being People by the Book.  To treat the Bible as something as having a literal meaning carved into granite is nothing short of ideological idolatry.  With that said, various Christian and Judaic denominations are evolving and finding ways to offer broad support for the human rights of LGBT individuals; to support these individuals for who they are, to promote that they be allowed to live in society free of oppression or suppression within the context of a living, life-giving, and loving understanding of sacred scripture.  They are trying to rectify their stance on things that cannot be changed and to make needed changes in order to accommodate what is just and right,  and they are courageously leading the way for others religious people to follow. 
 

COURAGE

No one should be permitted the right to display their disapproval of another human being by the public shunning and persecution of that person or of an identified group simply because of who they are.   To base such practices on ancient religious texts is senseless and an affront to human decency, dignity, and progress.  It tarnishes the concept of God and religion as a whole.

Times have changed and our understanding of ourselves and our world has never been better.  In order for religions rooted in antiquity to survive they must evolve and remain relevant to the present. The major religions of the world have a responsibility "to get their act together" and demonstrate within their distinct traditions mutual respect of each other and to promote the mutual respect of the person in all people.

The fact and the truth of the matter is that human are diverse beings.  We're not just men, just women, just straight, just gay, just lesbian, just bisexual, just transgendered just black, just white, just Asian, just Native American, just Hispanic, just Irish, just Italian, just Japanese, just Christian, just Hindu, just Muslim, just Jewish, just Buddhist, just...  etc. .  Each person is multi-faceted.  Humans cover a spectrum of creative interests and passions from artists to zoologists.

Also, humans are naturally prone to discrimination.  We are after all the discriminating animal. [Read the creation myth (story) in Genesis 1 through 4].  It's part of our intellectual ability to identify difference.  We know now, as never before, that our discriminating capacity requires restraint when applied to other human beings. 

Without personal or legal restraint we tend to focus on the differences we see in the other to the degree that it can foster unwarranted fear and hatred of the other.  This is well demonstrated in our history and by the evidence presented in ancient religious scriptures themselves like the Bible. 

We should learn from history's mistakes and not treat them as precedent.  Ancient sacred writings require deep understanding as opposed to trite literal applications so that the cause of human decency, dignity and respect of each person is advanced.  To do otherwise is to portray and court ignorance as intelligence.

My friend, the apostle Paul had the courage to accept what couldn't be changed and the courage to change what he could as found in one of his most interesting comments about himself: "

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations , there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure."  2 Corinthians 12:7

I don't know what Paul's flesh-thorn was, but it was bad enough for him to attribute it to Satan; meaning he had no personal control of it.  I'm glad he didn't tell us because we can fill in the blanks of whatever it is we can't change in ourselves and in our world.  Paul' recognized that his only option was to accept what could not be changed in himself or to despair.

Most of us have experienced situations in our lives that we cannot change; that we must accept.  Have you ever observed what happens to people who can't accept what cannot be changed?  Have you noticed how life becomes miserable for them?  How they entertain fear?  How they become bitter and/or hostile? 

In accepting what cannot be changed, most us have found the ability to move on with life.   This is one of meanings we can extract from the resurrection story of Jesus.  [See my last post on Getting Real With Easter] 

There's a line in the Gospel of John, that offers a broader application than its context.  It says, "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

We know the truth that some people are gay. 

We know the truth that there have always been LGBT individuals and will always be LGBT individuals. 

We know the truth that sexual orientation cannot be scared or converted out of someone.

We know that the courage to be true to one's self is opening many closet doors. 

We know the truth that world peace is dependent on accepting the things that cannot be changed and changing the things that can.

Homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, whereas homophobia is a mental disorder and a social disease that can spread. 

We need wise leadership in our nations and in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other organizations.

We need wise leaders who have the courage to help us to accept the things that cannot be changed, and the courage to help us change what we can. 

We need wise leaders who can tell the difference.   

Until next time, stay faithful.

GETTING REAL ABOUT EASTER

I know of priests, pastors, and other sincere preachers who dread preaching an Easter sermon simply because trying to explain this story as a historical event and having to assert that Jesus is physically raised from the dead and ascended into heaven  poses all sorts of mental dilemmas - stomachs churn and beads of sweat form in trying to explain and give meaning to something that can't be explained and whose meaning is anything but clear.  Of course for literalists and fundamentalists this is not a problem.  They are not required to think and, from what I have been able to ascertain, most don't.

As I have mentioned in past posts, some theologians will point out that resurrection does not mean resuscitation but then fail to say exactly what they mean by that.  The problem with the whole Passion/Easter story is that it is a problem.  I'm sure some will find that my seeing it as a problem a reason to explain that my "confusion" is a sign of its mystery; that this historical event is also a transcendent event with a transcendent meaning.  Hmmm...

