RECALIBRATING CHRISITIANITY - CHURCH POLITY

I believe Aristotle was correct in describing humans as political animals.  The great hypocrisy of our age, especially, in United States, is when politicians accuse each other of being political.  Are they claiming their opponents of being human?  If those making such accusation are not human, then what are they?   

God forbid that such hypocritical finger pointing should occur in the church.  The truth of the matter is that such activity occurs in every Christian denomination and in every Christian congregation - wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus name, there will be a argument or a debate as to what Jesus would do if he were present (ignoring the the scriptural claim of his presence being in their midst).   Every organization secular or religious is politically organized.  They create rules, by-laws, constitutions, and canon laws by which to run the organization they belong to.  

John Barton is a theologian and a past professor of Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University. He is the author of an enlightening book called "A History of the Bible."  In its introduction he suggests a relevant point regarding church polity, "that though the Bible - seen as a collection of religious texts - is irreplaceable for many reason, Christianity is not in essence a scriptural religion... .  There are versions of Christianity that claim to be simply, 'biblical,' but the reality is that the structures and content of Christian belief, even among Christians who believe their faith to be wholly grounded in the Bible, are organized and articulated differently from the contents of the Bible."1

Church polity is supra-scriptural.  For instance the canon of Old and New Testaments within Holy Bible are a product of church polity; in that, there was a decision made, somewhere along the historical timeline. as to which writings should or should not be included in the canon.   There were plenty of scriptures to choose from, which begs the question, why the particular books that make up the Holy Bible were chosen and not others?  In this sense, the authority of the Holy Bible has been subjected to an arguably higher authority of church leaders who decided which writings were in and which writings were out.  

Undoubtedly some will utilized the old chestnut that "holy men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit" knew which books to include and which to reject.  You can believe that if you want, but it becomes quite obvious after reading the canonical scriptures that the books which were chosen and those which were excluded were determined by the political culture of the time they were selected.  The New Testament, in particular, favors the earthly powers at the time of its development, the Roman Empire.  The Old Testament were included in the Christian biblical canon because they are believed to give prophetic validation of Jesus being the Messiah. 

Church polity, like all politics, is about who is deemed worthy to be in control of the organization.  Within Christianity, the hierarchy is based on what forms of governance existed at the time a particular Christian church or denomination was established.  In Roman Catholicism we have the Pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priest, and deacons, which reflect the imperial model of the Roman Empire.  In Protestant churches we may find bishops, priest, and deacons or presidents, chairmen, ministers/pastor, deacons, titles which also reflect the age such denominations were formed. 

Regardless of the title, all denominations possess a hierarchal system.  Some denominations are more monarchal in style while others tend to be democratic.  In a monarchal hierarchy, like the Roman Church, the laity have little say in how the denomination or the local church is run, in other denominations, bishops, and ministers and their vestries, and board of directors are elected by a congregation which retain control over financial and ministerial duties, in some denominations all decisions are left up to the congregation.  

* * *

Church polity not only determines how a church or denomination views scripture, but how it implements its understanding of scripture.  Polity is determined by factors beyond scripture; such as, economics and secular (national, state, and local) laws and politics.  Trying to implement the teachings of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels was not an easy fit in Jesus' day and it remains a difficult fit in today's world. Trying to implement the teachings of Jesus on a national scale or even a local community scale will ultimately lead to division.  

Jesus was not being facetious when he said he came to divide a family, how much more a community, a nation, and a world.  This is why ecclesial polity finds it difficult to embrace the teachings of Jesus.  Thus, they have substituted them with teachings about Jesus, something that was easier to implement as doctrines that can be regulated.  The teachings of Jesus are seemingly designed to be enacted on a personal scale.  In that sense, no one can really tell the person what those teachings mean for that person except the person, him or herself.  

Jesus understood the minimalistic nature of God.  He made no personal claim to be God in the Gospels which church polity tends to downplay.  Instead Jesus claimed to be a unique child of God, a son who embraced the value of being created in the image of God as the Son of Man, a human formed from the earth and breathed to life as one of a multitude of living creature on our shared planet home.  

"Consider the lilies of the fields and the birds of the air," says Jesus.  God takes care of all of them, how much more does he care for the rest of us.  This amazing claim of Jesus flies past us, just as his teaching his disciples to recognize God as their father in the prayer he taught them.   The fact is, if Jesus isn't God, church polity has no authoritative basis for existing because Jesus isn't out to control the world, “My kingdom is not of this world. ... my kingdom is from another place.” John 18:36.  The kingdom of the Church, however, is very much of this world despite its mystical claims to be other than that.  Denominationalism is proof of the futility of trying to systemize something designed to be enacted on a personal level.  

Recently I visited Crazy Horse's Monument in the Black Hills of South Dakota, and read this comment by Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe,  "They (Christians) teach us to quarrel about God as Catholics and Protestants do.  We do not want to do that.  We may quarrel with men sometimes about things on earth, but we never quarrel about the Great Spirit.  We do not want to learn that."    Chief Joseph strikes me as possessing a true and faithful understanding of God as Spirit.  The Great Spirit is as close to us as our next breath.  The air we breath connects us to all living creatures.  Chief Joseph saw the problem inherent in Church polity.  How can one systemize something that defies definition - something that ultimately defines who we are and every other living being?   

* * *

The teachings of Jesus describe a kenotic process- a letting go of self for the sake of the other ( i.e. the family, the community, and the world).  In other words, it is engaging in God's kenotic creativity of expending self in order to expand the SELF.  Generally speaking, the history of church polity has been concerned with the nuts and bolts of church management (i.e. business, wealth, and power) rather than what Jesus taught.  

If putting into practice the teachings of Jesus were to become the primary focus of the Church's mission, Christianity would be different and look different.  Polity would become less reliant on a hierarchal structure.  The liturgy (the work of the people) would be divided amongst the congregational members instead of a priest or pastor.  

God seems to like starting small and see things grow.  Jesus takes this concept and stresses the importance of the individual within the vastness of creation.  Jesus saw what we so often miss, the tree within the forest, the individual within the crowd.  As Jesus said, "Whoever does this to the least of my brethren, does it to me." (Matthew 25:40). 

In Jesus' teaching that where two or three who have gathered in his name (Matthew 18:16), polity disintegrates.  This is where Jesus' teachings becomes so radical and hard to comprehend, because the value of the one is what a community should be concerned about.  Every one has worth.  Every one counts.  This stands in stark contrast to the worldly political thinking of Caiaphas who saw the one as expendable when it came to saving the community, as it also stands in stark contrast to every religious war fought in the name of Christ or God. 

What comes to mind in Jesus' teachings is the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15); where the shepherd leaves ninety-nine sheep to search for the one lost sheep.  In a practical sense, doing so doesn't make sense, why risk putting at risk ninety-nine other sheep just to look for one lost sheep?   Is Jesus' sense of value and a polity driven by concern for the one tenable?   Based on the Acts of the Apostles,  the Epistles of the New Testament, and the history of the Christian Church, it is not and has not been tenable for any period of time.  Polity is not based on Jesus' teachings.  In a sense, Jesus comes across as a religious (political) anarchist.  "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's" is hardly an affirmation of the importance of politics in a religion.  

Polity, in a given church setting, should be geared toward discernment, soul-searching (prayer).  Politics cannot be fully side-stepped, but it can be defined by the teachings of Jesus rather than by a set of canon laws or by-laws which people may need for a time, but which after a time may need realignment to the teachings of Jesus.  Each age, each location, and each local church have their particular needs and peculiar practices that defy regimentation.  The smaller the church, the less political it need be.  Where polity becomes a problem is when the larger denomination imposes rules and mandates that the local church does not have a need for - issues that are divisive in the larger world can become a death warrant for a small congregation that is cohesive in its love and worship of God if changes are mandated without discernment, soul-searching, and consensus.

* * *

Meeting the needs of the larger the denomination and the smaller local congregation requires careful balancing on the subject of what constitutes a necessity in each case.  For example, does as small church need a priest to carry out sacramental practices?  Why not allow such a congregation the ability to carry on a sacramental life of its own, with supporting guidance from the larger denomination?  Why financially  burden a small congregation to the point of risking the loss of their church?  Denominational polity generally doesn't care - not really.  Better to lose a church building then to spend money trying to make it a viable place for worship.  

Place is an important part of a congregation's life and livelihood.  If a congregation loses its place of worship, the congregation has a greater likelihood of ceasing to exist.  Instead of making a congregation homeless, efforts should be made to prioritize what a congregation needs in order to keep its church or exist without one.  Congregations may age out, but as long as there is a membership that can afford the upkeep of its house of worship, accommodations should be made to make the congregation self-sufficient in carrying out its sacramental life and worship for as long as possible.   

