Some time ago I mentioned the notion of religious singularity. Since that time I've concentrated a good amount of time talking about my own religious affiliation, Christianity, and contemplating its early origins; all in the attempt to set the stage for taking on the broader topic of religious singularity.
One might ask how reviewing the origins of Christian theology lends itself to a broader discussion of religious singularity? Religious singularity, if it is to be accomplished at all, will be a matter of theological/philosophical evolution. Humans are not well-adapted at coming up with new ideas ex nihlo. We build upon what we know and understand, we create by manipulating the ideas or matters at hand. We evolve from what is. All religions - ALL have this in common - evolving ideologies. So in pursuing a path to religious singularity, I need to start with what I know and considering in what ways it can be used to facilitate the notion of religious singularity
In my opinion, Christianity and its parent religion, Judaism, offer prime examples of evolving theologies; thereby, offering an opportunity to examine pathways to a broader, unitive understanding of religion as a whole. As book dependent as these two religions are, they demonstrate a capacity for a flexible reading of their scriptures that have contemporary applications. The fact that they are book-based gives them the ability know what they are evolving from and where they are evolving to, which brings me to what I will refer to as the Johannine school of theology.
In my last three posts, I touched upon the theological development found in the apostle Paul's writings and the fact that they were written during a time when Christianity was largely understood to be a Judaic sect composed of followers of Jesus who were primarily Jewish. This understanding would fade after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The shift in theological focus is palpable in the Christian literature written after that event. The gospel and letters attributed to a writer or writers named John demonstrate an evolutionary shift in theology that brought Christianity into its own as the distinct monotheistic religion it remains today.
In this and following posts, I will examine the shift that Johannine school of theology represents and discuss its ramifications as a model for movement toward religious singularity. By in large, Christians tend to see the New Testament as a seamless document, but taking a close look would reveal that it is not, even though there appears to have been a concerted effort to make look so. Although the edges have been smoothed out over the centuries, there is evidence of distinct schools of thought peppered throughout the New Testament. This is evident in all the canonical gospels, but it is particularly evident by the presence of the Gospel of St. John in the New Testament's canon.
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Before getting into that, however, I would like to offer a historical perspective as to what facilitated the creation of the Johannine school of theology. The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE changed the theological trajectory of both Judaism and Christianity. It is a historical fact that the persecution of Jews during this time was far greater than that of Christians for one simple reason. Being a Jew who remained Judaic would have made that person rather obvious and easily targeted, being a Christian wasn't. Paul mentions Christians being found in the household of Caesar.
Today's Christians, for the most part, have been immersed in a rather sanitized version of Christianity, with martyrs being regularly persecuted for their faith in Christ. The early persecution of Christians has received much more historical press than the persecution of the Jews that was rampant after the fall of Jerusalem. The proof of this is that after the fall of Jerusalem, many Jews headed east, beyond the borders of the Roman empire to places like Babylon in modern day Iraq. Jews who remained in the empire had a rough time of it. Christianity went literally underground from where it gained steam as a grassroots movement (no pun intended).
The answer is that with the end of temple worship and the early church of Jerusalem there was no reason for Christian Jews to remain linked with Judaism. In the Gospel of John we see its author(s) exercise the differentiating paradigm of religion to demonstrate that Christians Jews are different from Judaic Jews, to the extent that Jewish Christians no longer needed to identify as Jews. In this sense, the Johannine theological perspective relies on Paul's adoptive matrix and morphs it into an adaptive one.
Whereas Paul denies the difference between Jews and Greeks, the Johannine school of theology delineates the difference between Christianity and Judaism thereby presenting Christianity as an alternative to Judaism. In the Gospel of John there is, metaphorically speaking, a difference between Jews and Greeks or, to be more succinct, a difference between Christians and Jews.
Whereas Judaic Jews could not rewrite their history and traditions, Christians could and did. Like Paul, who read the concept of the eternal Christ back into the Hebrew scriptures, its history, and traditions, the Johannine school not only followed Paul's lead but took it a step or two further and rewrote the entire creation narrative, making Jesus equal to God, as God's only begotten Son and the reason the world exists at all, insisting that every event prior to Jesus' earthly ministry was nothing more than a foreshadowing of things to come. Thus Christianity becomes its own religion.