I realize the New Testament has many-a verse talking about people who think like me - how the Gospel is stumbling block to wise and the how being a fool for Christ is a good thing, etc., etc.... .  Well, I don't consider myself particularly wise, and I try not to be foolish for Christ or anyone else. I'm not buying into the Pauline obsession with "Christ's" suffering, death and resurrection and the meanings he attached to it.

The fact is I could go the transcendent route regarding this story and try sidestepping the whole historical/physical reality issue by explaining it in terms of mystery.  Frankly, I'm leery of the term mystery.  Terms like that tend to become lulling agents (or as Marx would have put it, an opiate) that permits one to suspend reason and rationality in order to subscribe to a belief system; in this strange case, an ideological belief  based on the resurrection being a historical event whose meanings are cloaked in mystery.  Even the progressive theologians who mitigate resurrection as meaning not resuscitation are still treating it as a historical event which does not solve anything and I don't subscribe to the notion that the scripture was written to convey mystery, even if Paul says it does in 1Corinthians 15:51. "I tell you a mystery..."  (I knew there was a reason I never warmed to Handel's "Messiah.")

If I haven't defined the problem clearly in other posts, let me try one more time:

THE PROBLEM

The problem with the resurrection story is that:

• It is a distraction to what Jesus taught about living in the present (Ex. Matt. 6:34 - "Don't worry about tomorrow...")
• It evolved into fatalistic worldview that states there is nothing we can do to save ourselves and the world.  God has done or will do it all.
• It stands in opposition to what Jesus taught; namely, there is something we can do, that the world is not a lost cause, that the world is good and there are ways to heal its brokenness now with compassion and forgiveness, to start with.
• It adds nothing to what Jesus already taught, that we are both human and divine creatures; that God is our Father as much as his Father (Ex. The Lord's Prayer.) 
• It resulted in making Jesus an exception to his own teachings as noted above by being declared the only-begotten Son of God by the likes of the author of the Gospel of John. 

I realize this may be hard for Christians to think this way.  I understand.  My whole religious upbringing was steeped in salvation theology. I realize most Christians are also steeped in salvation-based theology, so much so, that they do not realize their inability to speak freely about the teachings of Jesus without presenting those teachings as "conditions met" in the Easter story; that it's all been done for us a long as we believe it to be a historical fact. In other words, what Jesus said is good, and you should do it, but don't worry, it's all been taken care of.  Talk about confusing!

Which brings me to what generated these problems; the instance that the resurrection story is an historical event.

So the question becomes, "Is it a historical event?"

No.

There is no way of verifying it as such, and the only way to make it a historical event is that one has to believe it's a historical event. 

* * * * * * * * *

 

I can hear the arguments:

 

"Jesus says in the Gospel of John 20:29, 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.'"

 

My point exactly.  There is no evidence of its being historical apart from that people believe it is historical.  John's gospel, as seen above, provides confirmation that there is no outside evidence of its historicity beyond what one believes; thus making belief evidential in itself, which poses a whole lot of other questions.
 

"Can you prove that it is not a historical event? 

Yes.

There is no contemporary record of this occurrence outside of gospels (written between twenty and seventy years after Jesus' death) that mention any of the incidents recorded in them at the time of the alleged event.  The gospel accounts are not eyewitness reports.  They are reports of what other alleged eyewitnesses reported.  The stories are inconsistent and do meet the standard for establishing something as a historical fact.  [See my posts on Salvation Parts I and II]

"If they're not fact, what are they?"

Good question!  To be honest I have to place them in the category of mythic stories, along with the Nativity story and others.

"So are you saying this was all made up?"

Mostly.

While the Easter story cannot be considered a historical event, I would be reluctant to say that those who reported the stories of others seeing Jesus after his death was made up. That stories of people claiming to have seen a physical Jesus after his death is a historical fact in itself.  In fact, Christianity is proof of that.  It's possible that those who claimed to have seen Jesus had experiences of seeing Jesus, but I have no idea what they were or what they mean.  I wasn't there.

In addition, there could be psychological reasons for people having such experiences.  From a 21st century perspective, one might be able to explain such phenomenon as the result of trauma, guilt, and/or an intense sense of loss.  All of those elements seem plausible, given the accounts of the Passion story. The gospels don't provide any clues as to what the resurrection means.  In fact, the stories in the gospels are varied in details and most possess ethereal elements that argues against them being real (Jesus appears out of nowhere, for instance).  I would also note that in the ancient world myth and history were rather interchangeable.  To present a mythic event as a historical event, something that actually happened, was fairly common.

* * * * * * * * * *
 

HISTORY AND MEME

What I have concluded from the lack of information found within the gospels (the Gospel of John being the exception) is that within the earliest stages of Christianity these stories evolved into an elaborate belief system from which belief in their historicity reached the level of a meme for Christians (the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul being the proof of that). 

The result is that most Christians can't think of this story other than as a historical event.  I can attest to that because being raised to believe this story as a historical fact upon which my salvation is dependent is hard to think around, even now.  Christians are doctrinally programed to accept it as such. 