Unless there is a change in the polity in mainline denominations, the smaller congregation will disappear.  Interest in Christianity, itself, will eventually dwindle.  There is a serious need for Christian churches to reevaluate the relevance of their teachings and their practices in the light of world we live in today.  Recalibrating Christianity is a necessity for its survival as a meaningful resource to guide the faithful through the complexities of a changing world being shaped by a better understanding of its history, its science, and human existence.

Norm  

1.John Barton, "A History of the Bible - the Book and Its Faiths," Penguin Books, Copyright 2019 John Barton Pg.3 & 4,

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - JESUS OR THE APOSTLES

"Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?"

From The Baptismal Covenant 

in 

The Book Of Common Prayer (BCP)

* * *

This question in the Rite of Holy Baptism as found in the Book of Common Prayer baffles me.  It follows a question and answer form of the Apostle's Creed as part of the interrogatories asked of a candidate for baptism or confirmation prior to being baptized or confirmed.   It baffles me, in part, because the Apostle's Creed is really void of anything the first century apostles taught.  So, if not the first century apostles then who?  Their later successors like Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and Clement of Rome from whom the concept of the Trinity was derived, but the creed, however, was not articulated until in the later part of the fourth century.  

It also baffles me because it seems to take precedence over what Jesus' actually taught.  There is no mention in any of interrogatories that specifically mentions anything Jesus specifically taught, like loving one's enemies or forgiving someone repeatedly.   I not only find that rather odd, but also problematic.

The entire rite of baptism assumes a great deal when it comes to knowing what it means to renounce Satan and all the forces of wickedness that rebel against God, amongst other renunciations, or what it means to follow and obey Jesus Christ as one's Lord without referencing what Jesus had to say about such things.  Being raised in and a member of various mainline Christian denominations, there's a vague assumption as to what such things mean.  Parents, Godparents, and members of the congregation are quick to say, "I renounce..." when one is asked to renounce something and "I do" to anything one is asked to do without a full disclosure of what agreeing to do actually entails.

* * *

The problem I have with this entry rite into Christianity is that it immediately places emphasis on what the apostles taught about Jesus rather than what Jesus taught.  I don't find the teachings of the Jesus as found in the Synoptic Gospels to be synonymous to what the apostles taught. There is no doubt that the whole of the canonical New Testament was editorialized numerous times to make sure that it presented a coherent if not a consistent message regarding the "Good News" in Jesus Christ that is based on the teachings of the apostles.  The bad news is that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth ar, in practice, subordinate to the apostolic teachings of the imperial church of the Roman Empire, which remain the primary focus of virtually all Christian denominations in the twenty-first century.

* * *

The primacy of the apostolic teachings, especially, the letters attributed Paul, the Johannine scriptures, and the Acts of the Apostles have largely shaped Christianity of which the Synoptic Gospels and other letters basically serve as an adjunct to their primacy.   After the resurrection stories of the Gospels, Christianity largely becomes a Hellenistic remake of Judaism.  In other words, it is a hybrid religion that includes a second coming of the Messiah, modeled after Judaism's belief that the Messiah will come and the use of mystic rituals reminiscent of Greek and Roman mystery rites such as, Holy Communion and Holy Baptism that identify and affirm one as a true member of Christ's body (i.e the Church) as the guarantor of salvation and "Keeper of the Keys to the Kingdom."

I do not see an easy way of recalibrating something that has become entrenched in the fabric of Christianity for almost two thousand years.  I can only share my personal perspective of something I find problematic, not only to Christians but to the world.   I would like to see the teachings of Jesus as found in the Synoptic Gospels (minus their obvious later editorial comments) given a primary role in shaping both Christianity's purpose in this world.  For one thing,  I do not see Jesus' teachings aimed at saving us from sin but rather changing how we effectively deal with it; as in, the use of Jesus' view of unconditional forgiveness and love.

Secondly, I see Jesus' teachings as an attempt to realize his vision of the Kingdom of God in this life; to save the world we live in from the (evil) "devices and desire of our hearts."(from the Rite I confession, BCP)   I find it hard to believe that Jesus thought his life's purpose was to offer himself as a sacrifice to God for the sins of others.  In Jesus' day, such a concept was already questionable.  In the Gospel of Matthew (9:13), Jesus quotes Hosea saying that God did not delight sacrifice.  If that is so, how much more would God would refrain from offering God's son?   

This does not exclude the likelihood that Jesus knew that his preaching and teachings could and most likely would identify him as a threat to the status quo and the powers that be.  That he would end up crucified or stoned to death was a possibility that followed him throughout his ministry.  So talking about his death with his closest disciples and followers is likely, given the times in which they lived.  

That his eventual execution at the hands of the Romans was understood as a sacrifice strikes me as an after-the-fact rationalization of it serving some larger purpose from which the resurrection story evolved.  "Jesus lives!" became the launching pad for the apostolic teachings about Jesus in which he transcends the finite realm of this life and ascends to the infinite throne of God.

Ironically, the teachings of Jesus which define a way of life for this life, became superseded by a focus on living this life in preparation for a next life.  Forgiveness, the primary healing tool of Jesus for transforming this life becomes replaced by relying on Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross as the means of forgiving sins once and for all.  Belief in such an ideological ideal virtually renders us hopelessly impotent to do anything about the evil and ills we create and commit.

According to apostolic teachings, all one has to do is believe that one's sins are forgiven along with willfully trying to avoid engaging in sin again - AND JUST LIKE THAT -  we're back to square one as being the miserable sinners we are condemned to be due to being genetically doomed to sin from birth due to our parents lustful act of conceiving us (or so Augustine of Hippos would have us believe).  Let's face it, we Christians willfully sin every day and then act as if we can't do anything about it, except to keep on confessing our unworthiness and asking God to forgive us for Jesus' sake, a task that eventually becomes old an relegated to a weekly confession of sins.

The truth is , according to scripture, God doesn't want to act like a divine bookkeeper who keeps track of every infraction we commit, which lead to the fact that, according to Jesus,  we can forgive ourselves; not as a means ignoring the bad things we have done, but as a means to move beyond them, so that we can help others move beyond their wrongdoing until the whole pointlessness of continuing to do harm to oneself and others is an engrained in us.  We are, in a global sense, addicted to causing pain in order to experience relief from it.  This addiction to suffering is humanity's darkest side.  What keeps us there is a religious notion that we can't do anything about it, except suffer through it nobly or not, and hope for a better life in some form of hereafter.  

* * *

Perhaps the reason that Jesus' teachings never enjoyed the attraction that the teachings of the apostles about Jesus have is because unconditional forgiveness and love are not that attractive to the vast majority of human beings; as they require that one puts aside one's ego to make room for the other who may not appreciate another person's effort to be forgiving.  Loving one's enemies can seem impractical which will likely lead to misery rather than relieve it.  Loving others as oneself can be viewed as bordering on the narcissistic which can lead to misunderstandings.  The reality is as soon as Jesus was no longer present on this earth, much of what occupied nascent Christian thought was merely trying to figure out who Jesus was and when he was coming back to finish the job he started.    

The resurrection story did much to diminish the relevance of Jesus' teachings about this life.  Treating Jesus' death as a sacrifice for the sins of the world made my forgiving others optional and loving one's neighbor was relegated to loving one's fellow Christians, as in mandate that Jesus gave his disciples in the Gospel of John, "Love one another as I have loved you." (John 13:34).  Why waste love on those who, because of their disbelief in Jesus being the only begotten Son of God, are already condemned as noted in John 3:18?  Johannine theology virtually wipes out the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.  Between Johannine and Pauline theology there is virtually nothing one can do to save oneself and the world we live in. Either you are saved or you are not.  This is the fatalism that is intrinsic in belief-based faith.   If you believe correctly, you are saved.  If you don't, you are condemned either because you don't believe or are destined not to believe.    

Wasn't trying to realize the Kingdom of God in this world what Jesus was training his disciples to do in the Synoptic Gospels?  Wasn't his collected teachings described in the Sermon on the Mount and the Plain and his parables designed to motivate us to realize the Kingdom of God in our time and in our world?

* * *

There have been those throughout history who have tried to put the teachings of Jesus into action only to  find themselves ostracized by ecclesial authority and persecuted as heretics.  Jesus' formula for changing the world is by grabbing hold of the Kingdom of God and simply loving others as one wants to feel loved and to forgive as one wants to be forgiven.  It's as simple as that and as hard as that.  