After the fall of Jerusalem, Christianity and Judaism set out on divergent paths. Judaism found its center in synagogue and exploring and reshaping its understanding of its tradition in the light of its scriptures and the contemporary world. Christianity, on the other hand, found its center in the ecclesia, the local church, as the body of Christ, which coalesces around a new tradition, the Eucharist, the new Passover, the agape feast - the love feast - that feeds upon the very being of Christ, the source of new life.
In Christianity's nascent state this love feast is reserved for the followers of Jesus. Its being offered does not appear to extend beyond the ecclesial community. While this nascent religion maintains that the love of God for the world of his creating, the world, for the most part, has rejected God's love which can be only regained through becoming one with Christ as a member of his body, the church. The rejection of Jesus by the Jews and, in particular, the Pharisees is notable the Gospel of John.
I have referred to the Gospel of John in past posts as Christianity's clubhouse gospel, written exclusively for those who are Christian. In the posts that will follow, I will contend that the Gospel of Johns was largely written as a commentary on the Eucharist and designed to initiate the reader or listener into unitive mystery of Christ which are presented in words attributed to Jesus himself. The Gospel of John is unique in this sense. Its telling of Jesus' dinner discourse is designed to emphasize the unifying force of God's love expressed in Jesus' being the very Son of God through whom all things were created and who was sent to earth by God to bring God's select into the fold of the Good Shepherd. There exists an esoteric quality to Gospel of John in that it presents an intimate, if not a somewhat insular, message for the adherents as it initiates and introduces them into what it means to be member of this new monotheistic religion.
A CODED GOSPEL
The Gospel of John is not simple. It is a difficult gospel; in that, it is not a straightforward account of Jesus's life and ministry. It is a gospel about who Jesus is written as if Jesus is explaining himself to his new religion called Christianity. To grasp its esoteric format, John should be read and taken as a whole. Its vignettes, its stories, are set within an unspoken overriding contextual narrative that serves as a commentary on the Eucharistic as the traditional center of the ecclesia.
What is somewhat confusing to the casual reader of this gospel is that the rite of Holy Communion is never mentioned. There is no ritualized act of breaking bread or sharing a cup of wine by Jesus mentioned here, no command to perform such an act as remembrance, as was emphasized in the synoptic gospels and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Yet bread and wine are frequently referenced throughout this gospel as in Jesus referring to himself as the Bread of Life and speaking of himself as the vine. The Gospel of John begins with wine, at wedding of Cana. Each story in John serves a purpose or two or three. The Gospel of John is tightly packed and multilayered. It is also highly edited, which demonstrates how important its message is to get right. Editing is obvious and leads me to see it as a work of several authors or editors who correct and adjust its narrative.
The Gospel of John has a deliberate format, which I will discuss in the next several posts. It cannot nor should it be taken as a factual account of events in Jesus' life. In fact, John is obvious about being coded in that it has Jesus telling his disciples, on several occasions, that he is talking figuratively, metaphorically. The Gospel of John is selective in what is presented. One has to read John as a whole, preferably at one setting, which I would encourage those reading this post to do. Symbolism abounds. Day and night, light and darkness, bread and wine, food and drink are interspersed throughout this gospel and provide clues to what the writer (s) of John are pointing to. The reader needs to pay attention to setting and each stories context and consider how they are figuratively being used and what they point to.
The Temple plays a prominent role in John. Its dominance as the setting for much of what takes place in John is unlike the synoptic gospels. In John, Jesus' cleansing of the temple is one of his first acts to take place. Why is John talking about it as one of Jesus's first acts instead of one of his last, as seen in the synoptic gospel? Is John confused as to the order of events in Jesus life or is there a meaning behind the placement of stories within this gospel? .
To understand the Gospel of John, one must understand that it is, in many ways, written in code and whose primary message must be read between the lines if its narrative. It is not hard decipher when read from the perspective of John's historical context, which was approximately thirty years after the fall of Jerusalem. In the posts that follow, I will spend some time looking the coded message of John, its relevancy today, and its application to religious singularity.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment