Martyr?
CMK on June 5th, 2008
An iconic figure has opened is undergoing trial at the hands of the empire. He very well may be sentenced to death. He has welcomed this reality saying, “If I’m killed, I will be killed for the sake of God. I’ve been seeking to be a martyr for years.” I could be describing Jesus, but instead I’m speaking of a man named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
In case you missed it, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the alleged mastermind of several terrorist attacks including 9/11. Since 2003, he has been in U.S. custody. Today, his military tribunal trail has begun in which Mohammed shared the above desire to be martyred.
Now, for those of you enraged that I just compared this alleged terrorist to Jesus, please understand that I am not drawing a comparison between the two at the core of their message and action. Jesus was a pacifist. Sheikh Mohammed is a terrorist. Jesus said love your enemy. Sheikh Mohammed says, “Kill the infidels!”
However, I think there is a valid comparison on a larger level. Both Jesus and Sheikh Mohammed have found themselves at odds with the dominant superpower or empire of their day. As empires do, both Rome and the United States are interested in extending their power by eliminating threats to their dominance and prosperity. Jesus challenged the kingdom of Rome while Sheik Mohammed has challenged the kingdom of America.
If the US chooses to kill this man, we will make him a martyr as he desires. We have already held him without charge and probably exposing him to torture. But now we have a unique opportunity. If we show mercy and restraint, we will let him be what he is: a terrorist with a losing strategy of hate and violence. If we kill him, we will paste his face on Middle East walls for decades. While justice certainly demands that we hold him accountable, wisdom requires that we choose the higher ground, reverse the temptations of pursuing the Pax Americana with violence, and respond to terror with firm compassion and truth.
I don’t want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be a martyr. I don’t want his version of a hateful God to dominate. I want to be proud that my country did the right thing. God help us if we do not.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.chrismichaelkirk.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.chrismichaelkirk.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.chrismichaelkirk.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.chrismichaelkirk.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.chrismichaelkirk.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Email]](http://www.chrismichaelkirk.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
June 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
This shows a complete miss understanding of an expansionist empire. If America was trying to expand it’s power we would have taken over Iraq and made them into a new colony. However, we (America) have gone and gotten rid of a horrible dictator, helped to rebuild infrastructure. All the while refusing to make the Iraqis pay for any of it.
Secondly Jesus did not challenge the Roman Empire. He directed all of his disputes toward the hierarchy of the Jewish system. It was the Jews who had Jesus killed, they just used the Romans to do their dirty work.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for the comment JT. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your assertions. America is most definately trying to expand its power. However, we are not doing this by taking over new, physical territory. Instead, we are eliminating threats to our national security, making us safe as Rome did int he Pax Romana. Further, we seek to expand our economic power allowing us to buy oil and have a Middle East partner with which to conduct trade.
It is appalling when you state that we have refused “to make the Iraqis pay for any of it.” To date, approximately 90,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed (iraqbodycount.org), millions have been forced from their homes, and all live in fear. To ignore these costs is to betray the attitude of benevolent, American conquest which I’m describing.
Finally, to read that “Jesus did not challenge the Roman Empire,” is a shortsighted and distorted view of the Jesus of Scripture. Jesus’ message was directed to the Jewish people who were situated within the Roman empire and dealing with Roman oppression. Everything he said was said in the context of Rome, and I believe his main message was bringing a Kingdom which was different than Rome’s vision (see Jesus w/ Pilate).
Thanks again for the comment. I’m sorry that I must disagree so strongly. Please respond and continue the conversation if you’d like.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
First, America by protecting it’s self is not trying to expand it’s power. Also hoping to have an ally, even taking measures to accomplish this is simply being intelligent. I am perfectly happy not to buy oil in the Middle East. All we have to do to accomplish that is begin drilling our own oil resources as we continue to develope alternate forms of energy.
Second, it is “appalling” for you to try and twist my monetary meanig into overlooking the accidental death of civilians. And to your point haw many more civilians would Sadam have killed in our absence. Also if you talk to soldiers who have returned from Iraq they will regularly tell you that the news we hear in America is an absolute distortion of the truth of what is happening on the ground. The Iraqi people in general love our soldiers and the help we are giving.
Finally, Jesus talked of a Spiritual kingdom not a kingdom of this world. In Ephesians Paul say that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. If Jesus was against the Roman Empire why would he have told the Pharisees to pay taxes to Caesar? Though the Jews were oppressed by the Romans Jesus never told anyone to oppose Rome nor did he ever try to lead people to believe that he was trying to lead a political revolution. Jesus purpose was to bring us an opportunity to regain a relatioship with God and to do away with the sacrificial system.
Simply living in a time of oppression does not equal opposing the oppression. The New Testament consistantly tells us to follow the rules and laws that are in place. Paul goes as far as telling slaves and masters how to treat each other without saying it is wrong to own slaves. I am in no way approving slavery, rather simply stating that the message of the Bible is not making a political statement but calling us to a relationship with God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
As for Jesus with Pilate, In John 18 :36 Jesus tells Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were my servants would fight top prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
All the other Gospels Jesus simply agrees with Pilate that he is the King of the Jews. After this statement Pilate still tries to release Jesus because he realized that the Pharisees were just jealous of Jesus. If Pilate considered Jesus a threat to Rome he never would have offered to release Jesus.
Thank you for the dialogue. I look forward to your response.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Thanks JT.
If I hear you correctly, you are saying that Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about the dominant question of his day. You said that “Simply living in a time of oppression does not equal opposing the oppression.” Therefore, are you saying that Jesus has nothing to say about oppression? If this is so, and Jesus’ good news was only about spirituality, then we lose your primary justification for the war in Iraq. Freeing others from oppression, in that case, is not a matter that God cares too much about.
I think we’re coming from two different places based upon two different assumptions about the nature of God and the purpose of Jesus. You stated that “Jesus (sic) purpose was to bring us an opportunity to regain a relatioship (sic) with God and to do away with the sacrificial system.” I would prefer to approach this from the perspective that Jesus came to bring God’s kingdom near to us, revealing the way of life. Your assumption spiritualizes Jesus, removes him from the ground of first century Israel, and makes the whole point about the afterlife. I argue for a more terrestrial approach in which Jesus taught us a way to live our lives in context, not just giving us a ticket to heaven.
There are many scriptures which I believe back up this point as well as church history. For example, Jesus talked about his kingdom being “at hand”. It was not something far off after we die, but something available now. In Luke 4, Jesus announces his ministry by quoting a moving passage from Isaiah which has little to do with your spiritual relationship to God, but talks a lot of helping the poor, freeing the prisoners, giving justice to the oppressed, etc.
You are correct in that Jesus did not encourage a political, in our modern usage of the term, revolution against Rome. He just transcended the whole discussion. You mentioned Jesus’ famous “Give to Caesar” teaching. This can also be read as a slight against Rome, in which Caesar demanded allegiance and worship as well as taxes. I suggest a read of John Howard Yoder or John Dominic Crossan for a more historical breakdown of these passages.
Anyway, we could bat Scripture back and forth for the rest of our lives. What I’m more interested in understanding is your view of the question I began this reply with. Does Jesus have anything to say about oppression? And if he didn’t in the first century, does he care about sexual slavery, genocide, poverty, and abortion today?
