Lent 2005 - Day Seventeen

Day Seventeen
Paracelete (pair-uh-kleet), the transliteration of a Greek term meaning “called to the side of” and hence “advocate (cf. 1 John 2:1). Its importance derives from its use in the Gospel of John (14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-11; cf. 16:13-15), where Jesus promises his disciples that when he departs he will send them another Paraclete (RSV and NIV: “Counselor”; KJV: “Comforter”; JB and NEB: “Advocate”) to remain with them. As the Fourth Gospel makes clear, the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Truth (14:17, 26). In fact, the Fourth Gospel’s teaching about the Holy Spirit is set forth in terms of the Paraclete, who continues the work of Jesus himself (14:16-17), recalling things the earthly Jesus taught or revealing things he was unable to convey (14:26; 16:12-14). In John’s view, this spiritual knowledge of insight, unavailable until after Jesus’ death and resurrection, makes for the first time Christian faith and understanding fully possible. (Dwight Moody Smith, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Divinity School, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; HARPER’S BIBLE DICTIONARY, Copyright 1985 by the Society of Biblical Literature, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., NY, NY)

“I have told you these things while I am still here with you. Yet the advocate, the holy spirit the Father will send in my stead, will teach you everything and remind you of everything I told you. Peace is what I leave behind for you; my peace is what I give you. What I give you is not a worldly gift. Don’t give in to your distress or be overcome by terror. You heard me tell you, “I’m going away and I’m going to return to you.’ If you loved me, you would be that I’m going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. So I have now told you all this ahead of time so you will believe when it happens. (John 14:25-29 The Scholars Version, THE FIVE GOSPELS: THE SEARCH FOR THE AUTHENTIC WORDS OF JESUS, Copyright 1993 by Polebridge Press, Macmillan Publishing Company, NY, NY)

Lent 2005 - Day Sixteen

Day Sixteen
I’m starting to think that I’m barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23 NRSV) This is pure Pauline Christology and is arguably inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus himself. Maybe death is not what I’m trying to save myself from. Even the most orthodox interpretation of the Resurrection requires the acceptance that Jesus “was crucified, dead, and buried.” (The Apostles’ Creed) The great mystery for the early followers of Jesus that continues to this day is to try to reconcile why, if Jesus was the Messiah—and more, if he was God incarnate—he would have submitted to death upon a cross rather than vanquish his foes.

Early on, then, death became the enemy for the faithful to be saved from with salvation being signified by eternal life. Research has revealed that first century Judaism was diverse, sometimes to the point of being fractious. While there was one school of thought that posited an afterlife, the mainstream thought leaned more toward death being the end of life with a dormant consignment to Sheol that might or might not be disrupted by some apocalyptic event. What is not clear, however (and may never be), is which camp Jesus placed himself in. Once again, that decision was made for him by Paul and the other seminal influences of the early Church.

Getting back to where this all started—ME—I’m beginning to have second thoughts about whether or not there is really anything that I need to be saved from. From a cynical perspective the concept can easily be seen as a contrivance of disgruntled first century Jews that might have eventually faded away had it not been embraced by Constantine (this is another fascinating step in the development of the Church that must be addressed at another time as it is truly not germane to this series). What I cannot so easily dismiss is the fact that a man called Jesus did most definitely exist, and that he delivered a core message that in spite of subsequent corruption and embellishment just might hold a kernel of Truth that will benefit me.

Lent 2005 - Day Fifteen

Day Fifteen
It should really not come as a surprise to anyone to learn that Jesus of Nazareth was not the first Christian. Neither should it come as a surprise that he was not the archetypal Christian. Jesus was not a Christian. He would not have even known what you were talking about. Jesus by all accounts was unapologetically a Jew. As a result, he did not write the New Testament, he did not read the New Testament, and he never knew of the spin that Paul and the evangelists put on the meaning of his life. So the first thing we need to understand when trying to learn more about the historical Jesus is that his frame of reference was the Hebrew Scriptures, what Christians have come to refer to as the Old Testament.