What I find interesting is that it's not actually treated as a historical fact by those who believe it is.  Historical facts are about things of the past; occurrences that happened "back then" and whose importance to us today is simply in the fact that the historical event may or may not have contributed to where we're at today.  The meaning of historical facts are found in the factualness of the events and the factual results of the event. If something isn't factual its not provable, and if something is not provable it isn't factual. Historical facts do not have transcendent meanings. 

The Easter/Resurrection story is all about transcendent meaning.  People find all sorts of transcendent meanings to it, which I find interesting because historical facts don't work like that. Finding meanings that transcends the story of an event beyond the present is what one does with myths, not history, and not mystery. Mystery, in its Christian usage, is an attempt to merge transcendence with history. I consider that an extreme suspension of logic and reason. The only thing historical about transcendence is that it's a human concept which has been used throughout history.  Do not misunderstand me, I have nothing against the use of transcendence.  In fact, all religions embody and possess transcendent elements.  It's just that you cannot use transcendence in historical interpretation. 

Christians have become so indoctrinated against myth that the idea of the mythic residing in the Holy Bible or that myth played a role in shaping Christian theology is unthinkable, and most can't go there.  So pervasive is the notion that myths are lies or untrue that dictionaries define them as such.  I don't define myth that way.  Myths possess transcendent qualities; in that, they provide meanings or present truths that are applicable but can't be readily explained in a tangible way apart from story. Psychology, for instance, uses Greek myths to explain personality, human development, and human interactions.  I consider myths the oven-mitts of truths.  Not that truth is too hot to handle but rather that truth of a transcendent nature has to be handled very carefully.

I continue to see clergy and theologians having to contend with asserting the Easter story as a historical event even when I see them trying to sidestep the whole historicity issue and promote the message of Jesus' teachings about love and forgiveness as being the most important facet of the Jesus experience.  That's why I hang around the church I belong to.  It allows people to have a mind, to think, and to reason.  If it wasn't for that, I'd do what many others have done in more stringent ecclesial environments - Leave.  

HONESTY

What is needed is an honest approach to these stories.  Why?  Because the Easter story is a myth and insisting that it has to be believed as a historical event upon which the salvation of the world is dependent has the potential for using it irrationally to harm others, as has been done in the past.

The Easter story has multiple levels of meaning and application, but I do not subscribe to the belief that my or other people's "salvation" is dependent on believing it as a historical fact.  I don't subscribe to the belief that Jesus's ministry is about salvation.  Jesus' ministry is about redemption, restoration, seeing this life as good, and pointing to an understanding that the most important concern any of us have is the very moment we're in; that living life in the manner that Jesus taught takes care of life, now and hereafter.  Jesus was not beyond telling stories that have mythic qualities.  His parables certainly showed his being adept at expressing himself  metaphorically.

That there may be life after this life doesn't strike me as mysterious at all.  Being alive now is a good indication that there might be more to life than this life.  I don't need an atoning sacrifice or a resurrection story to convince me of that.  What is more important is to understand how to live today. Jesus' teachings provides guidance, as do the teachings of whole lot of other individuals; philosophers, spiritual leaders, scientists, and almost anyone who bothers to write stories.

Life is self-evident in it's own emerging and unfolding story. As such, myth lends itself to exploring life's transcendent qualities and truths that extend beyond and are independent of mere historical events. Treating the story of Easter as a historical event limits it to being a one-time historical phenomenon that has not been replicated since.

Easter is a celebration of life, and in the context of Jesus' teachings, it offers a restored vision of the original goodness of this life and, by being true to being, holds the possibility of more hereafter.  The Passion/Easter narrative is a beautiful story of unbounded love, forgiveness, and renewed life.  It is full of mythic meanings. Handling it with care would help reset the focus on what Jesus taught in an open, meaningful way; without the fear and the threat of eternal damnation

 Until next time, stay faithful 

INTERLUDE - RUMORS AND GOSSIP

It's time for a brief interlude.  Here's a poem I wrote sometime ago. 

**********

 

RUMORS AND GOSSIP

 

 

         Rumor had it he was a bastard child,

                    Gossip had it he was a mother-only child;

         Divinely rendered in virginal womb - a phenomenon - an "only-one," special made

                    Clone of God and man.

         Rumor had it his body was stole.

                    Gossip had it he bodily rose from a sepulchral niche

         On the gardened side of the hill

                    Not three days after they had him killed.

 

         It's lamented, the shortened life

                    Blessed the lengthened life

         Considered robbed the purposed life, taken too soon.

                    An odd human trait, to measure life from birth to its demise.

         Rarely considering the worth of the life,

                    If the one who lived it was kind or wise.

         Each grave marker a stopwatch, frozen in time, waiting for a cosmic thaw.

                    Is it hope or fear that makes us chisel into stone once-lived years

          Or do we do it to make sure not extend memory beyond a few?