June 17th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
[...] engaging in a discussion with JT here and keeping an eye on the Blogalogue between Wallis and Klinghoffer. I keep coming back to the [...]
June 18th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Let me appologize for occasionally missing an N while typing the cat pulled my N key off of the keyboard the other day and it sometimes doesn’t take the stroke. Sorry. Anyway…Back to the discussion at hand. (A great one by the way.)
Jesus was absolutely against oppression. However, the oppression he specifically talks about is the spiritual oppression of Satan. Jesus came to release Satan’s hold on all of us.
That being said, I do believe we are to do what we can to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves as well as to help to end oppression, tyranny, slavery and all other sorts of evil.
It appears that you are saying that a relationship with God is only spiritual. I fervently disagree with that take on the statement you mentioned. Rather I would say that it is very much a current relationship that affects our daily lives or it is not a true spiritual relationship. If we are not living a different life now than we were yesterday I must question if we are really in a growing relationship with God. God, in his master plan, has given us many examples of his love and the relationship he desires with us. I grew up, as I know you did, with the definition of sin as follows…
“A willful transgression against the known law of God.”
This seems a little off to me. We can even look back at the Old Testament and see that the law was put in place as a standard we are unable to achieve. David, in the Psalms, says that he will not offer sacrifices because that is not what God desires. It is relationship with him that God desires from us.
As with any human, though far better than, relationship I do not believe we ever really stop growing and changing in our relationship with God. When I first met my wife there were things that I did that she absolutely hated. As well, there were things she did that I hated. As our relationship grew each of us changed things about our attitudes and behaviors to please and grow closer to the other. I am not trying to say that we can or do change God. In fact I know we don’t. (and thank goodness) But as we grow in our relationship with God he continually brings things to our attention that we must change. We then have the choice to continue the relationship and try to change, ask God if he will allow us to deal with that later, or give up and end the relationship. Therefore I have edited this deffiition of sin…
“A willful transgression against our relationship with God.”
In my experience this is the only way for me to understand different convictions for different people. Sorry for the long side note but I really wanted to address the earthly relationship question you raised.
Back to the caring for the oppressed, etc. As Christians we have a great responsibility to reach out to our fellow man. It is not important if the are oppressed by poverty or wealth. Jesus did spend a lot of time with the poor. However, he also enjoyed many parties at the homes of very wealthy tax collectors and Pharisees. He told the rich young ruler to give everything he had to the poor and follow Jesus because the man’s wealth was in the way of God. Then he rebuked Judas when he complained that the Mary’s perfume could have been sold and given to the poor by telling Judas that “the poor will always be with you.” This almost seems like a great dichotomy. However, if we see that Jesus came to heal our spirits and desires our relationship with him above all then it becomes possible for there to be extravagant worship, sometimes to the exclussion of helping the poor, and helping the less fortunate all at the same time.
As for the government I believe we are to do these things to help the under priviledged seperate from the government. In America it is our duty as Christians to vote in a way that allows us as the Church to continue to help the down trodden of the world as much as possible. It is better for the government to allow us to be free so we as the Church are able to help the down trodden than for the government to force the rest of the unbelieving masses to do the work of the Church.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I agree with a great deal of your assessment of sin as a break in the relationship with God. However, I argue that this distinction between spiritual and physical is a false one. You began with this statement:
“Jesus was absolutely against oppression. However, the oppression he specifically talks about is the spiritual oppression of Satan. Jesus came to release Satan’s hold on all of us.”
This dichotomy between spiritual and physical goes back throughout time, but it was not the way Jesus and the early disciples saw things. This idea is much more influenced by Greek Philosophy than by the teachings of Jesus. But, that’s a long discussion so I’ll move to another writer that was influenced by the Greeks, but still said revolutionary things in the way of Jesus: the apostle, Paul.
Yesterday, you quoted the famous passage from Paul where he describes our battle being against rulers, authorities and spiritual forces in the heavenly realms. You seem to interpret all three of these as being extra-terrestrial forces, but I read that rulers and authorities have to do with those here on earth, the oppressors, the powerful governments. While these are “flesh and blood” in that humans occupy the offices, there is a communal evil which resides in the institutions of power. We most certainly battle spiritual forces, but we also battle forces like racism, corporate greed, and systemic injustice. In fact, these are spiritual forces in a very real since physical. They are one in the same. For example, the genocide that is occurring in Darfur is a horrible evil that we must oppose. I believe this is central to the message of Jesus.
The view of government you conclude with is interesting. I agree that the church (and I would dare expand this to the generosity of all mankind) should help others separate from the government, and I don’t think anyone wants to take this ability away. The problem is that fighting oppression is not a priority for the church because of the false dichotomy which separates our souls from our bodies, our spiritual lives from our communal lives. When the church begins this, then I agree, there will be no need for government aid.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Thanks for the agreement.
Still you are missing the main point. Jesus did fully intend to deal with, first and foremost, the spiritual side of our lives. In Matthew 1:21 the angel of the Lord tells Joseph: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” It does not say that he will lead them to over throw oppression. Nor will he lead them to a better way to help people. “HE will save his people from their sin.” As I defined before sin is a physical or mental act that is against our spiritual relationship. A relationship that by default must show up in our daily lives. Again we must reach out to help the hurting people of the world, but this is to lead them towards a relationship with God; spiritual in nature first.
To say that Jesus was not teaching a dichotomy, “This dichotomy between spiritual and physical goes back throughout time, but it was not the way Jesus and the early disciples saw things.” is to ignore the full humanity/ full deity of Christ. He the very embodiment of the dichotomy between the spiritual and physical. Because there is a dichotomy does not imply that they must always be at war with one another. Jesus showed us the physical representation of the spiritual relationship. Everything Jesus did was to fulfill God’s plan to bring people back to Himself. I also see you must have skipped the statement at the end of my paragraph. “However, if we see that Jesus came to heal our spirits and desires our relationship with him above all then it becomes possible for there to be extravagant worship, sometimes to the exclusion of helping the poor, and helping the less fortunate all at the same time.”
If the purpose of Jesus ministry was simply to get people to live better “more friendly and caring” lives. Why would he have sacrificed his life? Why would the religious leaders have cared? They would have been able to dismiss him as just some radical. But they could not. The Jewish leaders were threatened by the idea he was the Messiah and was not calling for a military revolt against the Roman Empire. They were afraid of the people and that Jesus was trying to eliminate them, the spiritual leaders of the day.
Again in Matthew, chapter 22 this time, Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is. His response is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” The second, meaning of slightly lower importance, is “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus then says that all the law and the profits hang on these two commands. This once again shows the spiritual importance Jesus is emphasizing.
As for the statement by Paul, he is telling us not to take up arms against the government but to fight these evil, Satan inspired, attitudes that permeate the earth. That, I believe is the Dark world he is referring to.
Finally, you stated.
“I agree that the church (and I would dare expand this to the generosity of all mankind) should help others separate from the government, and I don’t think anyone wants to take this ability away.”
This seems to be saying that all mankind is somehow responsible for the work of the church. I am a little confused by this. Are you saying that the Church is all of mankind, or simply that all of mankind is somehow innately good?
I don’t believe that either of these premises is in anyway Biblical. Nor does the world we look at today show that man is naturally good. If man has a predisposition to be good then the world would have very few problems. Evil would be the extreme exception not the daily norm.