All of the research indicates that at the time of the “Christ event” the widespread belief was that the Earth was flat. Do we believe that today? Even after the flat earth notion was dispelled, the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe was propagated—principally by the Church. Do we believe that today? Ironically, the literal interpretation of Genesis’ creation stories (yes, there are two to be found in the first two chapters) are being espoused by contemporary creationists in defiance of all reason and experience while there is very clear evidence that the authors clearly intended the stories to be taken as metaphorical. Honest contextual criticism cannot arbitrarily ignore the worldview held at the time of writing.

A good example of how such ignorance can skew the accuracy of interpretation is the currently popular Left Behind series. I daresay that those who are caught up in this fad haven’t given the study of eschatology a moment’s thought, and yet what the first and second century common era authors believed about the end times is critical to an accurate interpretation of the entire New Testament, especially The Revelation to John. It is important to note that we have still not addressed Jesus’ worldview because he was not the author of what was written about him. What has been addressed is the issue of the worldview held by those who did write the story because their understanding of the nature of reality was very, very different from ours.

Lent 2005 - Day Fourteen

Day Fourteen
How would I ever go about trying to find out what Jesus was actually like, what he was really all about? Heaven knows that there are plenty of people around who seem to have him as their best friend! But is there any way to reconcile the ancient image with my contemporary worldview? I am hard pressed to think of any other discipline that would require that I take information that is two-thousand years old and literally take it at face-value with no room for subsequent additions and interpretation. And the very fact that I read that information translated into English is de facto proof that such a thing is indeed impossible.

The Bible and the Church cannot be ruled out as primary sources in the quest for the historical Jesus, but in the spirit of John Wesley neither can experience and reason. The syllogism that text without context becomes pretext is utterly applicable to our approach to scripture and tradition. When I approach either in an intellectual void that discounts or prohibits my ability to think and discern, what I am able to glean from them is skewed toward error. So, if I fail to take into account that what I read in the Bible has been through the process of translation (in several different languages prior to the English) and has been subjected to the editorial scrutiny of the Church I then fail to comprehend the whole and complete transmission.

All this is to set the stage that there might be something yet to learn about the life and teachings of Jesus, and to open ourselves to the possibility that we might discover something about his purpose that is different than what we’ve been led to believe. Perhaps the significance of Jesus’ death upon a cross is greater than my personal salvation, but if I’m unable to move past the preconceived notions that I’ve been taught then I’ll never be able to understand what that is. This is beginning to sound like work, and I wonder if it’s really worth the effort. It would be so much easier just to let others do the thinking for me and I just passively accept it. What would Jesus do?

Lent 2005 - Day Thirteen

Day Thirteen
Boston-based education commentator and author of Unconditional Parenting Alfie Kohn knows a college counselor hired by parents to help “package” their child, who had perfect board scores and a wonderful grade-point average. When it was time to work on the college essay, the counselor said, “Let’s start with a book you read outside of school that really made a difference in your life.” There was a moment of silence. Then the child responded, “Why would I read a book if I didn’t have to?” (TIME, February 21, 2005, p.47)

I daresay that the child’s attitude is descriptive of that taken by many toward delving into the gospel (literally “good news”). If organized religion—in the case of Christianity, the Church—has already developed a game plan for my personal salvation, why would I want to go to the trouble of authenticating its validity? If the Church says that this is the way it works, then who am I to argue? Especially when the Church claims Scripture to support its point of view is such an attitude understandable. If my personal salvation is the ultimate test, then why not teach for the test and consider all else to be extracurricular?

Jesus saves! More importantly, Jesus saves me! Such reasoning is seductively attractive to the selfish mindset whether or not it is true. But there continues to be that nagging question: is it true? I’m not completely sure that my self is even at risk, but if it is, then isn’t it to my ultimate benefit to make sure that the plan for salvation is “guaranteed”? When it comes right down to it, there’s way too much at stake for me to take someone else’s—anybody else’s—word for it. Even though my selfish nature seeks the path of least resistance there is a stronger impetus to ensure that the plan for my salvation is really going to work!

Lent 2005 - Day Twelve

Day Twelve
If I determined that there was some personal benefit to professing Jesus as my Lord and Savior but was skeptical about the Church’s motivation for encouraging me in this direction, would I be able to substantiate that Jesus himself made such a claim and, more importantly, that he had/has the power to fulfill it? Are there sources independent of the Church that can corroborate its story? Are there sources independent of the Church that can provide a different interpretation? What are the chances of putting together an objective picture of the man Jesus, who he was, what he said, and what he did?

We live at an extraordinary time! This is true in many respects, including biblical and archeological discoveries not available to centuries of Christians before the twentieth century. In conjunction with unprecedented scientific discovery during the same period an emerging worldview capable of accommodating both science and religion appeared, although this has also contributed to a reactionary fundamentalism that continues to attempt to discredit the alliance. If ever there was a generation in a position to develop a profile of Jesus comparable to that of first-hand witnesses, it is ours.

Such an endeavor is, however, going to be strenuously complex and challenging to whoever would enter into it. And there is no guarantee of any personal reward other than the satisfaction of the effort itself. If approached with the attitude of “what’s in it for me?” the incentive to pursue the subject with the diligence required will simply be lacking. A simplistic approach that provides absolute answers is ever so much more attractive to the selfish mentality. This was true in Jesus’ time just as surely as it is in ours.

Lent 2005 - Day Eleven

Day Eleven
This “Lenten journey” is beginning to seem a little nonsensical. Death as the enemy to be saved from is thus far really just conjecture, and yet a more viable definition of salvation doesn’t seem to be readily forthcoming. The observance of Lent doesn’t seem to be so much Jesus’ idea as it is the Church’s, and the relationship between the two is becoming more ambiguous than absolute. What is it possible to know about the Nazarene without the interpretive filter of the Church? On an even more heretical note, did Jesus really authorize the Church to be the “official” institution to transmit and decipher his teachings?

Again, working from the basis of having more than a passing familiarity with the Church (at least with one of its many branches) I can attest that—to a greater or lesser degree—the institution has a vested interest in how the gospel is interpreted. This is such an obvious truth that it is often overlooked. But from Paul on, there has always been a presence to select which aspects of Jesus’ life were important, and more significantly to determine why they were important. The claim of divine inspiration has figured prominently in this process, and an examination of Paul’s letters will quickly illustrate this point.

All this is to say that it is just as reasonable to believe that the issue of salvation is as much a concern of the Church as it ever was of Jesus. One of the magnificent benefits of the constitutional government developed in the United States of America is the liberation from the Church-State that permits a more objective survey of ecclesiastical influence over moral and philosophical thought in general. It has also provided the freedom to research the historical Jesus in contrast to the Church’s, although the Church’s resistance to this approach remains active and—perhaps for the first time in the history of our country—is regaining a dominant position.

Lent 2005 - Day Ten

Day Ten
Listening to NPR this morning I heard a report about the ethical debate centering on euthanasia and terminally ill children. What I found to be of particular interest was the observation that those parents described as religious were more resistant to the concept than were those described as secular. It raises a question that continues to puzzle me even though I’ve received theological training and have worked through the issues of death and grieving with hundreds of people as their pastor. Why, when the Christian profession of faith declares triumph over the ultimate enemy, are we still afraid of death?

While it is true that confessing/professing Christians are rather selective about the kinds of death they resist—abortion, euthanasia, their own—and are accepting of others—capital punishment, war, and the death of relationships called divorce—to make these kinds of distinctions only makes finding an answer to the question more complicated. Sharing the tearful moments at the deathbed and witnessing the sorrowful countenance of funerals only serves to reinforce the basic premise that we don’t want to die because we are afraid of death.

It is little wonder, then, that non-Christians look at the proclamation of Resurrection with a degree of skepticism. First, did Jesus not have to actually die before he could be resurrected? And if his resurrection actually constituted a physical resuscitation why was his ascension necessary? Why isn’t he still with us here and now as a living testimony to his defeat over death? And if the nature of Jesus’ resurrection was something other than resuscitation, how does that affect the idea that I can share in that with him? It’s nice to talk about eternal life, but it’s an altogether different thing to believe it.