 

         His purposed life robbed; on sweated, blood-soaked, necrotic wood he died.

                   It's worth entombed before the sun stopped to shine;

         Out of sight, out of time, wrapped for worming food.

                   His dates not yet paced, there was mourning to do and faithless fear of

         A non-atoning tomb .

                  Then he was gone; no longer entombed.
         Rumor had it he was seen by some, and that's when the gossip grew.

  

Norm Wright - November 11, 2008

 

**********

  Until tomorrow' post...

ECCE HOMO

Ecce Homo - "Behold the man" is one of the most insightful theological statements made in the New Testament about Jesus, and it was said, according to the Gospel of John, by Pontius Pilate at Jesus' trial. This statement, found only in The Gospel of John, is a bit ironic; in that, the Gospel of John is a very theologized Gospel, putting words in Jesus' mouth and probably other people's, like Pilate, but these words have resonated with Christians throughout the centuries, and I believe the reason they do is that they cause us to look at Jesus as one of us.

LOOKING AT JESUS - SEEING ONE'S SELF

There is way of looking at Jesus and seeing one's self reflected in him.  I'm not trying to be mystical or mysterious about this.  There's a way of looking at any other human being and seeing one's self reflected in that person.  It's not a case of the dualism found in the expression, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." but rather in the non-dualistic expression, " There I am. That's me."

I want to re-emphasize that when I say Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God, I am not saying Jesus is not God's son, just that he is not the only one.  Jesus is God's son and so am I, and so are you daughters and sons of God.  Jesus is divine, and so are we all. All humans are made in the image of God,  We're not God, nor is Jesus God, but we are "made of God," to use Julian of Norwich's phrase.  No single person can claim to be God, no group of people can claim to be God, and yet we are all made of God and are part of God. One cannot make God into a person without making an idol of that person. Jesus knew this.

Throughout his short ministry, as recorded in all the gospels, Jesus talks about the interconnectedness we have with one another and with God.  In the synoptic gospels, the way to God is through treating the other as one's self.  He tells us to love our neighbors, to love our enemies, and to forgive, forgive, forgive because the other person is me, the other person is part of God.

Perhaps this sounds so loving that we tend to push it into the realm of wishful thinking, but really think about this for a moment.  If this line of perception evolved into the mainstream of cognitive reality, much like we have all come to agree that a chair is a chair; if we saw everyone as the image of God, as being part of God, as being part of me, murder rates wouldn't be a consideration.  Killing another person would be seen as killing a part of one's self, as an attempt to kill part of God;  a suicidal act, a deicidal act. Wars would be unthinkable if we all saw the other person as my person, as made of God. 

Think of the freedom and the security this would offers us as individuals, to know that we are not alone, that others are part of me, that God is part of me, no matter what I think, what I believe, what I've done or what I have failed to do.  This would not only give us greater freedom to be who we are but also a greater purpose in being who we are. The fact is we haven't begun to evolve that level of perception, we haven't embraced the message of Jesus at all. 

The closest we have come to this in evolutionary terms is what we call community. In the communities of today, we/they, us/ them, and I/thou thinking prevails. That type of community is a far cry from what I believe Jesus is talking about.  Jesus was talking about a community in which we see God in myself and in the other; a non-dualistic community where the other is me, where a true sense of a variegated us-in-God prevails.  In the "variegated us" we retain individual traits, preferences, and abilities. In the variegated other we recognize in the their differences our complements and can appreciate a fuller sense of what it means to be.  We are light years away from seeing this perception realized.

How can we feel comfortable going to church, praising God while holding on to the idea that the world is evil and humanity is essentially sinful by nature? How can we praise God  as if it's all been taken care; believing there is nothing we can do to change the world or change ourselves; that all we have to do is wait for death; the death of ourselves and the death of our world so God can get it right and make it all better? If Christians don't embrace Jesus' message that there is a way forward, a way we can regain the original goodness that emerged from, how can one expect the world to get it?  How else is the world to be redeemed and realize its original goodness?

The way forward is not easy. There are mountains fear and hatred standing in the way, resulting from the volcanic activity of human violence and the seismic shifts of discriminatory injustice. The vision of seeing God and good in all things has been occluded by these activities. We cannot walk around them. We cannot scale them.  We can only remove them. They must be leveled.   To remove these mountains requires the force of faith. It requires us to engage and recognize God in one's self and in every person.  

God is present.  God is every where. God is in the person I fear the most and in the person I like the least.  It is those persons; the most feared and the least liked who require the deepest measure of my love and the fullest force of my forgiveness.  Admittedly, this is a very hard thing to do, and I'm not  good at it, but do it I must because within my love is God's love and within my forgiveness is God's forgiveness. This is redemption. 

This is the ministry Jesus left us. Do this we must, not to save our souls but to divert us from real self-destruction and to redeem and reclaim the goodness that is us, to redeem, to reclaim, and to rebuild the goodness of our planet home, Earth.

THE SUFFERING AND DEATH OF JESUS

I want to end my discussion on Jesus, the man, talking about the end of his life and its implications in redemptive theology.  Where I think many people personally connect with this human male, Jesus, is what has become known as his passion or his personal suffering. I need to start by saying, once again, that I don't believe Jesus was sent to Earth from heaven for the purpose of dying for our sins. That simply misses and messes up his message.

The story of Jesus' suffering and death falls in the category of stories about Jesus. That Jesus was crucified because of his teachings is very likely.  His teachings found in the synoptic gospels turned religious practice of the time on its head and would turn the religious practices of our day on its head, if allowed.

Simply put, what ends up killing Jesus were the ideological beliefs and religious politics that Jesus challenged.  It's what kills all true prophets in the end.  Religion can kill. That is true of all religions, and we're seeing it played out all over the world today.  I believe Jesus understood this very well.  He didn't have to be a prophet to know that he was walking on thin ice when taking on that type of authority.

Jesus died because of what he taught, because he challenged religious authority and championed the cause of the poor, the sick, and the rejected.  You wouldn't think caring for the poor and needy is such a deadly occupation, but it is.  Jesus is a martyr. The stories of Jesus' martyrdom vary, but what comes through these stories is real human suffering, real human love, and real human forgiveness.  The story of Jesus' martyrdom provides us with the template for redemption as a way of living, a way to move forward in our diverse and complex world. That was always Jesus' message and his mission. For his part, Jesus kept true to it till his last breath.

The story of Jesus, the man, ends with his death.  Death is a fact of life. Death is not the enemy.  The causes of death are the enemy: apathy, avarice, disease, disorder, envy, hubris, and lust.  Death can come as a friend and a blessing.  Most Christians will say, "But Jesus doesn't stay dead. 'Death is swallowed up in victory!' Jesus is resurrected. 'He is risen indeed!' That's the whole point of spreading the Gospel, the whole point of Christianity. Isn't it?"

Is it?

What if it isn't?

What if the whole point of Jesus' ministry has nothing to do with the resurrection story or "spreading the Gospel?"

Until next time, stay faithful.     



 







    









 









 

  

JESUS - "MY FATHER" or "OUR FATHER"?

"'Who do you say I am?'  Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God?'" Matt. 16:15&16

  

MY FATHER

 I could justly be accused of taking things out of context in the Gospels.  I won't deny it.  I do.  My reasoning is quite simple; namely, you don't know the actual context of a message that has been editorialized (tampered with).  What follows the above italicized quote is Jesus' response to Peter found only in the Gospel of Matthew in which Jesus  says, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not reveal to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." Matt.16:17.

The story of Jesus asking his disciples this question is found only in the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  In Mark 8 and Luke 9 the story ends with Peter saying, "You are the Christ of God" or simply put, the Messiah.  In Mark & Luke Jesus simply warns them not to tell anyone about him. In others words, he says, "Don't say this- Don't talk about it," and moves on to another topic.  The prolonged response of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew seems to be a theological insert emphasizing Peter's primacy as Jesus' main man.  In my opinion, it is putting words in Jesus' mouth, which happens elsewhere in the gospels; namely the Gospel of John.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

In the Gospel of John, the question of who is Jesus is nowhere to be found.   By the time John is written, Jesus is understood to be the only-begotten Son of God.  In fact, Jesus says so himself in one of the most famous verses in the Bible, John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son."  This is Jesus talking about himself in the third person.  My point about the Gospel of John is that few, if any, of the statements assigned to Jesus can be taken literally as something Jesus said.

If you were to read John as literature, without having been indoctrinated as to its being the "quintessential" gospel, Jesus comes across as an egotistical narcissist.  If any one of us had to listen to a person  go on about himself as "I am" this and "I am" that and "My father and I" are this and that, we'd be running away as fast as we could.  People who talk like that are diagnosable.

The  reason for this type of egotistic discourse on the part of Jesus is that the Gospel of John is a theologized gospel about Jesus.  Saying the Gospel of John is editorialized would be an understatement.  It's putting words in Jesus' mouth that Jesus didn't say.  I can say this with a degree of certainty because what Jesus is purportedly saying  in John is found nowhere else in the other gospels.

The Gospel of John is very important in understanding the history of theology that develops around Jesus as the Christ, and I will be revisiting John in future posts, but John is theological work about Jesus.  For instance, John does not contain any of the parables of Jesus or other teaching moments recorded in the other three gospels.  John mentions miracles and has Jesus making long discourses about himself.  John also makes a point of differentiating Christianity from Judaism, which reflects the religious turmoil between these two religious communities at the time the Gospel of John was written.  

In John 1 the creation story is rewritten to reflect a world created by and for Christ.  In John's creation story the world is not good only it's creator is (Compare it to Genesis).  The world is dark and confused and needs saving because there is no original goodness in and of itself.  The only good is the light of Christ, and the only people who can consider themselves children of God are those who believe in Christ as that light.  The Gospel of John is literally about gatekeeping (See John 10).