As for the Church not fighting oppression I am not sure where you are looking or what Church you follow. A simple search for Christian Relief Organizations on Yahoo! gets you 17,700,000 hits. I do not pretend to believe that there are any where near that many organizations who are helping the poor and oppressed, but what if 1/2 of 1% of those hit are actual organizations doing good things. That is still 88,500 organizations. That is a rather large number. Here are just a few of the organizations and churches I can think of off the top of my head.
World Hope International. Wesleyan - http://www.worldhope.org
Heart to heart international. Para church - http://www.hearttoheart.org
Nazarene compassionate ministries. Nazarene - http://www.ncm.org
Angel food ministries. Para church - http://www.angelfoodministries.com
Jesus Film Project. Para church in partnership with Nazarene - http://www.jesusfilm.org
World Vision. Para church - http://www.worldvision.org
Samaritan’s Purse. Para church - http://www.samaritanspurse.org
The Cooperative Program. Southern Baptist - http://www.cpmissions.net
Presbyterian Church - http://www.pcusa.org/navigation/mission.htm
Methodist Church - http://www.umc.org
Youth For Christ. Para church - http://www.yfc.net
With this many organizations available I guess we can agree that the Church is doing something and we need the government to now get out of the way with their “aid programs” so the church can heal the “sick”.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I’m about to run out the door, but I want to respond briefly to your comment, JT. Sorry that I don’t have time to give your lengthly comment the response it deserves.
I’m not debating spiritual versus physical. I am trying to transcend that whole debate and say that we are whole beings, created beautiful in God’s image, not a conglomeration of parts. In this way, it is insufficient to divide up Jesus’ message for our spiritual lives as opposed to our earthly lives. I would argue that they are one in the same. In this view, I do cannot ignore the physical needs of an individual because I seek a higher importance for their spiritual need. They are one in the same, a whole individual in need of justice and compassion.
Further, I would argue that to remove Jesus from the context of the first century is to inaccurately interpret his message. By extricating Jesus from the time he lived in, he becomes ultra-spiritualized, uber-divine, and un-relatable. Then, unfortunately, we can justify lots of war, oppression, capitalistic greed, and even genocide in the name of Jesus. I prefer to read Jesus in the context in which he existed, trying to get past the Hellenistic and Western expansions which have been imposed on Jesus’ Jewish, first century roots. NT Wright is a great writer in this regard, and I’ll be happy to expand on it when I have more time as well as discuss the generosity of the church and the nature of human beings. Thanks for the discussion.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I look forward to the rest of your response. I will go ahead and respond thus far.
“we are whole beings, created beautiful in God’s image, not a conglomeration of parts.” This is very close to what I mean to say. However, I believe that there is a conglomeration of parts. Not parts that can be separated but distinct parts all the same. I officiated a wedding about a year ago in which, instead of a unity candle, we did a unity sand ceremony. In this ceremony the couple starts with two jars of sand that are different colors. They then, simultaneously, pour the sand into a larger bowl. The end result looks very nice, and quite similar to the sand art children do, but there is a greater meaning. The two colors of sand mix and can never fully be separated again. This is how I see our physical and spiritual parts. They are distinctly different but still inseparable.
Again I do not wish to ignore the physical needs of people. However, I believe that to reach their spirit is the first, and most important, step in meeting their physical needs. That being said, it is usually by meeting a certain physical need that the door is opened for us to reach someone’s spiritual needs. For example the rescue missions, their goal is by offering food, clothing, and a place to rest, the down-on-their-luck people will have an opportunity to hear the saving message of Jesus.
You said “remove Jesus from the context of the first century is to inaccurately interpret his message.” I am not sure if you mean that Jesus teaching are only valid from a first century Israeli perspective, or that Jesus has mysteriously been placed into whatever era the current Christians live.
If you mean that His teachings are only valid from a first century perspective then I believe this sells the Bible ad Jesus message short. If you are saying that we have some how transported Jesus to a different time. You must be thinking of the Mormon Church.
If you mean that Jesus teachings were meant to be seen as for the first century only then there is little use in studying him. We cannot have that perspective no matter how thoroughly we study first century Israel.
I would put forth rather that, Jesus teachings, though they took place historically in first century Israel, are meant to transcend history. The parables he told and lessons he taught are the same in first century Israel, Medieval Rome, or the 21st century world.
That is not to say that the Church hasn’t had it’s share of corruption and misinterpretation of the Bible. I know they have. The crusades, the inquisition, women not allowed to preach or teach, even slavery through out the world all of these are short coming of the Church. I guess these are the evils in Jesus name you must be referring to. However, that does not mean that the Bible we read has been corrupted. I believe God is bigger than any and all human efforts and He has kept His Holy Word true through out time. There may be some small nuances that would give better understanding of some of Jesus parables but, the message I don’t believe changes. In fact at this point in history we have more accurate translations of the Bible than ever before. Unlike the KJV, today’s translations use the original texts for translation. There are too many people who work on the translations for someone to just “slip in” what they think was “really” being said.
Anyway now I have given you more to chew on for your next response. Have fun at the game.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:05 am
“I believe God is bigger than any and all human efforts…”
I could not agree more. You would not be surprised then to know that the views which seem to be foundational for your theology were developed around the 5th century. The doctrines of original sin and sacrificial atonement were not the predominant theology of Jesus, nor his early followers. These doctrines evolved as a result of the prominence of Greek Philosophy and the rise of Christianity from fledgling enemy of the state to official religion of Rome under Constantine. The humble message of Jesus for the oppressed was hijacked by a theology of exclusivity and power.
Thus, when I talk about situating Jesus within his context, I am trying to direct us past this turn in Christian theology and its subsequent integration into Western Culture. When removed from the assumptions of original sin and sacrificial atonement, Jesus is a much different character, one whose words inform our lives rather than mystically giving innuendo about some unforeseen spiritual reality. Certainly Jesus’ message is timeless, but Jesus lived within the boundaries of an era and his teaching cannot be understood properly without an attempt to understand a first century, Jew living under Roman occupation.
Let’s return to your question a few comments back about man being innately good. Am I correct in assuming that your version of the nature of man involves the doctrine of original sin (created 400 years after Jesus)? I reject this as the only way of seeing the nature of man. I don’t think the “fall” created an entire new DNA and identity, but rather a relational issue. I believe that God made a wonderful creation, making man in his/her image and that image has not be destroyed by our sin.
If you truly believe that God is bigger than our human efforts, than certainly you can make room for a Jesus who is less influenced by the Greek/Roman hijacking of the faith. Translation of Scripture is not the issue, but rather the interpretation as seen through our highly subjective lenses. If the way people saw and responded to Jesus’ message changed once (and indeed many times), can it not change again to be adapted for our time? Should we not change the lenses through which we view the Gospel?
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
As for original sin, the term may have been coined later but, lets look at Romans. Paul, a first century Jew in the way of Jesus, clearly states that Adam caused all men to be sinners. 5:19 states that “just as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners”. This is clearly saying that Adam caused all of us to be sinners. This is not a change in our DNA but a change in our spiritual relationship with God. The act of sinning broke man’s relationship with God. And lead them to a self righteous point of view, being “like God.”