The reward  for doing that is a better world, a world at peace with itself, a world in which everyone acts as if they have taken the Hippocratic oath, to refrain from intentionally doing harm.  Jesus actually goes beyond Hippocrates by forgiving those who do harm as a means to heal the wounds that have caused them to wound others.   This obviously is not going to happen overnight.  It involves a commitment to forgive out of a recognition that every human is capable of and vulnerable to committing harm.  As such, every human is worthy of being forgiven because not to forgive is a form of doing harm. 

Think of the impact this would have on our personal and global affairs.  People and nations forgiving other people and nations without having to resort to retaliation.   How much easier would it be to negotiate peace terms if forgiveness was always on the table, rather than threats.  I realize that none of this will come naturally to people because all of us, to some degree or another, have been subjected to victimization  in one form or another because our systems of governance within the secular world and the religious world relies on the fear of punishment as the best deterrent to acts of violence; the belief that the best way to fight a human fire is with a human on fire.  Perhaps that's the best way to stop a wild fire, but it is not the best way to stop a conflagration between humans.  Our history shows us that wars to end all wars only leads to more wars.

The only way to stop all wars is for one side of a conflict not to retaliate and risk annihilation at the hands of an enemy.  I know this sounds ridiculous and unimaginable.   It strikes me as such just writing it down. 

But I cannot think of way to avoid war unless some nation is willing to put that on the table - "If you strike us, we will not strike back."  Jesus put this in terms of personal conflict and turning the other cheek.   What will the rest of the world make of such a solution.  Is it madness or genius? 

If the nuclear arms race has taught us anything it is the capability of nuclear armed nations to destroy the entire world.  Limited warfare ultimately will lead to their use.  It is only a matter of time.  In a sense we are already being held hostage to such an inevitability as world leaders threaten its use openly or in covert ways  Revenge and retaliations must be off the table and all religions have a role to play in making this happen.  A religion that does not make this priority of their teachings and practices is not part of the problem.  It is the problem.

* * *

The apostolic teachings in Christianity; such as, the epistles of Paul and those of other church leaders in the early centuries of Christianity had no problem with the Roman empires use of force; especially, if it was used to rid the empire of what orthodox catholicism deemed heretical.  Every religion and ideological school of thought that considers itself to be the one and only true (orthodox) perspective  tends to be okay with eliminating what it considers heretical.  

If Jesus was critical of anything, it was the religious leaders of his day who failed to address the basic needs of people to be unconditionally cared for; to be unconditionally loved and forgiven.  In the case of the Pharisees, it was their attempt to create a morally correct life by establishing a rule-based religion that covered almost every aspect of Jewish life which many Jews were unable to afford and thus were pushed to the fringe of society.  For the Sadducees, it was finding ways to perpetuate their social status as keepers of the Temple, by creating a monetary system that enriched the Temples coffer and their personal coffers, through currency trading.  The result was the uncontrolled exploitation of faithful Jews by those who used their positions as money changers and sold  animals for temple sacrifice to line their pockets with ill gotten gains  

Jesus wasn't having any of that.  In fact, Jesus was less concerned with the Romans than he was with the religious hypocrisy and heartless behaviors exhibited by the leaders of various Jewish sects.   Jesus was vulnerable to acting out.  His anger got the better of him when he cleansed the temple of the money changers and those who sold animals for sacrificial purposes in the temple.  Jesus was human, after all, inspire of the apostolic teachings that said otherwise.  If Jesus was vulnerable then so are we, but like Jesus we can recover, we can be forgiving even to the point of forgiving those who kill us or prefer that we are dead.  

I don't believe in a sinless human.  We humans are not perfect. Neither was Jesus.  Jesus famously advised that we be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect.  He didn't say be perfect as I am perfect.  He never claimed perfection and neither should we.  We need to live with our faults by forgiving them, individually and collectively.  Jesus never stated that forgiveness is a one time bargain as the apostles claimed it to be after his crucifixion.   Instead he told is disciples that forgiveness is never off the table, no matter how many times we are called upon to do so.  

* * *

Unconditional love is exhibited in unconditional forgiveness.  Unconditional forgiveness requires a strength and a will that paradoxically rejects the use of force and the need to be acknowledged as being right about something.  It requires a letting go of self to increase a greater sense of SELF; in other words, to be perfect as God is, kenotically speaking, perfect.  The teachings and way of Jesus must take center stage if Christianity and world are to survive.  Other religions must also find their way to reject religious sanctioning of violence in any form and to instill in their followers the need to unconditionally forgive and love the other as oneself.

* * *

Norm

  

 

 

  

JESUS AS PROVOCATEUR - A HOMILY

I delivered this homily at Christ Episcopal, Yankton, SD on June 2, 2024.   The scripture lessons for the day were Deuteronomy 5:12-15 and Mark 2:23-3:6 on which this homily is based.

* * *

“Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?”  Mark 3:4a

Given the full rendition of the fourth commandment in our first reading, how would we answer Jesus’ question? Unlike the fourth commandment in our prayer book which simply tells us to Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy, the biblical account tells us how to do so.  Throughout the Old Testament what it means to refrain from work is explicitly laid out.   For example:

During the exodus, the Israelites were to stay in their dwellings on Sabbath; they were to gather the manna they ate during the week because God would not be provide it on the Sabbath.

Lighting a fire or extinguishing a fire was prohibited. 

Plowing and harvesting was forbidden.

Walking was limited to 3/4 of a mile on the Sabbath

* * * 

Today, Orthodox Jews have 39 sabbath prohibitions.  Yuval Harari, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, noted in his book, “21 Lesson for the 21st Century;” 

that some Orthodox Jews in Israel tear off sheets of lavatory paper before the Sabbath starts because one of the 39 prohibitions is tearing things.  To be clear, Orthodox rabbis have determined that the Sabbath can be “violated” in order to save someone’s life.  The point is, in Judaism, keeping the Sabbath holy is no small undertaking.  It requires planning and preparation.  

So, why was Jesus allowing his disciples to pluck heads of grain - to  harvest - them on the Sabbath?  When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about this, he reminded them of David doing something far worse;  taking the Show Bread that was offered to God on the Sabbath which only the priests could eat after nine days.  

* * *

As the story goes, David was alone and on the run from King Saul who was out to kill him.   David lied to Abimelech, a priest in the Tabernacle, telling him he was on secret mission for Saul and needed food for his companions.  Believing David, Abimelech gave him five loaves of the twelve loaves of Show Bread.  Then David said, “O by the way, you don’t happen have any weapons lying around?  I was in such a rush to do Saul’s bidding, I forgot to bring mine.  Abimelech said, “As matter of fact, we do.”  We have Goliath’s sword and gives it to David.  When Saul finds out about this, he has Abimelech and eighty five other priests killed.   [See 1 Samuel 21 - 22. (Note: In Mark's telling of this story Jesus states that Abiathar who was the High Priest during King Davids reign was the priest David approached in 1 Samuel, which is obviously incorrect.)]

* * *

Mark tells us that prior to healing the man with a withered hand,  Jesus liberated a man possessed with a demon and healed Peter’s sick mother-in-law on a previous sabbath.  When that Sabbath ended, others came to Jesus in the dark of night to be healed by him to avoid violating the Sabbath.

When Jesus entered the synagogue, in today’s reading,  he sees the man with a withered hand and asks the

congregation, in his roundabout way, if he could lawfully heal him.  The congregation goes silent.   Jesus give them an angry look because of their insensitivity to the man’s  condition and he immediately heals his withered hand.

I am not sure why asking the man to stretch out his hand was considered work, but it most likely has something to do with Jesus’ provocative question which cast healing as his work. Jesus could have reminded his disciples to bring along extra food to eat on the Sabbath and avoid the risk of violating the fourth commandment.  Jesus could have waited until the Sabbath ended to heal the man’s withered hand, but Jesus didn’t do those things.

 Why?   Why was he being provocative when it came to keeping the Sabbath holy?

* * *

The answer lies in Jesus’ earlier statement to the Pharisees:

“The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”

Jesus recalibrated the purpose of the fourth commandment based on its original premises; the creation story in Genesis in which God rested and gave rest to creation and the Passover story, considered a Sabbath event,  in which God liberated the Children of Israel from slavery.  Sabbaths are transitional moments in which God recreates and liberates.

* * * 

About Jesus' claim that Son of man is lord of the Sabbath, the term “Son of Man”, in Hebrew is בן אדם, son of Adam.  Generically, it simply means human.  It is was God’s moniker for Ezekiel which Jesus adopted to reference himself, because, like Ezekiel, Jesus not only taught by what he said but also by what he did.