John 1 presents a troubling context and premise for Christianity. There are clearly those who are in and those who are not. This is why I believe salvation theology has the potential for violence. The implication can be drawn that those who don't believe are throwaways; that they are damned. In fact the Gospel of John has Jesus saying this in John 3:18. The indoctrinated will point that Jesus says things like this to prompt us to go out and save the poor bastards from eternal damnation.  This message is simply wrong and I believe it sets the stage for violence done in the name of Christ. 

The author or authors of the Gospel of John is/are using the literary conventions of the day to present a thesis on Jesus as the savior of the world.  It's purpose is clearly to say something about Jesus in an authoritative manner by presenting it as something Jesus actually said.

The one story I resonate with in the Gospel of John is John 8, the adulterous woman, which is not considered original to John (see my post on Forgiveness).  I think it probable that someone other than the author(s) of John inserted it to soften the tone of this gospel in an attempt at correcting its unforgiving theology.  In fact, you don't hear much about forgiveness in this gospel. If memory serves me, I don't believe the word is used.  Read  the Gospel of John and check it out for yourself.
[ Correction: I found one verse, depending on the translation one uses, in John 20:21 "Whose soever sins ye remit (forgive) they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.  Still a matter of who's in an who's not.]

OUR FATHER

Setting aside Jesus' reply to Peter in Matthew and the entire Gospel of John for the moment, one will find that, for the most part, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke depict Jesus as talking about God as our Father or referring to God as your Father.  This is very important in understanding Jesus' message.  In these gospels Jesus never portrays himself as the only-begotten Son of God. He doesn't deny that he is the son of God, but  he does not attach "only begotten" to it.  That only occurs in the Gospel of John.

In fact, Jesus extends this relationship to every one, making us all siblings of each other and Jesus. The clearest example of this is when he teaches his followers how to pray.  In Matthew and Luke we have what is known as the "Lord's Prayer" or the "Our Father."  In my opinion, this prayer is the most authentic teaching we have of Jesus.  It embodies Jesus' complete theological perspective to ministry.  It forms the ultimate Christian Credo. 

The first two words, "Our Father" says it all with regard to how Jesus saw God, himself, and every other person.  We are, every one of us, children of God.  We all have an equal claim to this with Jesus.  Paul will later confuse this issue by calling us heirs through adoption  as found in Romans 8 and Galatians 4.  I don't find the concept of adoption anywhere in Jesus' teaching. It's an unfortunate choice of words on Paul's part.  Don't get me wrong.  I like Paul and will talk more about him.  I'm just not an "inerrant scripture" type of guy, but that's a topic for another day.

The Our Father or The Lord's Prayer embodies the central thesis of Jesus' ministry which is to forgive.  In this prayer we ask for forgiveness and can expect forgiveness on the condition that we forgive the sins or the wrongdoings of others done to us.  The two are connected.  Don't expect forgiveness without being forgiving.  Nothing could be plainer than that.  As followers of Jesus, that is our daily mission.

  

In this one prayer is contained the entire teachings of Jesus:  God is our Father.  The kingdom of God is here and emerging.  Our needs are met in doing the will of God; that is, in forgiving as the means for paving the way to redemption and avoiding the allurement to do evil. 

Jesus clearly understood what the 5th Century church father, Prosper of Aquitaine, meant in his famous statement, "Lex orandi, lex credendi  - The law of prayer is the law of belief, or we believe as we pray or we pray as we believe -  How true... How true!  It's too bad Prosper wasn't around during the Council of Nicea. 

Jesus clearly sees all of us, himself included, as God's children.  We are all incarnations of God and we will all return to earth from which we were made and to the God who breathed us to life.  God is our Father and Jesus is our brother.  This is all there is to it, and that is saying a lot.

Until next time, stay faithful.

 

 

    

  

   

  

JESUS - WHO AM I?

"Along the way, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that I am?''' (Mark 8:27 NABR)

"But who do you say that I am?" (Mark 8:29 -NABR)

 

 

In this and future posts, I'm going to talk about Jesus as man and Jesus as Christ.  In these first few posts, I'm probably going to come across as being heretical to some Christian readers, but as the British say, "Wait for it...".  .  My aim is to be honest in expressing what I understand and sense about Jesus as a human being; what I feel is essential in getting to know Jesus' message.  So this begins a series of post of Jesus as a human being. 

 

 

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father...

...he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father."

From the Nicene Creed

 

WHO JESUS ISN'T

 

I'm going to start writing about who Jesus isn't and what I don't believe is true about him. I will get back to the questions Jesus posed to his disciples as I go along.

 

What  I don't believe about Jesus is that he is the "only begotten Son of God." That concept is antithetical to and a distortion of Jesus' teaching and Hebrew Scripture.   I don't find the notion of Jesus ascending (physically) into heaven and being seated next to God only to return as the  judge of the entire human spectrum in any way helpful in understanding what Jesus is trying to tell his followers. Frankly, I think that part was put in the creeds to literally scare the bejeezus out of us to make sure we're towing the right line and keeping our thoughts in check.  To put it mildly, I'm not a big fan of the creeds - period. 

[ I'm not advocating that we should get rid of them or ignore them. Rather, we need to understand the role they play in the history of Christianity, what they are and why we have them:

The creeds are a product of a bleak time in the history of Christianity - its acceptance as a religion in the Roman Empire in 313 CE.  They are the product of politics.  The emperor, Constantine, clearly had no idea what he got he got himself into when he legitimized Christianity.  What he ended up with was a bunch of greedy, bickering bishops with their own ideas about Jesus vying for imperial patronage. So he pulls them together at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

The creeds were designed to help the imperial bureaucracy decide who should or should not receive imperial (financial) support. The creeds (and there are several of them and several councils that produced them) became an effective tool to weed out people and churches the empire didn't have to support by declaring those who didn't subscribe the creeds as heretics.  A lot of violence occurred as a result.] 

 

Putting Jesus in a "one-and-only" category is pure heresy and makes it hard for anyone to relate to Jesus on a human level. It makes it hard to understand how Jesus related to the people and the situations of his day.  As noted in the creeds, Jesus has become an "up-there/out-there" being on so many levels, ontologically, theologically, morally, etc. Back in his day, Jesus was just one of us. People of his day understood him to be the carpenter's son. We have lost the theological significance of that fact by creating an idealized, dualistic view of Jesus.

The Jesus that I can relate to is the flesh and blood Jesus of the  synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The Jesus who is one of us - very human - the Jesus who preached and reached out to sick and suffering.  It is harder for me to relate to the Jesus who was born under a star or the demigod of the creeds [half human/half divine (Even if the councils added True, meaning fully human and fully divine to his human and divine traits, one can do the math. One plus one still equals two, mathematically and theologically.) I will come back to this formula in future posts.] 

  

A MAN NAMED JESUS

 

Jesus had a father and a mother named Joseph and Mary.  He emerged onto the world stage the same way as you and I did.  His parents, Mary and Joseph, had sexual intercourse and he is the product of that interaction.  If that sounds heretical, it's not.  It's life.  Jesus was a Jew from his birth to his death and his teachings are immersed in and emerge from Judaism.

 

So what are we to make of the nativity stories found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke? 
What are we to make of the resurrection stories?  For the moment, not much.  I will get to these questions in future posts, but for this post I want to concentrate on the man, Jesus.

 

We know very little of Jesus' childhood. The gospels of  Mark and John say nothing of it, and it's hardly mentioned at all in the other two gospels.  But as a male human, we can assume a few things; the most important of which is that Jesus grew up and developed into an adult male just like every other adult male did and does; in every aspect of human male development, including puberty.    Need I say more?  

 

We don't like to think about Jesus as a pubescent adolescent, but I'm sure he was. I believe it's important  to recognize that Jesus went through human development like everyone else. It's  because he did that  we can better understand his ministry and the meanings of his teachings.  Jesus arrives at what he taught not because he was some pure, semi-divine observer who never had to encounter our experiences on a personal level, but rather because he went through them, just like we did and do.    Did Jesus ever act up as a child?  Did he need to be disciplined?  He did if he was fully developed human. The idea of a perfect human is just that, an idea, not a reality.  

 

I love the story in Luke 2 where Jesus, as a twelve year old (the age of becoming a man in Judaism), stays in the Temple in Jerusalem after his parents departed and were heading home to Galilee.  In spite of his being considered a "man," his parents just didn't quit being his parents once he turned twelve.   For them, Jesus was still a kid. 

When they find out he is missing after a day's journey (probably on foot), thinking he was traveling along with other relatives, they panic and head back to Jerusalem to look for this missing kid in a large city packed with a lot of religious pilgrims observing the Passover.  In other words, stranger-danger, any parents' nightmare - lost kid for two days in a crowded metropolitan area. 

 

The Gospel of Luke says they found Jesus teaching the teachers, the elders, in the Temple.  The point of Luke's portrayal is to show that Jesus is the Son of God and that he was going about his Father's work, which is the excuse Jesus gives to Mary and Joseph when they asked him why he didn't tag along when they left.

Now, thinking like a parent, I wouldn't have taken Jesus' response lightly.  In fact, Luke hints that Mary and Joseph didn't either.  Luke says of their response, "But they (Mary and Joseph) did not understand what he was saying."  That's putting it lightly and, in my book, is code for "they were royally torqued."  From a parental point of view, Jesus comes across as a smart-aleck kid, and I have a feeling the proverbial rod was not spared when they found him. 

 

This, of course raises an interesting question:  Did Jesus ever mess up?  Did Jesus sin? 

 

Yes.

 

I can feel the stones and kindling wood being picked up as a I write, but again, "Yes."  

 

I'm not a big fan of the word sin.  I don't find it very helpful.  People mess up and do wrong things.  We can be purposely hurtful and unintentionally hurtful.  We get angry for both the right and wrong reasons and we can become downright evil. All those attributes might fit the bill of sin, but I like to sort them out a bit.

 Did Jesus ever do any of that?  I'm sure he did. 

 

I'm not sure if he had ever done something that would come close to qualifying as evil.  Most of us haven't done that, but most of us have entertained evil thoughts at one time or another, and I'm sure Jesus did also.  In the fact the Gospels say that he did during his temptation in the wilderness.  Let's be honest, one is not being tempted if one never entertained a tempting thought, and the Gospels do not mitigate their accounts of Jesus being tempted.

I would also remind the reader that Jesus said if a man so much as lusted in his heart after another woman, he already committed adultery, thus equating sinful thought with sinful act. I'm not sure there is a big difference between lusting and being tempted.  So I think we can put the notion of a sinless Jesus to rest. Jesus knew what he was talking when he was talking about sins.  

More importantly, Jesus never claims to be sinless or without fault. After all, he is the one who teaches us to pray, "forgive us our sins."  I don't see him excluding himself from the "our" in that prayer.  Making Jesus into a sinless being is something theology has done.  In fact, the Gospels portray people taking issue with Jesus, friends and foes alike, because he did things they saw as wrong, as sinful.  The gospels usually cover for Jesus by making editorial comments like, "Jesus did this to show... "  Nice try, but I'm not buying it. Jesus messed up from time to time like the rest of us. 

 

If Jesus never did anything wrong/sinful, he wouldn't have been able to address wrongdoing and what is truly evil in the forthright way that he did. He wouldn't have been able to forgive people without their asking.  I don't think Jesus had to experience every known bad behavior humans have engaged in. 

Most of us haven't had a lot of those experiences, but Jesus would have had to have some.  He would have had to have sinned enough to know the feelings of separation it causes, the hurt, the fear, the self-loathing that can result  and what it's like to recover in order to have talked about it in the way he did and stress the importance on being forgiving. You can see his first-hand knowledge at work in his parables.   The fact is no one can talk about the things Jesus talked about without having had some experience with them. To argue that Jesus is God and knew all about sin without having to experience any of it as a human is to make the whole Jesus story into some kind of divine joke.

So how did this very human Jesus come to see God as his Father, his Abba - his Daddy?

 

I believe Jesus comes to this profound understanding of his relation with the divine through Judaism; namely, the Genesis story and the story of God's relationship with Israel in the Hebrew scriptures.   Jesus comes to see the presence of God everywhere he turns.  God is at hand - very close to him. The kingdom, the realm of God, is at hand - very close to everyone.  God is his Father.  God is our Father.

Jesus possessed a clarity about being human during a very unclear, murky time, just like now. Jesus understood immense importance of understanding he and all of us exists as the image of God, and this knowledge, this intimacy with God shaped Jesus' perspective of his fellow human, his ministry and mission to connect all of us, all that is, to and in the oneness that is God. 

 

WHO DO PEOPLE SAY JESUS IS?

 

Jesus is a lot of things to a lot of people.  For Christians Jesus is God, Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus is Lord, Jesus is the Christ, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is King, Jesus is High Priest.  For others, Jesus was a prophet, Jesus was a rabbi, Jesus was a zealot, Jesus was an errant Jew.  Then there are those who say Jesus wasn't - he never existed. 

 

WHO DO I SAY JESUS IS?

 

Jesus is a historical figure.  I believe Jesus walked on this earth as a fully developed human male in every sense of that term because, in spite of their being edited and biased, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke - I'll get to John later) contain the ring of truth about who Jesus is. Through them one sees a person who found God intimately connected to his life and tried through his own example, his own life, to get his followers to understand that they and we are God's daughters and sons, that God is our "daddy" also. Jesus' story rings true because it applies. His message is as fresh today as when he first spoke it.

I cannot say where Jesus is today.  I can tell you what I believe or, perhaps better said, what I sense as opposed to what I know. What I sense is that Jesus's physical body has been absorbed back into the Earth from whence it was made and that his spirit has been absorbed back into God - that Being - that Verb - in which we live and move and have our being, the source of his life force; that Jesus came into existence and departed it as all of us have and all of us will. 

Does Jesus exist today?  Jesus is not physically alive on Earth. That's a fact.  In that sense he no longer exists, but I sense there is more to life than just physical existence, more than being a walking, talking, eating, and defecating animal on the surface of a planet for a mere blip in time.

I feel it is a possible probability (as far as a faithful agnostic can go) that Jesus lives and remains essentially human and is one with us right now in the timeless dimension of Being, otherwise known as the Now of God. 

 

Until next time, stay faithful.