I do not believe we are no longer made in God’s image. I don’t believe I have ever said or implied such a thing. However, it is that image that makes us both physical and spiritual beings. It is that image that leaves us empty without our spiritual relationship with God.
If Adam’s sin had no affect on anyone else then why are people born willing to do wrong? It would seem that if we are all made in God’s image with no deviance from Adam then we would be able to live a sinless life on our own. And we would be better off to all be locked in plain white rooms with no mention of anything but God. Maybe then, there is no reason for Jesus to have come. God could have just commanded the Jews to lock everyone away from the world and all would be ok. Or even if we were to live in the jungle away from the evils of modern media and other worldly influences we would all be good. But this does not hold true. There are many tribes in jungles uninfluenced by the world and they still kill each other and do many things that are sinful. How do you explain this?
Even if there is not “original sin” Paul still says that, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) If this is true then, in the eyes of a first century Jew, we must offer an atonement sacrifice to cover the sin we have committed. Paul continues in Romans 3 to say that God presented Jesus, “as a sacrifice of atonement”. The only interpretation of this is that Jesus was an atonement sacrifice. If this is from the fifth century I guess the Bible translation is completely inaccurate. However, since we already agreed that the translation of the Bible is not a problem then I guess Paul, an early follower of Jesus at the least, was about 400 years ahead of the church and a lot of people skipped that part of Romans. Instead I would argue that this was in fact a doctrine of the early church fully supported by Jesus teachings i.e. Luke 18:31-33, this points to Isaiah 53 and many other prophecies.
As for the sacrificial atonement of Jesus, why else did he die? If he was not meant to be our final sacrifice then, why are we not killing animals to take our place still? Or are we, like the Jews, waiting for God to allow the temple to be rebuilt? It seems that Jesus could have taught us many more things if he had not died.
To your point of looking through different lenses, I would say that every person has different lenses they look through. There is not a problem with looking through different lenses as long as you see the same core message. However, when the message is completely changed we are getting into very dangerous territory. To deny the core doctrine of the church is changing the scenery, or message, not changing the lenses.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Thanks for your well thought out response, JT. I’m disinclined to get into a tit-for-tat back-and-forth with you pulling out Scriptures and me pulling out Scriptures to make our points. We could do that forever and never get anywhere. I’m certainly not interested in winning an argument on these grounds, but more into finding common ground beyond the differences.
If you believe that Jesus died as a legal transaction to satisfy the needs of a wrathful God in order to spare us death, then that is fine. However, that is not the good news which I follow. If you believe that God’s wonderful creation was messed up by the eating of an apple, leaving us all irrevocably scarred and separated from God, I respect that. But, I prefer to focus on the goodness of creation and God’s ultimate redemption of it.
You suggest that by rejecting these two metaphors for the story of God (original sin and atonement) that I have “changed the scenery” and find myself in “dangerous territory.” I can understand where you are coming from as I made the same journey myself. It feels like everything starts to unravel when you let go of these key pieces that you have held on to so tightly. But, I simply found them to be incompatible with the whole story of God as discovered through Scripture and personal experience.
I was astonished to find out that I am not alone. Throughout time, the Church to which you refer has embodied at least seven atonement theories, not simply the one that we grew up being told was central. Theology is constantly being shaped and re-shaped. It is not static. What if Wesley or Luther or Calvin had failed to create theology for their time and place? And what if we were to dare and do the same?
I refuse to accept that God is so petty that he allowed all mankind to be changed by the eating of an apple. I refuse to believe in a God who is blood-thirsty in his self-centered demand for acknowledgment, to the point where he must slaughter his Son in a legal ceremony canceling our debts and letting us off the hook, if of course we believe that right things (or happen to be born in the right culture). I can understand the arguments for why this is true based upon a handful of Scriptures. But, I cannot accept that these doctrines find centrality or even congruence with the entire narrative of the Bible.
You bring up the problem of evil. Good question. Certainly, we have great evidence as to the evil devices of mankind, which you allude to in your comment. Adam and Eve form a brilliant metaphor for the struggle of choice that we all face, and Paul draws upon this metaphor in describing our inner ineptitude at following the way of life. But, the story of God and of the Bible is not about evil, it is about redemption. God is coming to make all things new, restoring creation to the way it was intended, getting rid of that evil which exists within all of us. This evil, after all, is not our nature, but that which we must evolve away from.
So, here is what I gather: We both read the same Bible. You see the central theme of Scripture as the sin problem and the resolution in the death of Jesus, correct? I have come to see the central theme as the love of God and his redemption of our world. We are probably both correct to some extent. I certainly have much sympathy for your position as I held it and preached it for many years. I can no longer support such views as the main point of Scripture.
The true test of any theology is what fruit it bears forth. Your theology (if I understand correctly) allows you to condone the war in Iraq, support capital punishment, and oppose government support for the poor. I can’t see how any of these match with the picture of the God I follow or the Jesus I read about in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Can you explain how they do?
June 25th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
You stated that the central message of scripture for me is “the sin problem and the resolution in the death of Jesus” This is nearly true. However, for me the key factor is that God is love. This nature of love causes him to love us so much he sent his son to save us (John 3:16) and to restore the broken relationship between God and man. Or, that mankind, though made in the image of God, has been corrupted by sin. Man is therefore, unable to have a relationship with God aside from atonement, redemption, and justification, which come to us through God’s love in the person of Jesus and his death. This love for me is what gives me hope to continue to live day to day. I do not pretend to understand God, nor do I need to.
If atonement, justification, and redemption, fueled by God’s love, are not the purpose of Jesus coming then I am not sure why it is better to follow Jesus than Buddha. Both taught that we are to be good people. However, logic tells us, Jesus came to do more than simply teach us how to live a good life.
You said that “If you believe that God’s wonderful creation was messed up by the eating of an apple, leaving us all irrevocably scarred and separated from God”. This trivializes the point. Eating of whatever fruit is was, according to the Bible it can’t have been an apple, was not the issue. Rather, the issue is that they disobeyed God. If this did not permanently separate us from God why did he not allow Adam and Eve’s kids back into the Garden? He could have just started over with a new group right there. Or as you say if it is merely a metaphor then God starts off the Bible as a liar and there is then no credibility to any of it.
If this is the case, then I say; go out and live as you want because, in my studies of other religions, Islam, which is worthless since God (Allah) is a liar, is the only other religion that teaches of a hell for eternity. You can always come back and try again in the next life or just live on the “new earth”. Pick your flavor.
Also you said that “I prefer to focus on the goodness of creation and God’s ultimate redemption of it.” If God’s creation, including man, is still good then what exactly is it that needs redeemed?
To redeem something is to buy it back or restore it. God said that everything was good after creating it so for it to still be good then nothing has changed. If creation is still good then who does it have to be bought back from? Or what is there to restore it to?
I believe that there is far more to love than we can ever understand also. Just because God is love does not mean that he doesn’t practice discipline or punishment. I would say the exact opposite, because he loves us he does punish and discipline. He also has consequences to actions in order to deter us from doing things.
I am able to support the death penalty because I believe that there are times when a society has to protect its citizens from each other. I see the roll of a criminal system as three fold; Discipline, Punishment and Deterrence. I believe that if there is a situation where a person has killed another that the society has the right to put the murderer to death. This does not mean that I am condemning their soul but that the act they have committed is deserving of losing their life. I fully support having missionaries in prisons and hope that all the condemned would repent of their sins and become followers of Jesus. As I understand the Bible, Jesus does not teach that there are not or should not be consequences for a person’s actions. Rather he teaches that there are consequences. The death penalty is a consequence in place as a deterrent and a punishment.
As for war, again I see that a government has the duty to protect its citizenry. War is often the only possible solution. If we had a perfect world where there were not evil people and everyone was rational then there would be no cause for war. However, that is not the case nor will it be until Jesus returns and we are all judged. If there were any other way by which to resolve conflict that did not result in people dying I would absolutely be for that option. I have never met any Christians, which “supports” war, who would disagree with me on that.
Government support of the poor is exactly that. The government is supporting the poor. The programs that are in place are there to make the poor stay poor. There is no incentive to have any personal responsibility or to have to take care of one’s self. In fact there is an incentive not to be productive. As I read the Bible, Jesus did not go around telling people to mooch off of others and never do anything. Jesus message emphasizes personal responsibility.
The other problem with the government support of the poor is that it is simply redistributing wealth. It is state sanctioned, indeed state carried out, theft in the name of “assistance”. Redistribution of wealth has NO chance of ever working. If you take away wealth from the most productive in society and give it to the capable unproductive, even in a society that follows the teachings of Jesus, then the productive will get frustrated and production will slow, leading to everyone being poorer. Also this is simply giving irresponsible people more to be irresponsible with, or in monetary term giving a bad steward more to badly steward. This is not to say that all people who are using public assistance are unproductive or want to mooch. But there is a great problem with abusing the system. Examples of this are quite prevalent.
Look at lottery winners, on average people who win the lottery are in a worse position 10 years after winning than they were prior to winning. Or take for example the woman I saw one day while I was a bus driver. This woman came into the bus lot and handed her baby to another driver, the mother then went out side for a smoke. While mom was smoking the baby began crying and acting hungry. This other driver found a bottle in the diaper bag and fed the baby. When mom came back in from her smoke she said that that small bottle, about 4 oz., was supposed to last the whole day because she didn’t have money to go and get formula that day. This is a mother who was on public assistance, but somehow she had money to feed her smoking habit, or even addiction, but not to feed her kid.
The parable of the talents is a prime example of Jesus not teaching redistribution of wealth. When the three men return to make account with their master, the one with one talent is rebuked and his talent taken away because he didn’t use it properly. If Jesus were teaching redistribution of wealth the master would have told his servants to take the five gained by the first man and give four to the man with one talent and one to the man with 4 talents. Then they would all be equal and everyone would be better.
I believe that the Church is supposed to help the poor and oppressed by teaching them how to be good stewards of what they have, as well as give them assistance as they dig out of the hole they are in. Teach a man to fish while providing fish, if you will. Or in the case of those who are unable to ever take care of themselves, the physically or mentally handicapped for instance, then to care for them fully. I believe that God has all the resources we could ever need as we follow his direction.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
A very thoughtful response. Thank you. Let me respond directly and briefly to a couple of questions you raise, and then summarize my thoughts on the latter portion of your post.
“If atonement, justification, and redemption, fueled by God’s love, are not the purpose of Jesus coming then I am not sure why it is better to follow Jesus than Buddha.”
I’m not sure why it must be better to follow Jesus than Buddha. You are correct in asserting that the two taught an intersecting message. I gain nothing from a belief in the exclusivity of Jesus, save arrogance in believing that my way is the only way. Unfortunately, such a belief causes me to lose the ability to learn from my Eastern friends, or for that matter my Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc friends. You hit here at why the doctrines of original sin and sacrificial atonement took root in the first place: They make Jesus exclusive, which is very important if you’re trying to establish the legitimacy of the new, official religion of the Roman empire.
“If this did not permanently separate us from God why did he not allow Adam and Eve’s kids back into the Garden?”
I do see the Adam narrative as metaphorical and believe that I have a great deal of scholarly back up on this one. I did intend to trivialize that point by emphasizing the fruit (apple or no apple), in illustrating how the metaphor, as traditionally interpreted, is lacking for an explanation of evil in the world.
“If creation is still good then who does it have to be bought back from? Or what is there to restore it to?”
Good question. While I believe that we are still a good creation, we certainly struggle with making the choices which lead to life. God’s redemption, in my mind, is about leading us past our evil choices (and not just us as individuals but the collective us of community, nation, mankind, all creation) and into a new way of living, the way that Jesus showed us to live. The reclaiming, remaking or setting free takes places when we evolve to realize the goodness within us and the better way of doing life here and beyond.
The issue here is identity. Are we good or are we bad? Or are we bad and only made good when we ascribe to a certain religion? Again, this is used to draw lines of who is in, who is out, and who doesn’t count. By emphasizing the holistic goodness found in the image which God placed within us, we can find common ground and evidence of God’s grace in all people. From there we can join together and participate with God in the work of re-creation.
Ok. Now, on the latter two-thirds of your response, I’m confused as to whether you are using the teachings of Jesus as your source or the platform of the Republican Party. These talking points have more to do with the latter than the former I’m afraid. Allow me to illustrate briefly by using the teaching of Jesus alone (I still think he was a better teacher than Paul):
Capital Punishment: Does not Jesus debunk the logic behind capital punishment when he replaces the “Eye for an Eye” law with the “Turn the Other Cheek” law? You are describing the eye for an eye mentality. If you murder, we will kill you and feel justified in doing so for reasons like accountability, protection, and deterrence. The myth of retributive justice is thoroughly repealed by the quiet non-violent resistance of Jesus.
War: What is Jesus if not the “other way by which to resolve conflict that did not result in people dying?” He rejected the means and methods of war, stating that the way to ensure death to your citizenry is to pursue a policy of war-making, living by the sword or the smart bomb. Of course, Jesus did personally die as an alternative to a violent revolution in which many would die. Should we be willing to pay the same price for peace? I think Jesus would hand us a cross. Some, like the Christian Peacemaker Teams, have taken it up in places like Baghdad.
Poverty: Over 2000 verses of the Bible deal directly with the community’s response to the poor and the oppressed. Is this not sufficient evidence that it is central the message of the Gospel? Of course, the Jewish community was both governmental and religious and you cannot separate them from one another. So too, we have a responsibility to the poor as a community. I agree this means that our communities of faith have the responsibility to make the poor A PRIORITY (rather than plasma screens, pastoral salaries, and pool tables). We are also a part of a community of the United States of America, and thus we have responsibility to take care of those in that community as well.
You are correct that Jesus teaches about personal responsibility. We certainly must hold aid and responsibility in balance with one another. However, to state that Jesus did not advocate for the redistribution of wealth is inaccurate. See the story of the Rich Man (”go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor”), the story of Zaccheus, and the parable of the man who stores away his grain in barns. Jesus supported justice for those who struggled under the rule of the rich and powerful.
Unfortunately, your comments about the poor reek of the insensitivity that comes from those who have never been poor. Until you have lived it you cannot know what it is like to live on food stamps, to suffer from racial oppression or, to struggle with harmful habits and addictions. We must never talk down to the poor because these are the people that Jesus loves, these are the one to whom the kingdom of God belongs. And if you believe in hell, you might take note that the only criteria Jesus ever gives for going there is neglecting the poor, hungry, naked, prisoners, etc (see Parable of Sheep and Goats and Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus).