“So the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath,” in this context is a literary and oratory device in Hebrew to reinforce the previous statement, the sabbath is made for humankind.

Being lords and ladies of the sabbath does not mean we can do what we want on the Sabbath as one might conclude.  On the contrary, in Jesus’ recalibration of the fourth commandment, every day becomes a sabbath day, a day in which to re-create and liberate.

* * *

Jesus, in the Gospel of Mark, is an edgy man on a mission, for whom there was no time like the present to do good.  Jesus was always on the lookout for those who needed a recreating and liberating sabbath rest.

If we claim to follow Jesus, how can we be any different?  How can we afford to be indifferent in providing sabbath rest to others when needing it ourselves?

May God give us courageous hearts to become a Sabbath people, who give rest to the restless, who liberate the weary from their burdens, who mend the broken, and who bring Shabbat shalom, Sabbath Peace to all.

Amen.

* * * 

Norm

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - HOLY COMMUNION

PAUL

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." 

1 Corinthians 11:23-26  

Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®

Paul wrote his first Letter to the Corinthians roughly around 50 CE.  It contains the earliest record of Jesus' instituting Holy Communion, The Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, etc..   What is interesting in Paul's recalling of this event is that Paul was not present on the night  Jesus instituted Holy Communion, according to the Synoptic Gospels.  An overlooked fact is that he makes no claim that he heard about this incident from one of Jesus' disciples or any of the other apostles.  He claims he received this information as a direct revelation from Jesus.  

This letter also makes it clear that the members of the church in Corinth were more Greek than Jewish.  The issues that Paul addresses in his letter; such as, eating meat offered to idols,  how women dress, and men having intimate relations with other men are more likely issues Paul had with Greek culture than he would have had with the Jewish population living in Corinth.  

There is also a sense of Paul trying to backpedal on what he taught the Corinthians  regarding Holy Communion.  Obviously something went wrong in what he taught, which is the reason Paul is writing about it.  In the verses that follows, Paul heard of an incident or incidents in which participating in Holy Communion resulted in people becoming weak, sick, or dying.  Paul's reason that the people became sick and died was due to their not "discerning" Jesus' body and blood before partaking Holy Communion and thus took it unworthily.  The implication is that they treated Holy Communion as some sort of Bacchanalian event rather than the somber eating of a small unleavened wafer and a sip of wine that is common in today's practice of Holy Communion in most mainline churches.  

Much has been made of Paul's "unworthiness" issue with regard to Holy Communion.  Did people really die because they took it unworthily?  Who then is considered worthy enough to take it?  If one does not know if one is worthy, should they avoid it?  The point I am trying to make with these question is that all of sudden we have a Christian rite that doesn't sound very Jesus-like.  

In Brian Muraresku's fascinating book, "The Immortality Key -The Secret History of The Religion With No Name," he hypothesizes that what caused the members of the Corinthian church to become sick and die was simply that the wine they drank was laced with a hallucinogenic mix which proved fatal for some.  His book explains that the practice of mixing wine with herbs and other substances were common at the time. 

Mixing hallucinogenic substances with wine was a practice that may have been adapted from the mystery religions of the ancient Greeks and Roman, such as, the Eleusinian or Dionysian mystery religions in which participant would be offered such hallucinogenic mixes to experience visions. In the case of the Eleusinian mysteries, participants reportedly would emerge from such an experience having no fear of death.  

Isn't that exactly what Holy Communion also offers its partakers today without the hallucinogenic laced wine?  So why not, at that time, mix hallucinogenics to give one an immediate taste of immortality associated with eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus Christ?  It is an intriguing hypothesis.  

The fear of taking Holy Communion unworthily and offering it to someone who was unworthy led to the rite of confession in many churches.  Growing up in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, I can recall that on a Friday night preceding a Sunday in which Holy Communion was offered, this who were planning on taking Holy Communion were required to "sign up" to take Holy Communion.  This allowed the pastor to examine one's worthiness.  If a pastor knew of a conflict between members or some transgression that merited repentance, he could deny offering a member the sacrament. 

 Of course, Roman Catholics have been practicing confession for centuries.  The ironical point of taking Holy Communion is that worthiness is contingent on confessing one's unworthiness; as in, admitting that one is a miserable sinner, totally unworthy of God's grace.   

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

The Gospel of John does not contain the story of Jesus instituting Holy Communion in the way Paul describes it.  Whereas the authors of the Synoptic Gospels seemed to have copied Paul's sacramental revelation almost verbatim, the Gospel of John does not.  As mentioned in other posts, the Gospel of John is a theological work written in Jesus' voice.  The entire gospel is sacramental in nature, carrying the reader on a mystical journey from rebirth through Baptism (born again by water and spirit in John 3) to eternal communion with God in Christ.  

The Gospel of John doesn't directly talk about sharing a Passover meal in which Jesus talks about bread and wine being consecrated to represent his body and blood.  It does, however, talk about a meal he is having with his disciple around the time of Passover  in which he has his famous diner discourse with his disciples that extend from John 13 through John 17.  The elements of bread and wine are treated separately in the Gospel of John.  

Jesus, being the Bread of Life, is found in John 6 and his reference the fruit of the vine (grapes) is in John 16.  In the following selected verses from the Gospel of John, one can piece together the concept of Holy Communion in John's mystical portrayal which has shaped how Holy Communion is largely understood today.   

Jesus said..., “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.  . . .He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.  On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching.  Who can accept it?”  Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? ...From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." - John 6:53-56, 59-61 & 66 NIV

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.  If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.  If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you."  - John 16: 5-7 NIV

As I have mentioned in other posts Jesus being Jewish and knowing the repulsion at eating something that wasn't kosher; much less a reference to eating human flesh or drinking human blood, would not have likely used bread and wine as a symbol of his "real" body and blood that people must eat and drink in order to have eternal life.  The Gospel of John provides proof of this repulsion in the reaction some of Jesus' disciples had when he says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."   

Indeed this was a hard teaching that a practicing Jew would not have accepted.   The authors of John knew that devout Jews would not accept such a teaching, even if it was intended to be symbolic.  It was one of many lines drawn in the Gospel of John that Jews could not cross, but that a Christian was expected to.  

As we see in Paul's admonition against taking Holy Communion unworthily, the Gospel of John takes a harsher approach.  If a branch of the vine does not produce fruit, it will be thrown away and burned.   This is teaching that is indeed hard to hear.  To attach such threatening language to something that is intended to create community is coercive and threatening.  

It can be argued and it is likely that a community which discriminates against, denigrates, and condemns those in their community who are deemed unproductive will create an ecclesial class structure of those considered worthy and those not.  Is not the teaching of Jesus, that all are worthy of God's love?

HOLY COMMUNION 

Holy Communion has always been about differentiating between those who were true believers in Jesus Christ and those who were not, (i.e. practicing Jews and anyone consider an "unbeliever").  Holy Communion is the most controlled substance within Christianity.  Holy Communion has historically been treated as an in-house sacrament that is usually distributed to baptized and confirmed  members of a congregation.  In liturgical churches, the elements of bread and wine can only be consecrated by and ordained priest, pastor, or minister.  It can be offered daily, weekly, twice a month, once a month or once a year.  Strict control of this sacrament makes a mockery of the Christian teaching that Jesus died for all. 

Some progressive congregations practice what is known open communion in which everyone is welcome to partake, but most have conditional requirements to be met in order to avoid unworthy participation.  Sacramental rites, as a whole, are designed to discriminate between those committed to a church's teachings or the oddly stated "apostolic teachings" and those who are not.  Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation are all designed to say who is included and who is excluded from the Kingdom of God.    

COMMUNION AS A RITE TO AFFIRM THE HUMAN COMMUNITY

For the Human Family

O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us through Jesus your Son: Look with compassion on the whole human family; take away the arrogance and hatred which infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; unite us in bonds of love; and work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth; that, in your good time, all nations and races may serve you in harmony around your heavenly throne; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

From "The Book of Common Prayer," 1979, The Church Hymnal Corporation, New York, New York.

This is one of my favorite prayers in "The Book of Common Prayer."   It embodies what I believe is both the aspirational and confessional purpose of the Christian message.  It offers hope for Christianity; in that, as the ancient dictum states, "Lex orandi, Lex credendi" -  what we pray shapes what we believe. This is a communal prayer for the whole human family.  It reflects what communion is all about; what all sacramental rites should be about advocating that the whole of humanity becomes one family.  

The positive side of the sacraments is if we can bring them down to earth, if they validate community, and   promote unconditional love in the form of compassionate care for all of creation.   This is the task that Jesus' teachings point to and appoints us to carry out.  

