a few days ago, i read a post in a blog that i check in on each week. the posts on this blog are written by various authors, all of whom have rejected belief in anything supernatural and abandoned the christian faith, some of them having served as christian ministers, some of them continuing to serve in parish ministry despite their unbelief. i understand their points-of-view and agree with much of what they say, but the post that i write about today (the jesus nobody wants)was one that i found troubling.
in it, the writer describes a "jesus cult" and says that jesus "remains a stained-glass phantom and caricature." his position is that christianity is a sham because of the apocalyptic emphases that we find throughout the new testament, and he includes a quote from another author who describes jesus as a "failed apocalyptic prophet," citing evidence by way of quotations from the new testament, particularly the gospels, to support this position. later in the post, the writer says that "the gospels are all about the theologies of their authors, culminating in john’s egregiously egotistical jesus." for me this is the key to coming to an understanding of who jesus was and what is essential in his teachings as we find them in the gospels.
to reject everything that jesus is supposed to have said because of the apocalyptic beliefs of some of his jewish followers and many other jews of his time is akin to the current mindset of many who insist that we must do away with anything that honors some of the leaders of the american revolution because they did things are offensive to us now or because those who interpreted their lives to us in writings and artworks wrote and painted images that we now find objectionable. we have to ferret out the totality of jesus' life and teaching, just as we have to come to an understanding of a figure like washington as a human being with faults as well as virtues. can we know whether jesus was really an apocalyptic teacher who expected that the end of time was imminent or were these beliefs imparted to him by the biographers whose writings became part of the canon? if jesus did believe and teach that god was soon to intervene in the affairs of the world to create a new order, does that negate everything that he taught, making all of his teachings less than credible?
the blog author says that "there is no way to reconstruct the real Galilean peasant preacher—if there was one." i'm not certain that's entirely true. as we look at the contents of the synoptic gospels, i think that certain consistencies emerge, and those who are skilled linguists with knowledge of new-testament-era greek and those who are authorities on the culture of palestine during the period can tell us a great deal about this jewish "peasant preacher." those of us who are less informed and who struggle to understand who jesus was and what his teachings mean to us today do well to suspend judgment about final conclusions as we seek to be disciples of the man many christians honor as their teacher. our job is to do the best we can to examine the teachings of the jesus of the sermon on the mount and see if we can use them to make life better for ourselves and those around us.
may we weigh all the evidence as best we can. may we never stop learning. may we not ridicule those whose beliefs are different from ours. may we learn to live with doubt and uncertainty. may we be tolerant and respectful of and compassionate toward those with whom we disagree. shalom.
No comments:
Post a Comment