I suppose I have failed in my attempt at brevity, but it wasn’t for lack of effort. Please understand that I am not trying to attack your political philosophy. I’m simply trying to point out that it has more connection to the teaching of Ronald Reagan than the teaching of Jesus Christ. I look forward to your response.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
After reading all of that, I have two things that I absolutely must say (the rest, I’ll keep my mouth shut because I don’t want to get into politics).
First of all, JT, you said:
Again in Matthew, chapter 22 this time, Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is. His response is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” The second, meaning of slightly lower importance, is “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus then says that all the law and the profits hang on these two commands. This once again shows the spiritual importance Jesus is emphasizing.
I’m sorry but I think it’s hilarious how the quotes end in the middle of that scripture and start up again. Second does NOT mean less important. Not at all. And you left out the part of the verse that would explain why it’s not less important. First of all, let’s go back to the question, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Commandment is singular in the question, meaning that the asker was expecting one. Jesus seemed to think that there was enough importance in both commandments to respond with both. And in the middle, he said “and the second is like it.” Not “and the second is less important.” If you think it’s less important, that’s cool. I’m not going to debate that with you, but I wanted to point out that your interpretation is not based on scripture.
The bigger picture, and the point I’m trying to make, is that it’s impossible to love God with all of your heart and NOT love your neighbor as yourself. In point of fact, I believe the practice of loving your neighbor is actually a very useful tool in learning to love God. We can’t see him. If you want to get philosophical about it, we don’t even know for sure if he’s there or what form he takes. (Up for debate, I know…) But I guess I see a little bit of God in every human being I come across (some more than others), and loving them, in turn, helps me love God.
*Phew*
Secondly, *cracks knuckles* regarding this statement:
I am not sure why it is better to follow Jesus than Buddha. Both taught that we are to be good people. However, logic tells us, Jesus came to do more than simply teach us how to live a good life.
First of all, I would be interested to hear the “logic” you refer to. If I’m reading this right, you believe Buddha did not do anything more than teach us how to live a good life and Jesus did. Justify that with LOGIC, not scriptures, and I will give you a cookie.
Secondly, (oh you’re going to love this), after much reading and studying, I feel confident in saying that I believe Jesus was actually a Buddhist himself. Here’s why.
1. Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of Buddha are surprisingly similar. They both teach compassion, love, etc. The only difference is that Jesus taught these things from within a Jewish perspective (with a vengeful, angry God and all that).
2. Some of Jesus’ parables are actually borrowed from Buddhist scripture. For example, in the Lotus Sutra, (about page 62 in my book), there is a parable of a prodigal son. A much longer version, perhaps, but it’s the same story. Check it out.
3. John Chapter 3, the Nicodemus conversation - Nicodemus asked, “How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born?” Jesus replies, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless his is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
Here’s a thought. I know this is going to sound crazy, but this is a pretty bizarre piece of scripture, and I must admit, it’s not the easiest to interpret. But here’s a thought. When Jesus says “born again” maybe, just maybe, he’s not talking about a magic prayer you say that makes all of your sins go away. Maybe, just maybe, he is in fact talking about being born again. Re-incarnation. I know, I’m a nutter. But that’s what I get from it.
Food for thought.
Alright, ready…. set… argue!
*Runs away gleefully while laughing and evil laugh*
July 10th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Jesus, the Buddhist. I love the fact that you have dared to think beyond the boxes of religion and culture to imagine another way. Having said that, I don’t believe that Jesus was an adherent of Buddhism. I would say that both Jesus and Buddha pointed a reality greater than Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, or any religion. In this sense, Jesus is Buddhist and Buddha is Christ. Thich Nhat Hann writes an incredible book on this called “Living Buddha, Living Christ.” It’s worth a reading.
Now, something makes me think JT will have a different take on this when he gets back from his mission trip. I look forward to it.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I’m looking forward to it as well!
I’m actually not entirely certain that Jesus was a Buddhist, but I certainly think it’s a possibility. Certainly I think both religions stem from the same overall truth of love an compassion, and I think that’s what’s important.
I had an interesting conversation the other day, and I threw the same idea out there, that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism. I like to make people think. It’s fun because you can tell the ones who don’t do it very often.
Anyway, that lead into an interesting discussion about false prophets, and Jesus claiming to be the only way to God. Either he was telling the truth (therefore Christianity is the only way), or Jesus was completely off his rocker. Right?
Or maybe we’ve been misinterpreting what he meant all these years. I prefer to think of it as believing in the spirit of Christ (ie: loving compassion) rather than the person. When we’re talking about spiritual issues, I think that just makes more sense.
Your thoughts?
July 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
P.S. I will look into that book, thank you!
July 15th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I think you’re correct in stating that we have possibly misinterpreted Jesus. In a desire to make him exclusive (and thus Christianity the sole possessors of the Truth), words of his have been twisted to fit that assumption. For example, when Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” I would suggest that this could be read positively, inviting people towards God, rather than saying who is not allowed.
I like the idea of “believing in the spirit of Christ”, but I would challenge you to not abandon the Jesus of history. In reading and understanding the teachings of Jesus, the first century Jewish teacher, I find what I believe to be the way of God. Growing up, all I knew was ‘Jesus, the Superhero’ who lept tall buildings in a single bound and was more detached God than zit-faced man. But, the Jesus of the Gospels is pretty amazing: messing people up with his radical teaching, challenging authority in ways that had never happened before, standing up for the poor and the oppressed, and taking the worst that the powers of empire could throw at him. This is the beauty of Jesus. He is the good news of God with dirty fingernails, as I heard Mark Scandrette share last evening.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Fair enough, I agree. Jesus the person was/is a good role model. But I guess I don’t understand what sense it makes to claim that it’s necessary to use Jesus as the only model for your life. Why? Excluding other teachers and religions doesn’t serve any purpose except to make us feel comfortable and confident in what we already believe.
Spirituality is a very hard thing to describe to someone who hasn’t experienced it, so it makes sense that different cultures would use different words to describe the same thing. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong. That means they use different words. We’d all be a lot better of if we could quit arguing about semantics and focus on what we have in common. Don’t you think?
July 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I certainly agree that we should “quit arguing semantics and focus on what we have in common.” I would not say that it is “necessary to use Jesus as the only model for your life.” However, I’m not sure a philosophy that all beliefs are the same is significantly better. People should not be afraid to be passionate, practicing Christians or Muslims or Jews, etc, but must carry on with humility and an open spirit to those who see things through different lenses.
I am a follower of God in the way of Jesus because this is what I know (although the Jesus I think I know now is much different from the Jesus I was told about growing up). In my opinion, for my setting, Jesus embodies the most complete way of explaining this search to God.
However, I am at great loss if I only read the Bible and its commentaries, much as if I only read American authors or watched Hollywood films. We live on a bigger world with a lot of history and numerous cultures. I find it necessary to borrow from the ways other cultures see things, and this is where I often find that common ground you speak of.
I’m suggesting that start to move to a post-religious society. This is not an anti-religious or un-religious society. It is not one in which we abandon or outlaw religion. I dream of a world where we hold our religious beliefs tightly, but refuse to let our religions complete define us and divide us. Rather than being torn to war and theological battles, perhaps then we can find common ground.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Sounds good to me!
July 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Let me first return to Chris’s last response to me before I took a break. Then I will later continue with everything I missed while I was gone.
First you stated, “I’m not sure why it must be better to follow Jesus than Buddha.” This is at the very heart of Christianity. To deny the exclusivity is to deny Jesus’s own words, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but through me.” You seem to have a problem with Jesus being exclusive in his teaching. I would say that Jesus is not trying to exclude people from getting to God but rather telling them the only way to get there. It is not a matter of, only certain people are allowed, but only one road is the right one.
You are continually pointing to Jesus as a historical figure and a first century Jew. As a first century Jew Jesus would have been very exclusive in his belief in one God and one true religion. The Jews were lead by God, even to the point of genocide to be the only people and religion in their region. Therefore, it is impossible to see Jesus as a first century Jew and not see his teachings as excluding other religious paths.
As for Adam and Eve if you want to believe it is a metaphor that is your choice but the truth of the story is not changed. It still points to man disobeying God which causes a break in the relationship between God and man and therefore permanently changing the relationship and nature of man. I am not sure how else the narrative could be understood.
“While I believe that we are still a good creation, we certainly struggle with making the choices which lead to life.”
This seems to be an oxymoron, or at least simply solved by God removing Satan from our world. There would be no need for Jesus to have died if there is no change to man’s nature. God could have simply struck down the serpent and all would have been good again. If man was not changed then there would have been no reason to lose the garden.
When you say, “The reclaiming, remaking or setting free takes places when we evolve to realize the goodness within us and the better way of doing life here and beyond.” you are changing from Christianity to an entirely new religion. One based solely on what actions we do or attitudes we have with no room for God’s love and compassion. To say that Jesus had no purpose other than giving us a new law to follow is simply becoming a Pharisee in a new time, as well as calling Jesus a liar.
I believe that Jesus came to show us The way to God, by believing in Jesus as the Son of God, that his sacrifice is sufficient for all man, and that it is that belief and acceptance of his gift that all humanity is able to be saved.
I do still think that man is made in God’s image and that there are good things that can be seen in every human being. That is the reason God was willing to give His son so that man may be saved and redeemed. However, apart from accepting Jesus salvation, atonement, and justification man is condemned to eternal damnation, or separation from God.
As for “eye for an eye” this is referring to the vigilante form of justice that the Jews had in place. Jesus was talking about our own response to a wrong done to us. It is our responsibility to forgive the offender on a personal level. This is not a call to eliminate accountability for a person’s actions, or maybe you mean to say that Jesus supported anarchy.
As for “the myth of retributive justice” I am not sure what this “myth” is. I have never heard of such a myth or even theory. This is a word game meant to confuse people. Retribution and justice, as used in your supposed myth, have the same definition. You are saying that there is some myth of punishing punishment. That is just ignorant at the least. Everywhere you look there are consequences to actions; this is not a myth but a fact of life. So let’s not try to play fancy with semantics.
“What is Jesus if not the “other way by which to resolve conflict that did not result in people dying?”” He is the other way. However, I must now point out that there is at least 2/3 of the world that does not follow Jesus. It would be wonderful if the entire world was to be saved and every one followed Jesus, I pray that that could happen. But Jesus said that narrow is the gate and few will enter it. I do not pretend to live in la la land where the weather is always wonderful and all problems can be worked out in 30 minutes with everyone being friends at the end. Once again I see that you over looked another one of my sentences.
“If we had a perfect world where there were not evil people and everyone was rational then there would be no cause for war. However, that is not the case nor will it be until Jesus returns and we are all judged.”
As for your comments toward the poor, how dare you be so arrogant to assume my place in life? Yes I may have never gone without food or clothing and my wife and I make a more than livable wage by average standards. But I also live each day with an in curable disease that has a life expectancy of merely 36 years. That means I may only have 8 years left to live. I currently have 50% of my expected lung function. This disease makes it so that I have difficulty doing things many “poor” people do every day with ease. This is what I talk about when I say that there are oppressed people in all walks of life, rich, poor, or anywhere in between. Don’t get me wrong I am very appreciative for what God has given me and do everything I can to help other people. I just understand that God has a lot more in mind when Jesus says “blessed are the poor in spirit” than being a few dollars short in your wallet.
As for your examples of redistribution of wealth, I think you need to reread a bit. Zaccheus gave half of his positions to the poor, not all, and then he paid back what he had stolen, with interest. It doesn’t say that Zaccheus gave everything he had away. Next the guy with the barn was not relying on God but himself. He just as easily could have said “now I can beat people at pool I can take care of myself I don’t need God”. The rich young ruler Jesus is teaching that God, or Himself, must be first in our lives. After the ruler walks away the disciples ask in disbelief “whom then can be saved?” Jesus responds that what is impossible for man is possible with God. This is saying only through God’s grace and power can any one be saved. It is difficult for the rich to be saved because they have to much self reliance. They feel they can make it on their own.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Jillian,
“’Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?’
Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’ This the first AND GREATEST commandment. And the second is like it: ‘love your neighbor as your self.’ All the Law and the prophets hangs on these commandments.””
Here is the entire passage from Matthew 22:36-40 (italics and capitals added for emphasis)
I’m not sure what English you have studied but I have always learned that second follows first not equal to first. I do agree that if we love God with all of our beings then loving our neighbor will flow out of that, but once again this is following loving God not the equivalent of it. Jesus also said that whatever you do to the least of these you have done to me. This is because Jesus made himself one of the least that he may go through all that we have gone through and since we cannot actually serve Jesus in the flesh we have to do the next best thing.
Second you asked for logic. Now if you can’t follow logic it is not my fault by I will lay it out as simply as I can. First Jesus can not be simply a good teacher. In order to be a good teacher he couldn’t have said he was The Son of God. That would be a false claim and make him a liar. So He is either a Liar, claiming to be something He is not, a lunatic and we are discussing a crazy person we should probably ignore, or He is telling the truth, and He is The way The truth and The life. I believe that no one thinks he is crazy, and if he were a liar then someone would have spilled the beans before being killed. Therefore he must be telling the truth. And that is how logic proves the point.
As for Jesus being a Buddhist I discussed in my last post that Jesus was a devout Jew and therefore believed singly in Judaism. It would have been against his entire being to have been a Buddhist.
And I really would like to know what it is you took to come up with that interpretation of the born again passage. I am feeling kind of worn out and tired from my trip maybe it would be a good pick me up.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Now here Jill and I were having this conversation of agreement, and you come and mess it all up, JT.
Welcome back. In all seriousness though, I sense some agitation and sarcasm in your last comments. I don’t want you to be offended by our dialog here, so please accept my apology if something I said was offensive. I hope we can have a vigorous discussion, but still maintain mutual respect and love for one another.
Let me answer a few of your points here, beginning with the most poignant paragraph of your post (and also the one in which you accuse me of being arrogant).
* I would never be pompous enough to think I understand what it is like to be in your shoes. It sounds like a daily struggle, and I am pleased to see you do so well with it. I have no right to judge you or think I know what is best for you from my vantage point. I think Jesus would have me love, support, encourage, and provide for you in your struggle.
