RECALIBRATING CHRISTIANITY - THE BIBLE

Perhaps the most challenging undertaking in recalibrating Christianity is the understanding and use of the Bible in the light of its history and the role that science plays in shaping its application.   Most Christians are not well versed in the history of the Bible.  Most have an understanding of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, having no need of history outside of what itself describes.  The fact is the Bible has a history as a collection of writings with regard to how it came to be and how we understand it today. 

John Barton's "A History of the Bible - The Book & Its Faiths" is an excellent history of the Bible that covers its development, interpretations, and use in both Christian and Jewish settings.  Barton's history is topically exhaustive and provides resources for those interested in doing further research beyond his text.  I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the history of the Bible.  

* * *

In Christianity, the Bible is the foundational source of its mission and worship.  For two millennia the Bible has been the one source all Christian churches and denominations rely on to support their beliefs, their doctrines, and their practices.  The Bible has been treated as a "stand-alone" and an unquestioned authoritative source for what Christians believe. 

Understanding how the Bible came to be and how it was written and why it was written in the way it was written is essential to understanding its use and application in the twenty-first century.  The understanding that the Bible is the Word of God needs to be replaced with the understanding that it is words about God and how such understandings shape one's understanding of human relationships with each other and with God.  Christianity can no longer afford to treat the Bible as a "stand-alone" source.  It has its own history amongst the histories of other cultures, religions, philosophies  politics, and science.  How do these histories shape one's understanding of the Bible? 

As mentioned in another post, the Bible is best understood if it is treated as any other form of literature.  For the most parts, Christians struggle with that concept.  The concept that it is holy, immediately, puts it into a category of its own.  It is not holy.  It is human.   

It is a human work inspired by the concept or the ideal of a being called God.  Should such an "individualized" being exist it must have been created.  It was.  

It was created in the minds of human beings and if one reads the Bible, in particular, one can clearly sees this.   When one begins to realize this, the Bible takes on a more significant role in understanding it and humanity's relationship to it.  It becomes a brush-stroke amongst many other brushstrokes that paint a picture of what it means to be human.

There is no need to change the Bible.  It can stand as work of literature amongst many literary works that bring meaning to who we are in relationship to the force that brought about the universe and us. 

Speaking of "the force," the writers of the "Star Wars" movies and George Lucas were, I believe, deliberately on to something when they came up with the idea that there is an accessible force in the universe, ingenuously called, "The Force."  All kidding aside, it seems to encapsulates the creation story as redefined in John 1:1:  "In the beginning was the Word..." (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος in the Koine Greek original).    The word "beginning" is translated from the the Greek word, ἀρχῇ, which also connotes power and by extension an active force.  

* * *

The universe in which we live may not have a beginning, as time itself is part of what is or what evolved as a result of gravitational forces.  The universe may be eternal;  a paradoxical timeless state of being in which time exists.  We only pinpoint its age as being fourteen billion years because that is as far back in light years we can see. What we also know is that the universe is in constant flux; that galaxies come and go over billions of years in the macro Universe, but we also know that electrons in the micro (quantum) universe are virtually eternal forms of energy.  

As I have noted in other posts, God is a nominal or pronominal term describing a verb; as in, an active force that could also be described as Being or Being-ness.  That God is seen as a separate being, apart from creation, seems improbable to me.  That God is "being" in which creation is manifest is less improbable and more understandable in the 21st century.  

The Bible personifies God as a being because it is near impossible to relate to God on a personal or cultural level if God cannot be objectified as a divine being. What does that even mean?  The Bible, itself, tells us that God is beyond description.  The best we get in deciphering what God is in the metaphorical references to what God is like:  God is a spirit (life-giving energy).  God is light (intellectual and also life-giving energy).   God is love (emotive and motivational energy). 

Genesis is the singular most important book in the Bible; in that, it is the premise upon which the whole story of the Bible for both Christians and Jews evolves. To metaphorically understand the creation story of the universe in the Bible and its creation in the light of evolutionary science and psychology is important in recalibrating Christianity; just as understanding the New Testament as a largely metaphorical story about Jesus is important in making the teachings of Jesus relevant for the times in which we live. 

To accept the Bible as the truth is a matter of intellectual assent in the form of belief.   I doubt that most people accept the Bible as containing capital "T"  Truth.  Most of us can see truths about our humanity expressed through the stories in the Bible and in its depiction of  the relationships human have with the idea of God through the perspective of the prophets, including Jesus, who gave God a human voice. 

* * *

For those who have followed this blog, you are likely to see that my views on Christianity are changing.  I have used this blog to examine my own thoughts as well as others on the subjects I write about, and I have written several posts on the topics covered in this series on recalibrating Christianity.  The Bible being the one source upon which Christianity is based should give any serious person pause to consider the ramifications.

The question that has been forming in my mind since beginning this blog is if it is realistic to continue to adhere to one book containing a collection of writings between two and three thousand years old which were based on an understanding of the world we live in as being the center of the universe and we humans beings the crown of God's creation in light of what we now know today?   Have we not evolved as humans in what we know about creation; the universe, the diversity of life on earth, and ourselves?  Should we remain tethered to concepts of the causes and effects of events that are based on human rectitude rather than their explanations found in atmospheric, biological, geological, and psychological science?

At best the Bible gives us a history of religious evolution of a tribal mountaintop god, amongst many others, to the one God of monotheism; a universal God who brought all things into being (a major leap towards seeking a unified theory of everything).  Then there is the Christian scriptures of the New Testament that contains the teachings of Jesus and his understanding of the value of each human as a child of God and being an incarnation of God's image.  

The Bible as a stand alone authoritative source has also been a source of humankind's inhumanity.  Both the Old and the New Testaments have been used to justify wars and deadly persecutions throughout human history.  In more recent years, it has been used to stoke what I have been calling "willful ignorance" which ignores science in all of its forms.  In political circles, it continues to be useful tool to encourage fundamental Christian churches to back and justify movements aimed at establishing autocracies and oligarchies.  

* * *

While the Bible has been cited as the scriptural basis for civil rights and in general human rights, it is the Enlightenment (something disparaged by many Christian denominations and churches) that influenced Christians, particularly in the West, to seek a better understanding of its scriptures in its light.  If Christians had not been influenced by the Enlightenment, slavery and the broad spectrum of human rights (the civil rights of all people regardless of race, gender, gender identity) would not have occurred, as the Bible does not mention such rights.  The Bible contains language that is ambivalent on such subjects and particularly disparages the idea of homosexuals and women having any rights. At best, the rights of individuals is something derived from the teachings of the prophets and Jesus.  

I need to add here that Paul's claim in his letter to the Galatians of there being no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or freedman in Christ was never meant to establish a social or world order.  It is obvious in his other letters  Paul was not ready to "unnecessarily" upset the social order of the times.  He ordered women to remain silent, wear head coverings, abstain from jewelry, and sent a slave back to his master.  The prophets, Paul, and even Jesus were products of their times and the places in which they lived.  Where Jesus differs is in his emphasis on the importance of the individual; from a small child to a Roman Centurian, a Samaritan Leper, and a Syro-Phoenician woman.  Like God, Jesus was a minimalist; one person at a time, every time. 

The Bible will always remain central to Christianity, but in the 21st century it can no longer remain as a stand-alone authoritative source.  It must be understood in the light of the ongoing effects of the Enlightenment expressed in science and emerging philosophies and thought.  Christian theology needs to move beyond a naval-gazing activity that insists on continuity with the past as each age presents its challenges to long-held doctrine, practices, and traditions.  For Christians, the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke must be distilled from their narrative setting and become the center piece of Christian life and worship, as opposed to the teaching about Jesus; such as, his divine birth, the meaning of his death and resurrection.  It is the teachings of Jesus that have more relevance today than they have had in the past.

The Bible is an important literary artifact that is the foundation on which Christianity is based, but for Christianity to remain relevant, the Bible must be understood in the light of our rapidly changing world.  It should not be used as a defense for what is no longer defensible.  More important to its relevance is understanding it as literature about humans in relation to the concept of God rather than believing it to be the Word of God. 

Norm 

THE MADNESS OF JESUS - A REFLECTION ON MARK 3:20-35 (Revised)

I presented this homily at Christ Episcopal Church on June 9, 2024.  It is a revision of a homily I posted online during Covid on June 6, 2021 

 May the words of my mouth and the mediations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our strength and our redeemer.   Amen

+

Jesus’ family was concerned.  

You can imagine what their conversations might have been like:  

“What’s going on? What is happening with Jesus? 

He’s not eating right; all that preaching, all those people.  

It’s not good.  People are talking.  

Casting out demons!  What next?  

Perhaps we should do a family intervention.”   

So they go in search of Jesus.  

* * *

They are not the only ones concerned.  Prior to today’s reading from Mark, we read that word quickly spread about Jesus who was healing people and casting out demons.  People from all around, even beyond the borders of Galilee and Judea, were making the journey to hear Jesus and be healed by him.  And when that happens, the leadership in Jerusalem takes notice and they send some scribes (some legal experts) to hear and see what Jesus is up to.  

After doing so, they arrive at a conclusion, confirming what worried Jesus’ family, “He’s out of his mind.”  

Beyond that, they conclude that if Jesus is, in fact, casting out demons, it stands to reason he can do so because he’s possessed himself, and not by some generic demon, but by the Prince of demons, Beelzebul.  

Imagine what Jesus must have sounded like and looked like after preaching and healing non-stop for days:

Wild-eyed with the fervor of delivering a message of hope to a world in need of hope.  He most likely didn’t look the best or smell the best from the press of a never-ending flow of people who had no one else to turn to, no one else to give their hope for hope a chance.  It is no wonder his family and the scribes thought he was losing his mind.

* * *  

But Jesus wasn’t losing his mind.   Jesus was healing minds, healing bodies, and liberating souls. 

When he hears those scribes describe him as casting out demons by the prince of demons, Jesus seizes a teaching opportunity in which he offers one of his most enduring statements, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  

* * *

Jesus exposes an illogic that presents itself as a resistance to evidential hope; as in, when good happens where and to whom it is never expected to happen  The ones who object to such hope are those who inwardly fear they have the most to lose when hope emerges in opposition to their hard-nosed pragmatism that sees hope as a waste of time that only results in people becoming unruly, as evidenced by the press of the crowd surrounding Jesus.  

 

Hope defies control.  When hope takes shape and becomes realized, those who fear it most cast it as demonic, casts liberation as domination, and unconditional concern for those outside of one’s inner circle as subversive.  Illogical theories like Satan casting out Satan are presented as fact because, in a polarized setting, one person’s hope becomes another person’s fear.  Jesus exposes the fallacy of such illogical theorizing.

* * *  

What comes next is one of Jesus’ most confusing statements about the eternal and unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.  Mark concludes that Jesus gave the scribes this warning because they said he had an unclean spirit.  

It’s not exactly clear what Jesus meant by this statement, and it may strike us as a bit over the top and out of character for Jesus.  Nevertheless, it serves as a poignant warning to those who, in the name of God and religion, demonize people as a means of preventing them from entertaining hope.Jesus could be implying that those who discredit the Spirit of God in others end up severing their tie to the very Spirit that made us living souls; that it ends up diminishing their souls to the point their isn’t much left of their souls to forgive.

* * *

Another seemingly uncharacteristic moment for Jesus is when his mother, brothers, and sisters arrive and are asking for him.  Instead of going out to meet them, he uses their presence as another teaching moment.   

In what comes across as a being dismissive to their presence, Jesus asks the crowd surrounding him, “Who is my mother, brothers, and sisters?”  Looking at those who came to hear him and be healed by him, he says, “You are. You, who are doing the will of God are my family.”  

The madness of Jesus is in appearance only and he appears as such only to those who fear losing control like the scribes and those who felt powerless against a good they couldn’t understand like his biological family; a power that defied conventional wisdom as to whom such good things should happen to and be enacted by.  For those whose hope was rekindled in Jesus’ preaching, who experienced his healing touch and whose souls were liberated, they saw and experienced in this wild-eyed, unkempt human being, the refining fire of God’s liberating and life-giving Spirit. 

* * *

This reading is particularly appropriate for a season devoted to the movement of God’s Spirit in our world - redeeming it and restoring it one person, one moment, one event at a time.  To discern the movement of God’s Spirit requires one to step back, sometimes way back, to see the bigger picture.  

It requires letting go of what one thinks must happen or should happen in order to see within the madness of our times the goodness that is taking place, to recognize and hold on to a hope that emerges in some of the most seemingly hopeless places and situations.   As people of faith we know this to be true. To discern the movement of God’s Spirit requires a patient and an open heart that feels the Spirit of God moving us ever closer towards the realization of God’s loving hope in us working with God’s Spirit in healing our world and liberating souls.  

Amen.

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