Grace is not merely a free gift of God given to humankind, but is an ability that all humans are capable of; to give freely of who we are, not as sacrifice but as an act of unconditional love in all things and for all things.  Communion is holy only when such love appears so other than the world we have created and live in. The reality is we create the type of world we live in and we have the ability to make it better, to make it a home for all living things, to fulfill the mandate to love as we are loved by God.

Above all, we need to stop beating each other and ourselves up over real and perceived sins.  We must forgive as Jesus taught us to do.  When we encounter failure in such endeavors, we should learn from it, not languish in it.  True religion is ultimately about making our world a better world, not condemning it.  Whatever happens after this life one must commend to God, whatever happens in this life, God has commended to us.  That was and is the point of what Jesus taught.

Norm

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - CHRIST

In Christianity, Christ is synonymous with its Hebrew counterpart, the Messiah, which mean "the anointed one."  As mentioned in previous posts, Jesus did not readily accept being identified as the Messiah in the Synoptic Gospels.  It was others who proclaimed him to be the Messiah or identified him as such.   

Throughout most of the Hebrew Scriptures, the use of the term "messiah" referred to  someone anointed to be the king of Israel or as a high priest.  The term is peppered throughout the books of First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings.  The concept of an eschatological messiah that arises at the end of time is derived from the the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.  Such a messiah is also referenced in the Book of Daniel.  The concept of a messianic age evolved perhaps during the Babylonian captivity and strengthened after the restoration of the Judah as a protectorate of the Persian Empire.  

The eschatological Messiah was and is thought to be a descendent, a son, of David.  This is where the Christian version of the Messiah comes into play.  That Jesus never directly identified himself as the Messiah in the Synoptic Gospels leads one to wonder if in fact Jesus ever thought himself as the Messiah. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke attempt to assure us he is a "son of David."  On the other hand both Gospels bring that into question because Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband is cut out of the picture as having anything directly (sexual) to do with Jesus' birth.   The Gospel of Matthew's and Luke's Gospel claim that Jesus' biological father is, in fact, God or that Mary, being the only human involved, resulted in Jesus having a parthenogenetic birth.  I think it would have been far easier to explain who Jesus is Matthew and Luke wouldn't have tried so hard to cut Joseph out of the picture.

CHRIST, PAUL, AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

While etymologically meaning the anointed, the meanings of the terms messiah and christ have diverged over time. Very little is mentioned in the writings of Paul and John of Jesus being the son of David.   Paul makes an interesting comment about this Jesus being both the Son of God and the son of David in Epistle to the Romans (1:1-4), "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures  regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord."  Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®

A close reading of this passage indicates that Paul knew nothing of the birth stories of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and considered Jesus "appointed or chosen" to be God's Son "by his resurrection from the dead."  As such, one can speak of Jesus as the Christ  as the anointed son of God due to his being resurrected or, according to the Gospel of John, as the only-begotten Son of God, chosen from eternity, the very Word of God made flesh through whom all things came into being (See John 1).  One has to remember that in the Gospel of John, Jesus is Christ from the beginning of creation.  As such there is no baptism of Jesus story, no brith story, and no transfiguration story.  Jesus is Christ from the moment he is born.  

In Paul's mind, Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah who was ushering in a new age and a new heaven and earth that occurred at his resurrection and  not his birth or even his baptism as described by the Synoptic Gospels.   Paul seems totally unaware of any of the life stories found in the Synoptic Gospels.  Instead Paul fully recognized Jesus to be a Jew like him, saying in his Epistle to the Galatians (4:4-5), "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law, [in other words, born a Jew -nw] to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship, which occurred after Jesus' death and resurrection. 

For Paul, Jesus only becomes and/or is recognized as the Christ after his resurrection.  Paul also retained the notion that Jesus as the Christ would return to earth within Paul's lifetime, which can explain some of Paul's sense of urgency that is found in some of his letters.  It is not clear, however, that Paul understood Jesus Christ as God incarnate, that is something that is derived from the Gospel of John.  The Jewish concept of the Messiah makes no such claim and it is doubtful that if Jesus thought he was the Messiah that he was God incarnate.     

Paul did not know Jesus of Nazareth in the flesh.   He only encountered and knew Jesus in a spiritual, visionary sense.  As a result, Jesus' resurrection was spiritual, as far as Paul was concerned.  For Paul, Jesus' resurrection transfigured Jesus from a physical being  into a spiritual being.   As a spiritual being, the resurrected Christ had a physical presence in the world through the Church, which Paul called the Body of Christ. 

Walter Meeks in his book, "The First Urban Christians, the Social World of the Apostle Paul," states that use of the "human body" was a common metaphor for society (pg. 81).  Paul's use of the Body of Christ was as metaphor for the ecclesia, the church, where people played different roles within the body, just as the human body has different parts that have different roles. (See 1 Corinthians 12). 

As noted in my previous post on the Resurrection, Paul uses the term the Body of Christ as a metaphor of the risen Christ who bestows his being to those who partake in the sacramental life of the church, the rite of Baptism (Christening) and the sharing of Jesus' sacrificed body and blood distributed in Holy Communion.   Through the sacramental life of the church one became one with Christ.  Being one with Christ made one a spiritual being who has also died with Christ and is raised with Christ to life everlasting.

* * *

It is not clear what the earliest followers of Jesus believed about Jesus after his death.  Did they actually believe he was physically resurrected. Did the concept of resurrection even cross their minds initially?  In what way did they understand Jesus to be the Way?  Did they consider him to be the Messiah or did they consider him a prophet?   The Book of the Acts of the Apostles, which is the only biblical source describing the earliest days of the early church were written in the last decades of the first century or a late as the early decades of the second century CE.  

The problem I have with the New Testament is that it feels like it is one side of story that was heavily shaped by the writings of Paul and John.  While the Synoptic Gospels seem to share a common source regarding the teachings and life story of Jesus, they read as though they were edited to favor both the Pauline and Johannine teachings about Jesus.  If Paul elevated Jesus to be the Christ, the chosen one of God, the writer or writers of the Gospel of John raised him to be the only-begotten Son of God, the Word made flesh through whom all things came into being.   

The Gospel of John, more than other writing in the New Testament, has defined who Jesus as the Christ is, the Word made flesh and the Only-begotten Son of God.   I have written extensively about the Gospel of John and the Paul's epistles in various posts, but I feel compelled to stress again how crucial both are to orthodox, mainstream Christian theology, but are they accurate?  Do they really capture who Jesus is? 

In my opinion, both Paul and the Gospel of John distort a historical understanding of Jesus and, more importantly, they distort the relevance of what Jesus actually taught, very little of which appears in the Epistles of Paul of the Gospel of John.  Unfortunately, both the Pauline and Johannine teachings about Jesus is what orthodox and mainline Christianity is based on.    This is not to say that what Paul or the authors of John have written is insincere, but rather that much of what they wrote proceeds from theological speculation about Jesus rather than the actual teachings of Jesus.   There are a number of places in the Acts of the  Apostles and the Epistles that seem to be contradicting the teachings of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospel.  

 CHRIST AND ESCHATOLOGY

Before moving on to a twenty-first century understanding of Christ, we need to look at both the terms Christ and Messiah as metonyms for hope.   In Abrahamic monotheism, the idea of "the Messiah" and Christ is an eschatological figure who will usher in a new heaven and new earth is rooted in the notion of a hope against all odds.  It hearkens back to Abraham and the promise that he would be a father of many nations, although he was, at the time he received that prophetic vision, childless and would father only one legitimate child to carry on his search for the promise land which never occurred in his life time nor the lifetime of his children, their children and his grandchildren.  It would not take shape until after the Children of Israel's exodus from Egypt, some four hundred years later.   Paul more than any other writer in the New Testament makes frequent references to Abraham's faith and hopefulness in the promises of God.

The eschatological Messiah of Jesus' day came out of the sense of loss that happened in the destruction of the first temple and the Babylonian captivity in which the the leadership and ruling class of Judah were taken into captivity.  As mentioned above, the idea of a Messiah was derived from the prophecies of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel; prophecies that offered a hope that some day, the Kingdom of David would be restored, and in fact, that at the end of time there would be established a new heaven and a new earth.  This hope became entrenched in Judea when it was under Greek and Roman occupation and deeply entrenched after the destruction of the second Temple and the Roman emperor Hadrian banishing Jews from their homeland, a banishment that for the most part lasted for two thousand years when the state of Israel was established in 1948.  

In Christianity, this sense of hope is expressed in the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ.  This doctrine is a bit off in my estimation because if Jesus is/was the Messiah as foretold by the prophets, then why is it necessary for him to come again?  The whole theology of the Second Coming seems to say that Jesus wasn't able to accomplish establishing a new heaven and a new earth, or creating a thousand year reign of peace on the earth.  

The simple fact is that none of that has happened to date.  I can think of theological excuses for it not happening, but they are all speculative.  In my opinion, the second coming of Christ can only be properly understood as a metonym for the hope that Jesus' teachings offer and treated as having mythic relevance in how we understand our redemptive roles in the world. 

CHRIST AND HOPE FOR THE WORLD

The world is always in need of hope.  World peace, an end to war, an end to poverty, an end to hunger, and an end to suffering have always been within our grasp if we would fully vigorously pursue such hope in our lifetimes.  To date Christianity has failed to do so; that is not say that there have never been times when some people have tried, but Christian doctrine largely is not aimed at making this world a better place.  It has allowed for failure to follow Jesus through doctrines like original sin and the Second Coming; ways to kick the can of our redemptive responsibility and accountability to love God by loving what God loves down the road of this life till it ends in death, at which point the only hope left for any of us is the hope of a better life in a hereafter.  

While I personally believe that this life suggests more life, such a belief can't be used as an excuse for me or anyone else from engaging in the redemptive responsibilities Jesus left us with; the responsibility we have in realizing the kingdom of God that Jesus talked about in our lives.  If we are to recalibrate Christianity then Jesus as the Christ must be understood as the chosen exemplar of such a redemptive hope that is to be realized by putting into action the teachings he left us with.

Norm

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - THE RESURRECTION

 THE ALBATROSS OF THE RESURRECTION 

The resurrection an albatross?  For the ardent, literalist Christian that has to sound like pure heresy.  Even the most progressive Christian might find such a statement hard to swallow.  Most Christians, fundamental literalist and progressive have been indoctrinated to believe that the resurrection is a factual event, even if there is little to non-existent historical evidence of such an occurrence. 

To show how much of an albatross the resurrection is today, one only has to listen to sermons or homilies on the various Easter readings from the Gospels.  It is either treated as a fact that one must believe or the Gospel reading regarding it is treated to little commentary or is skirted by the preacher talking instead about one of the other readings appointed for the day.   The only thing in the resurrection story that might - just might - serve as some sort of evidence of its being related to an actual event is the possibility of the tomb being empty.   Beyond that, the sightings of Jesus and the recorded conversations with him in the canonical Gospels are, at best, an inconsistent mix of spurious experiences that lack any credible evidence of ever happening. 

In all the differing Gospel accounts of Jesus's resurrection there is something extremely ephemeral about claims of Jesus appearing to his disciples.  He reportedly appears and disappears without warning, in spite of his disciple being in secure locked room.  In fact, the Gospel of Luke addresses the issue of the disciples wondering if they were seeing Jesus' ghost.  To prove that he wasn't a ghost, Jesus tells his disciples to touch him and then asks for something to eat.  We don't know if any of the disciples touched Jesus, but we do read that he ate.  This of course was before the Ghostbuster movie came out and showed a ghost, Slimer, eating hotdogs.  In trying to debunk the debunkers in their audiences, the Gospel writers actually give some credibility to the doubts people had about the resurrection being an actual event and not some form of paranormal activity or some type of group hysteria.

The problem with the resurrection as a fact is that there is no credible explanation for it and, for all practical purposes, it seems in the twenty-first century, at least, an unnecessary story as it adds nothing to the teachings of Jesus.   Even the Gospels make no attempt to explain it, other than to say that he appeared to his disciples.  While the Gospels of Luke and John try to emphasize a real physical presence by Jesus eating  food or cooking fish for breakfast by the Sea of Galilee, the earliest New Testament commentary on the resurrection of Jesus by Paul doesn't.  He claims that Jesus died a physical body and was raised a spiritual body, which is mostly ignored in Christian theology, where the term "body" takes precedent over the spiritual descriptor of that term. 

* * *

The Cambridge dictionary defines resurrection as "the act or fact of bringing someone back to life, or bringing something back into use or existence."  This is a very helpful definition; in that, it offers a person two ways of understanding Jesus' resurrection story.  The first way is to treat it as an act or a fact of bringing someone back to life.  The second is bringing something (or in this case someone) back into use or existence.

For the most part all Christian denominations treat the resurrection story as Jesus being brought back to life by God as something necessary to be believed as a fact in order to be saved.  To require belief that this is a fact after Jesus not appearing in physical form to anyone for the past two thousand years raises the question why he didn't stick around and finish the job of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.  

The second coming of Jesus has lost most of its punch, nowadays.  At one time, Christians believed that being resurrected from the dead would occur at the end of the world or the end of time.  Over time, however,  people started believing that when a person dies they either go directly to heaven or hell where they will dwell for eternity.  Most Christians that I know look forward to seeing their dead loved ones again the moment they die, which further deteriorates the need of Jesus' second coming in which he judges the living and dead, as most think they will be immediately judged as to where they will spend eternity.  All of this pushes the issue of credibility.  

* * *

Believing something to be true does not make it true, nor is believing in the incredible as a test of one's faith.  That's the bait of a snake oil salesman.  Paul sometimes fits that bill; especially when he says, "If Christ be not raised, then ... your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14) - Spoken like a certified snake oil salesman. 

While Paul side-stepped the need to prove Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead, in his first letter to the Corinthians he writes, "It (the body) is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.  (1Corinthians 15:44). Paul does not specify what a spiritual body is, but then again, Paul never saw the physical Jesus prior to his conversion. As far as I can tell, Jesus' appearance to Paul was always of a spiritual nature.

Paul also uses a technique that one could describe as reversed-engineered logic regarding the resurrection of Jesus.  One would normally think that the resurrection of Jesus would serve as proof that there is such a thing as being resurrected from the dead.  Paul doesn't go there.  Instead, Paul says that if there is no such thing as resurrection then Jesus could not have been resurrected,  "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen"  (1 Corinthian 15:12-13).   (Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® )

What?

This is the kind of twisted logic that Paul uses from time to time in order to worry people into believing the incredible.  Paul continues, " For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: ...Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (I Corinthians 15:16 & 18-19).

According to the Acts of the Apostles, Peter used guilt to convince people that Jesus was raised from the dead:

You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. ... Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus."  Acts 3:14-15 & 19-20 NIV)

The irony is that the resurrection story of Jesus actually did not result in changing the course of human events.  It is neither a matter of fact nor is it a matter of faith.   Rather it is a matter of belief; that is, intellectual assent to an ideology or theological speculations about Jesus.    You either believe it as a fact or you don't. If you don't believe it, nothing changed,  and your are still in your sins.  Likewise, if you believe it as a fact nothing changes, you still need to repent of your sins in order to be saved.  That is the way it was before Jesus was crucified and that is the way it remains.  If Christ died for all, nothing changed as far as the course of human events is concerned.  There have been no direct historical results of his reported physical resurrection.

* * *

"Why then does the resurrection story resonate with so many people?   

Why do so many people believe it to be a fact?

To answer those questions one needs to differentiate between belief and faith, which brings to mind what I wrote about belief and faith when I started blogging.  From my post on "Belief" posted on December 14, 2014, I wrote:

The most enduring type of belief are those of an ideological (theological) nature. Most ideological beliefs were handed down to us, or we gave our assent to them because they satisfy an emotional or intellectual need.  Ideological beliefs are not dependent on empirical or fact-based knowledge and are less likely to change.  As such, ideological beliefs can be concretized to the extent that any change to the conditions upon which they were predicated will likely be interpreted in such a manner as to authenticate the original conditions on which they are based. As a result, conflicts can arise between those espousing non-ideological beliefs and those with strong ideological beliefs.

From my post on Faith posted on December 19, 2014, I wrote:

On the surface, faith can appear miniscule, weak, and a refuge of last resort, but I would suggest otherwise.  Faith appears gentle but exerts tremendous force. It can give one the strength to hold on through impossible situations.  It can allow one to let go of something thought impossible to live without.   Its impact on the lives of individuals, people in general, and the course human events has been and continues to be immense. Faith faces forward.  We are blind where the future is concerned.  We don't know what lies around the corner.  Yet in faith we face the future and turn the corners of life. Faith contends with doubt.  Where there is faith there is doubt.  Faith does not require certainty and certainty requires no faith.   Certainty is matter of one's perceiving a known outcome.  Certainty with regard to belief is a matter of holding  to concrete ideas in spite of  obvious contradictions. Faith does not require intellectual assent.  Faith is an action. Faith gives one the ability to let be or to let go in the midst of doubt.  Faith is a force.

Biblically speaking, especially with regard to the New Testament, faith is related to trust rather than believing in things.   Jesus appears to have been a person of faith, a deep faith that God was leading the way in his and our lives, a faith that allowed him to let go of his ego and his doubts, a faith that allowed him to challenge the religious authorities of his day.  In fact, according to the Gospel, Jesus was constantly challenging the beliefs of the scribes and Pharisees, which I see as trying to increase their faith as opposed to holding on to their entrenched beliefs about righteousness.  The Gospels comment on more than one occasion how Jesus marveled at the faith gentiles exhibited as opposed to his fellow Jews.  

My understanding of faith is directly linked to my understanding of Jesus as faithful Jew who loved God by loving his fellow human beings, something he grew into as he pursued his ministry of bringing awareness of the Kingdom of God to the people of Galilee and Judea.  

The story of Jesus' resurrection resonates with so many Christians because it offers hope that there is more to life than this life and because there are instances/occurrences in nature and in some human outcomes which seem to point to resurrection or experiencing new life in this life.  On the other hand, many Christians profess belief in the resurrection story of Jesus because they want certified assurance that death is not the end to their existence and that a better life awaits them based on their ability to believe.

ANOTHER UNDERSTANDING OF THE RESURRECTION

This brings us to the second part of of the Cambridge Dictionary's definition of resurrection, "...bringing something back into use or existence."  This definition offers one a different understanding of Jesus' resurrection story, one that does not require believing it to be a factual event.  

One can only imagine the fear and the sense of loss those closest to him must have experienced.  While I don't consider the story of Jesus' resurrection to be a factual event, I can accept that those closest to him; those who loved him as they loved themselves experienced his presence in their lives.  I read somewhere that the historian, Flavius Josephus, who wrote about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, made an observation about the Church in Jerusalem regarding how much the followers of Jesus loved him. 

 If so, there was something about Jesus that people forty years after his crucifixion were enthralled by him and his way of living and his way of loving.  In that sense, they kept Jesus alive.   In that sense Jesus was brought back to life within their lives.  That too is resurrection and it is a resurrection that I can personally accept and understand. As such, I often talk about Jesus as not only the risen Christ, but also the rising Christ.  

The problem with the resurrection story is that it serves more as a distraction to the teachings of Jesus which, in my opinion, is the real saving act of Jesus' ministry.  It is what he taught by word and deed to the people of his day that show us a way if not, The Way.   His teachings have retained their relevance.

Unfortunately, for the last eighteen hundred years, Jesus' teachings have been put on the back burner of theology as the resurrection story has been been kept center stage.  I used to believe that the resurrection of Jesus served to verify the truth of Jesus' teaching, but I am now inclined to think of the resurrection story as a distraction to what Jesus taught and what he was attempting to offer the people he knew and deeply cared about.  

* * *

If Christianity is to remain relevant, its relevance must be rooted in what Jesus taught, not in the Church's centuries old teachings about Jesus.   The story of Jesus' resurrection when treated as a fact cannot be proven and remains problematic; in that, it requires a person to suspend one's ability to reason and respond rationally to it.   One can say that all religions require a suspension of human reasoning at some point and to a certain degree, to which I will respond, "And in doing so, all religions harbor irrationality as a necessary facet of belief."   

There is another way in which rationality and reason can be introduced into religion, and that is by properly identifying what is fact and what is fiction and taking what is fiction and considering its mythical relevance.   Mythology is the primary foundation of any theology.  The resurrection story as myth, has relevance in exposing the resurrection stories that occur in our lives; that in giving up or letting go of something important can lead to a new way of life, that in the death of something, a job, a friendship, a marriage, an addiction, new life or a new way of life emerges.  This is the power of Jesus' resurrection story in which Jesus was brought back into the lives of his followers, as The Way to a better life through what he taught them.

Norm  

RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - JESUS

IS CHRISTIANITY WORTH TRYING TO SAVE ?

There.  I said it.  It has been a question on my mind for some time.  I don't know why I was hesitant to articulate it.  It must be obvious to anyone who knows me or has read my posts that I, as a nominal Christian, struggle with Christianity; in particular, its teachings about Jesus and its insistence on believing the unbelievable as necessary for salvation.  

To be clear, I don't believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God.  I don't believe that he was brought into the world as result of a parthenogentic  (virgin) birth or descended from heaven to earth.   I don't believe he is some form of demigod (true man and true god) as a result of divine-human spiritual tryst between God and a virgin named Mary.  I don't believe that Jesus' crucifixion was a sacrifice required by God to pay the price for the sins of the world in perpetuity.  I don't believe that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead.  In essence, I don't believe in what most Christian churches insist that one believes in order to be a Christian.  

In addition, I don't believe that I'm the only nominal Christian sitting in the pew of a church who shares my list of disbeliefs.   Whew!  That's enough for now.  You get the point.   

If Christianity is worth saving, I believe Christianity needs to be recalibrated to the facts regarding Jesus as best as we can determine them.  Who is Jesus has been a question that has never been answered definitively nor factually.  For the last one thousand years, orthodox/catholic understanding who Jesus is has reigned supreme without accepting Jesus as only being a Jewish man living Galilee in the first century C.E.   We need to start with that basic fact and stick with it.

JESUS

NOTE: As my regular readers know, I see two types of teaching in the New Testament.  The teachings of Jesus and the teachings about Jesus.  I give more credibility to the teaching of Jesus which are rooted in the Torah and the Prophets of the Old Testament than I do to the teachings about Jesus which are rooted, for a lack of a better word, hearsay and theological speculation.   

Here I must be clear about my use of the word "credibility."  In my usage of the word, credibility is something that can be empirically proven as fact, replicated, verified historically by independent sources, and/or replicated scientifically.  Given that definition, most of the teachings about Jesus are not credible.  

This does not mean that the teachings about Jesus should be disregarded as having no value.  I openly treat most of the teachings about Jesus metaphorically or as a myth which, ironically, may have been the original intent by those who wrote them down.  I recognize that the term myth is controversial as implying something is a lie.  So let me be clear as to why I like the term.  

Myths are neither factual nor are they lies.  A story about something that cannot be proven as a fact can give meaning to our experiences, much as Greek or other myths do.  The only way that a myth is a lie is by treating a myth as a fact.  Both the Old and the New Testaments are replete with myths from which one can deduce applicable meanings.

The teachings about Jesus is another topic that will need recalibration in other posts.  For now, the topic is Jesus, the man, the Jew, and his teachings.

* * *

To be honest, we don't know much about the historical Jesus, apart from what we have in the Synoptic Gospels and the sparse remarks by ancient historians outside of the Christian community in the 1st century CE.  In fact, we have very little information about the early formation of Christianity apart from the Book of Acts.   With regard to factual information, we have, at best, second and third hand information.

To identify the historical Jesus is what can be factually determined about someone born in Galilee in the first century.  Given what we know about the location, time frame, and what the Synoptic Gospels tell us, the safest thing  to say about Jesus is that he was a Jew.   

That may come across as something absurdly obvious.  I would agree.   Nevertheless, I feel it needs to be clearly stated because Jesus being a Jew is quickly lost in the New Testament.  To the indoctrinated Christian mind,  Jesus is perceived to be more than human and above and beyond being a devoted Jew. Therein lies the problem Christianity has with Jesus.   Christians believe that Jesus turned Judaism upside down.  I disagree with that assessment.

If one cannot understand Jesus as a devout and practicing Jew, one cannot understand Jesus at all.  Most of the New Testament narratives about Jesus tend to side-step his being a practicing Jew, as if his being Jewish was somehow beneath him or didn't apply to him.  A clear (non-editorialized) reading of the Synoptic Gospel depicts Jesus as deeply concerned about his Jewish religion and his fellow Jews.    

Getting to know the historical Jesus requires stepping into the synoptic Gospels and being able to sift through its editorialized data and its mix of myth and fact to listen closely to what Jesus was saying in his "sermons," conversations, and his parabolic teachings.   

For instance, we know, according to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus could read because he read the scriptures in the synagogue.  We know that in the Synoptic Gospels he is called a rabbi by scribes and pharisees, which indicates that he was recognized as a legitimate rabbi who would read and make commentary on what he read in a synagogue.  Christians tend to minimize that probability by saying anyone who preached at the time was referred to as a rabbi or was mockingly being referred to as such.  I don't think the scribes and the Pharisees would have referred to him as such if he were not recognized as a legitimate rabbi

With regard to being a practicing Jew, in the Gospel of Luke we have a story where Mary and Joseph presented him in the Temple according to Jewish practice at the age of twelve in order to prep him for his upcoming bar mitzvah when he turned thirteen from which we can deduce that he was brought up as a practicing Jew.   We know he visited Jerusalem on at least one occasion, but I think it safe to say he was there on more than one occasion throughout his life to observe Jewish holy days in which he would have made the journey to the Temple as a practicing Jew.  

As a practicing Jew who made trips to the Temple in Jerusalem, one can assume he, like his fellow Jews would have offered sacrifices at the Temple.  Unfortunately, the New Testament is mute on the subject.  I think most Christians believe Jesus didn't need to offer sacrifices because he was the sinless Son of God, which would have excused him from being a practicing Jew.  His parents obviously didn't see him that way because they offered sacrifices on his behalf when he was young (See Luke 2:22-24).

It is likely that throughout his life Jesus would not have understood himself as being anything other than a human being who was a Jew.  That Jesus was baptized by John could be factual, however, that God called him his beloved son does not have a factual reference that can be verified.  The Synoptic Gospels describes such an event as personal experience, a vision, Jesus could have relayed to his followers.  One has to set aside, the Gospel of John's saying that John the Baptist saw the spirit of God descending on Jesus as theological speculation. 

Jesus' conversations with the scribes and Pharisees reveal a person who reveled in discussions on the Torah and the prophets with them.  Unfortunately, the New Testament tends to cast the scribes and pharisees as always trying to trick Jesus and maliciously denigrating what he was saying.  I read those encounters differently.  Jewish rabbis vigorously debated the scriptures in sometime challenging and personal ways.  Like Jesus, they often resorted to parabolic stories to make their points.  Jesus was a master of this form of discussion and debate. 

 If we are to take his encounters with the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees as factual then Jesus was recognized by them as a practicing Jew.  It is clear that Jesus' views on the law and prophets were intriguing and different.  According to these Gospels, on more than one occasion Jesus was the guest of honor in a Pharisees' home.  I don't see them trying to trick him or make him out to be an apostate Jew.  If that were the case, I think Jesus would have been ignored by them, if not stoned long before he would have been crucified.   

* * *

A telling moment in the Gospel account is Jesus' reception at his hometown  synagogue in Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels of Mark and Luke.  These accounts offer some insight into how Jesus saw himself and his ministry.  The Lucan Gospel gives us more detail and is worth taking a closer look.

And there was delivered unto (Jesus) the book of the prophet (Isaiah). And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the (good news) to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. Luke 4:17-21

In both Luke's and Mark's account of this incident, Jesus' audience had a mixed reaction to what he said.  They were both amazed and furious with what he said.  In Mark, Jesus responds, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."  Mark 6:4

Jesus clearly was identifying with a prophetic role.  As I have mentioned in other posts, the prophetic role is pointing out the ignored obvious or, in this case, the forgotten obvious.  I believe Jesus saw his mission one of calling to mind who he and his fellow Jews were and whose they were.  Jesus was not thinking outside the boundaries of his Jewish religion or the borders of Galilee and Judea.  He wasn't thinking of gentiles when he was reading from Isaiah.  He was thinking of the people seated in his hometown synagogue and in every synagogue throughout the known world at the time.  

The selection that Jesus read from Isaiah 61 would have been recognizable to most of his audience in that synagogue.  It's a passage that would have brought to mind a messianic figure, someone who might take on the Roman occupation of their land.   It takes on a more militaristic tone as it says: 

... and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.  ... And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.  But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.   Isaiah 61:2b-6

This is the backdrop message to what Jesus selected.  If Luke's account is accurate with regard to what Jesus choose to read, Jesus was being very select in what he read.  His audience would have been aware of what he left out.  To stop after verse 2a of Isaiah and say, "This day the scripture has been fulfilled while you're sitting hear listening to me," had to leave his audience wondering what he was getting at.  

What did Jesus mean by that?   Was he claiming to be the messiah.    

As Jonathan Sacks point out in his book, "A Letter in a Scroll," every person who proclaimed himself to be the messiah, during the era in which Jesus lived was executed, including Jesus.  This is true and we need to stop there before going on to say, "Yes, but Jesus rose from the dead." Again, that is a teaching about Jesus that can neither be verified independently or replicated.  This will be addressed in another post. 

Jesus' synagogue audience, would have agreed with Rabbi Sacks.   Galilee was a known hot spot for  zealot activity.  The people of Galilee witnessed first hand what the Romans did to self-proclaimed messiahs.  The roads were lined with his crucified followers and a small village, like Nazareth would be at risk if the Romans thought they were colluding with a rebellion.  

But was Jesus identifying himself with being the Messiah?  If so, why did he, according to Luke, stop at Isaiah 61: 2a?  In what way was Jesus proclaiming the time in which he lived, a time in which all of Judea was occupied by a gentile empire and polarized by religious contention, as the acceptable year of the Lord?  

I don't believe that Jesus was trying to proclaim himself to be the Messiah.  Jesus ending with Isaiah 61:2a was doing something more radical and, in some sense, more difficult than trying to take on Rome.  He was trying to awaken his audience to what Isaiah had prophesied about, to preaching good news to the poor, healing the brokenhearted, proclaiming deliverance to the captives, restoring sight to the blind, and freeing the afflicted in spite Rome's oppression and the religious contention of the times.    

The Gospels  show Jesus treating the Roman presence with ambivalence.   A famous example of this is when asked if it was lawful to pay taxes to Rome, Jesus asks to see the coin his interlocutors paid taxes with.  Seeing the likeness of Caesar on the coin, he famously responded, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."  Jesus' focus was clearly on the present and on the cultural and religious disorder that afflicted his fellow Jews.  

Jesus appears to have modeled himself as the Son of Man, God's term used to identify the prophet Ezekiel.   Like Ezekiel, Jesus acted out his message.  But instead of acting out in bizarre, cryptic ways as Ezekiel did, Jesus acted in provocative ways to get to his target audience, the ultra-religious, by associating with those considered lost causes; the hated tax collectors, the unclean prostitutes, the lame, the blind, the leper, and the occasional gentile.  He not only talked to them, he touched them, and he ate and drank with them.  In short he celebrated life with them.  

Jesus appears to have been both generous with what he had and generous in receiving what was offered.  When others were trying to tighten their religious belts against corrupting influences,  Jesus was redefining the law by getting at the heart of what the law was saying to him and exposing the hypocrisy of those demonstrating personal piety while ignoring the plight of their fellow Jews who were living on the fringe of their society and were disenfranchised by the often wealthy ultra-religious (see the story of the rich man or the rich young man Matthew 19 and Mark 10).

* * * 

One has to consider why Jesus was an itinerant rabbi as opposed to one assigned to local synagogue; such as, Nazareth or Capernaum, his chosen hometown.  He obviously preached in their synagogues.  What one hears in his teachings, give us a clue to why Jesus treated the streets and the hillsides as an open synagogue.  Jesus was critical of the religious leaders of his day who practiced personal piety rather than humility and concern for the marginalized.  Jesus, on more than one occasion, stated that his mission was specifically to save the lost of Israel.  His method of doing so was far ahead of his time and was confusing to those who emphasized personal piety by keeping strict adherence to the law.  

Jesus' approach was first to accept the person as a child of God, like himself.  Forgiveness, not condemnation, of one's faults was not only his mode of teaching, but also his mode of healing.  It is interesting to note that in stories where Jesus healed someone, he often began by saying a person's sins were forgiven.  There is a psychological element to his doing so.  Often physical illness can be the result of severe depression and unresolved guilt or shame.  Jesus' initial act of forgiveness had to be a tremendous relief to many who sought Jesus for healing who saw their illnesses as a punishment sent from God for their sins.

This was something that the scribes and Pharisees apparently had difficulty in grasping.  Jesus placed forgiveness as his primary religious obligation toward his fellow Jews.  We also hear in these Gospels that Jesus couldn't heal those who couldn't forgive themselves or accept being forgiven.  This was often put in terms of whether one believed Jesus could heal; such as, the father who brought his seemingly possessed son.  In Mark 9, Jesus' question of whether the father believed or had faith that Jesus could heal goes straight to the heart of the matter.  Did the father believe he was worthy enough to have a son who was not afflicted by something that the father or a member of the family had done?  

It is clear Jesus did not believe God punished sinners, but more that sinners punished themselves because they were led to believe that all illnesses were the result of sin, which was reinforced by others who avoided them because of their perceived uncleanliness.   Jesus' ministry was shaped by the love of his religion, his God who he claimed not only as his father but the father of all humans.  His teachings reflect that understanding as does his activities among those who followed and sought him out.

* * *

Next time, the post on recalibrating Christianity will address, Jesus as Christ.

Norm