The reason I wrote that “your comments about the poor reek of the insensitivity that comes from those who have never been poor” is because in your previous comment you told a story about a young, poor mom who you saw at the bus station. Your comment appeared to me as judgmental of her, particularly coming from someone who was not in relationship with her. It is insensitive and arrogant to assume that you know why she commits those actions or to condemn her for them. Further, to generalize the idea that poor people are irresponsible is an insult to those to whom the kingdom of God belongs.
* I have to disagree with you on your interpretation of the “eye for an eye” law. It was actually in place to limit people from overdoing it. For example, if someone punched you in the face, you weren’t allowed to beat them mercilessly, just punch them back. This is retributive justice, retribution of equal measure for a wrong done to you, thus setting the scales straight.
Jesus rebukes this as a myth, because he knew (as we do) that man always takes more than an eye or a tooth. Once violence enters our psyche we do more harm than what is due and a cycle of violence is created (pick your war: Israel/Palestine Irish Catholics/Irish Protestants, Croats/Serbs, etc). Thus, Jesus radically teaches us to love our enemies, to not fight with swords, and to even go to death peacefully at the hands of empire rather than fighting back. I’m not “playing semantic games” or being “ignorant” here (ouch J.T.). I’m just quoting Jesus again, which often gets me in trouble.
* Now, you are playing some “word games” in talking about redistribution of wealth. While I agree that one of the morals of the stories was a complete trust in God, in each of those (or most certainly two out of three), the result is either unsolicited redistribution (in the case of Zacheus) or instructed redistribution (in the case of the Rich Young Ruler). I’m not saying that we write this into law, but I find it very interesting that Jesus did not pander to the rich to fund his ministry, promising tax cuts, but something about him (overtly or covertly) challenged them to give up their money. Is this not the same Jesus that you follow?
See, I think at the end of the day, my friend, we still have a fundamental disagreement about the Gospel. Yours, as I have discussed, is based upon interpretations of Scripture which were heavily influenced by Greek Philosophy, Christianity’s “ascension” into Roman power, and the theological battles of the early councils. A few years ago I decided that I didn’t care what Saint Augustine said or John Wesley said. I decided I wanted to follow Jesus. When I began to actually pay attention to what Jesus said and did all of a sudden the Greek theology I used to espouse no longer fit. Then, I was pleased to find out that throughout history there were Christians for whom that idea didn’t fit either.
You are right in proclaiming that Jesus was a Jew. He did not see things through the eyes of Plato and Aristotle. His fledgling group of followers was powerless, homeless, and poor. They knew nothing of being leaders in Constantine’s cabinet. This is why I talk about the Jesus of the first century. He is not the same Jesus that has been co-opted by centuries of dogma.
What if you were to read the Gospels divorced from our theological baggage? Divorced from the Pauline epistles? Divorced from Western consumer Christianity?
What do you think that would look like? How would that change your view if you only took Jesus at his word?
July 19th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
What a remarkably interesting conversation!
JT, Thank you for your response. I’ve been anxiously waiting to see what you would say. As for the greatest commandment conversation, I didn’t “study” English. I studied math. And in math, 2 is greater than 1. So I guess it depends on your vantage point.
But to be honest, I still hold true to the idea that one commandment is not greater than the other. I feel very strongly that they are the same commandment, but with different words. It all boils down to one very simple premise that anyone can understand: LOVE.
That’s what it’s all about, and I think that’s what Jesus was trying to tell us. I think that’s what Buddha and Gandhi and Mohamed and maybe even Joseph Smith were trying to tell us.
You don’t have to agree with me, but that’s what I think.
Anyway… I have heard that logic argument that either Jesus was crazy or he was actually who he said he was. Except that there’s a third option. What if his words had been changed since the time he said them? Just a thought. There have been a lot of people over the years with a lot of powerful motivations. Jesus may not actually have said everything we think he said.
I mean think about it - none of the New Testament was actually written by Jesus himself. At best, everything you read is at least secondhand. (So ask yourself, does the “second means less” argument come into play here?) Think about it - could you write down word-for-word everything you heard in the last sermon you listened to? Probably not! And the gospels were written years after Jesus left. Just because it’s highlighted in red doesn’t mean that was EXACTLY what Jesus said.
My point is you should read the message and not think too hard about the details.
As for Jesus being a Buddhist, yes, obviously, I don’t have any historical evidence to back that up. But his teachings were very radical at the time, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out he had some Buddhist influence in his life at some point.
Since you asked, I would be happy to share how I came up with my interpretation of the “born again” passage. I must give you some background first. I grew up in Kansas, in the same church that Chris did, being fed the same mindless dogma for years and years and years. Like a good little Nazarene, I went to a Nazarene college. My senior year, I had to take a “world religions” class. It completely blew my mind away. Before that, I had no idea that the other religions had so many similarities to mine. So I kept on reading and studying…. and so on….
My interpretation of this verse came from that realization that there are important similarities between the major world religions (important differences too, but most of them aren’t worth arguing about in my opinion). John 3:8 says “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” To me, that sounds like “enlightenment.” That was a shock, so I went back and read 3:3 “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” Buddhists believe that achieving enlightenment is a very very very rare thing. It takes thousands upon thousands of lifetimes for a being to become enlightened. (So, I certainly agree with you on the “narrow path” philosophy - I just think it’s narrower than most people think!) So, that suddenly made sense to me. No one here is going to achieve enlightenment in this lifetime, so you’ll need to be born again.
This of course leads me to ask the question, “Well, how could a loving God really condemn millions of people to Hell just because they can’t achieve enlightenment in their lifetime?” And I don’t think he does. I think the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12) is not a reference to Hell, as most people think it is. I don’t know about you, but I see plenty of weeping here. I think it’s referring to another lifetime on Earth, where there is so much suffering. Who needs Hell for punishment right? Just have another go on the merry-go-round. You’ll suffer. Everyone suffers.
This is getting really long…. I’m sorry. But I hope it was helpful. And most of all, I hope it helps you think about your faith and make it real for YOU. There are far too many people who accept everything they’re told at face value. So, I would challenge you to challenge your beliefs. It’s uncomfortable… no, it’s downright painful…. but you’ll come out a stronger, more spiritual person on the other side.
Thanks for the conversation!
July 19th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Sorry, one more thing I thought of, since someone brought up the topic of arrogance…
My biggest problem with claiming that Jesus is the only way to Heaven is that it IS very arrogant. I don’t think Jesus was arrogant, and that’s why I just don’t quite believe he said that. That flies in the face of everything he came to teach us. You can’t tell people to be humble and then claim to be the ONLY path to God.
Don’t you think? Or is it just me?
July 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Anyone mind if i jump in on the conversation?
Jillian, you said: “This of course leads me to ask the question, “Well, how could a loving God really condemn millions of people to Hell just because they can’t achieve enlightenment in their lifetime?”” - This is Gospel. This is the Good News. WE cannot achieve “enlightenment”, But Jesus Christ can. That is why I love Him. Because without Him I would never achieve enlightenment. Since we seem to like looking at things in a different way, instead of looking at it as God condeming people to hell, couldn’t we look at it as people condeming themselves to hell becuase they did not accept tha