Lent 2005 - Day Nine

Day Nine
When I say that it’s all about me, am I not really saying that it’s about the power I have. Isn’t power what everybody wants? David Allen writes, “The sense of not having control is the greatest human fear.” Isn’t authority all about exercising power? The creeds of the Church took their current form centuries after Jesus walked the earth, but they universally proclaim Jesus’ authority over the gates of heaven and hell. They also make a point of proclaiming Jesus to be the Godhead so that there’s a smooth transition of power: God to Son, Son to Holy Ghost, and Holy Ghost to Church. While this paradigm is good for the Church it isn’t the most beneficial to me personally. I end up losing my personal power to the Church.

Again, one of Jesus’ mystifying characteristics was his apparent lack of interest in personal power. The gospel accounts relate that the disciples were both confounded and frustrated by their Master’s failure to take control, most especially over the events of the Passion (Holy Week). Not only were his closest followers disappointed with this seeming shortcoming, but it raised question in the general population’s mind as to whether or not this meek and humble personality really qualified as the much anticipated Messiah (again, this claim seems to have been made for Jesus rather than by him). The ultimate submission to crucifixion immediately raised questions about Jesus’ power and authority that had to be explained in some other way.

The explanation articulated early on by Paul quickly developed into the “official” position of the early Church, and subsequently as the hallmark of Christianity. Jesus’ death upon the Cross was the preordained divine plan for supplying the power to provide salvation for sinful humankind. This notion further turned into the aspect of personal salvation that could not be universally accessed, instead being available only to a select few. Whether or not these chosen were themselves preordained for salvation—the elect—soon became another issue for debate in the emerging Church. So now I am in a quandary. Does Jesus really have the power to save me, or has the Church simply said that he does?

Lent 2005 - Day Eight

Day Eight
Who has the authority to save me? Who has the power to save me? While the questions may at first glance seem to be one and the same, there are subtle differences that make it worth my while to seek answers to both. These issues are at the heart of scripture, and the answers offered certainly hold a significant sway over the institutions of organized religion. Historically the Church claims to have been given the authority in Jesus’ name, but there is a preceding question found in scripture itself: By what authority did Jesus claim to have the power to save?

As Albert Schweitzer so masterfully articulated, Jesus never claimed for himself a lot of the things that have been claimed for him since. It stands to reason that the emerging Church would say that Jesus imbued it with his authority, but that still doesn’t tell us where Jesus obtained his authority to do such a thing. Ernest Holmes’ process of deducing First Cause brings us very much into alignment with where Jesus may have actually stood on the issue. Authority is ultimately derived from ultimate power, and the ultimate source of power is God.

Hard as I have looked, I have not found anything to indicate that Jesus ever believed that he was God. Indeed, there is abundant scriptural evidence that Jesus held a very clear distinction of the I-Thou relationship with his ‘Father’. The Nazarene, in his impeccable Jewish-ness, always gave glory to the First Cause with whom he enjoyed an incredible intimacy. Was I to ask him “Who has the power to save me?” I feel confident his answer would be, “The one true God.” We would probably have to spend more time trying to figure out whom or what God authorizes to use that power on her/his behalf.

Lent 2005 - Day Seven

Day Seven
I’ve digressed. I need to refocus on the basic question. How can I be saved? I could easily get sidetracked again by wondering what it is that I need to be saved from, but the presumption is so ancient as to be beyond debate. However evil is defined, it is seductive and to be avoided. When I become aware of being in evil’s grasp, then I need to be saved from it. Who, or what, is capable of accomplishing this?

It seems reasonable to explore where evil comes from in the first place. If that can be determined, then there’s a better chance of developing a plan for escaping from it or avoiding it altogether. In my relatively fortunate state, however, I may find it difficult to identify what is genuinely evil. If I lived in a dangerous environment, the palpable threat to my life would clearly stand out. But in a safe environment, the threat from which to be rescued almost needs to be imagined.

Perhaps it is that which is beyond explanation or understanding that is perceived as evil. Death certainly falls into this category, and the case is repeatedly made throughout Hebrew and Christian scripture that death is initiated by evil as a form of punishment for human transgression. So, I’ve established an evil from which I want to be saved. I selfishly don’t want to die, and that logically leads to my practical need of a supernatural savior. Now we’re getting somewhere!

Lent 2005 - Day Six

The role of the Church in defining the nature and role of Jesus of Nazareth is undeniable. Through the process of canonization it was determined by the early Church which writings would make it into the New Testament and which would not. Paul’s influence is clearly seen in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and because John’s gospel differed so greatly in style and content there was much debate about whether or not it should be included.

I would guess that what most of us think we know about Jesus was learned from the Church, not from the Bible. The argument could be made that the Church simply teaches the Bible, but history informs us that the early Church was integrally involved with developing the Bible from which it teaches. Only within the last century have early texts that didn’t make the canonical cut been brought to light, providing us with a glimpse of the Jesus free of ecclesiastical influence.

So, is it the Church’s Jesus that I’m supposed to be following? Again, what’s in it for me? And more, what might possibly be in it for the Church? Does the Church have anything to gain by presenting a Jesus which appeals to my self-interest? One must wonder why Jesus himself was not clearer about the dogma he considered important rather than leaving such a responsibility to the emerging Church. Is it just possible that he had something altogether different in mind?

Lent 2005 - Day Five

Day Five
Life is about death. Easter is about death with a twist. Without Easter, life’s only certainty is death. Easter’s promise is life beyond the grave. It is life and death without meaning versus life and death with meaning. It’s “is this all there is?” versus “this is what it’s all about.” Life’s ultimate mystery is not nearly so fearsome when it is solved by an absolute answer. Is this not essentially the function, value, and attraction of faith?

To explain what happens to us after we die has universal appeal, and such explanations are fundamental to all the world’s religions. Jesus is not the only historical figure for whom the claim of resurrection has been made, but Christianity does seem to have cornered the market on guaranteeing eternal life after death. A significant portion of Christian theology has likewise been devoted to the antithetical eternal damnation, or hell.

From the selfish perspective (which has already been established as itself universal in nature) eternity in heaven is obviously preferable to eternity in hell, and the selfish nature is easily appeased by a “plan” that assures the former. If my confession/profession of Jesus the Christ as my Lord and Savior—signified by my baptism—serves as my ticket to heaven then it’s well worth my lip service even if I’m not absolutely sure that I’ll ever have to have it punched.

Lent 2005 - Day Four

Day Four
Studying the Bible; believing the Bible; doing what the Bible says; are these not the hallmarks of today’s “good” Christians? Don’t the divisive judgments against abortionists, homosexuals, Jews, and sinful infidels of all size, shape and color have their basis in Scripture? Do we not determine who is elevated to positions of religious and moral authority based upon their intimate knowledge of the Living Word and their adherence to it? We American Christians do love our bibles, and it is understandable how outsiders might believe that Scripture has become our real Godhead.

What I’ve never really understood is how “true” Bible-study excludes the historicity of the document being examined. Take, for example, what the New Testament of the Christian scriptures tells us about Jesus of Nazareth. My background has afforded me more than a passing familiarity with this subject, and I continue to be surprised and amazed that Saul of Tarsus (later to be known as Paul; later still to identify himself as the Apostle Paul) managed to come in with the earliest recorded assessment of Jesus and his significance that continues to be profoundly influential to this day. By his own admission, Paul never knew the man Jesus!

So, is it Paul’s ‘Jesus’ that I’m to be following on this Lenten journey to Easter? I have to admit that I like the ‘personal savior’ qualities that Paul has incorporated. It’s only a minor detail that his eschatological timing was (again, by his own admission) a bit off, because that is far outweighed by the knowledge that when the Apocalypse does finally arrive I can save myself by following Paul’s example of professing the man we never knew as our Lord and Savior!

Lent 2005 - Day Three

Day Three
Anything purporting to be in the spirit of Lent must eventually get around to the subject of Jesus. He is, after all, the central figure of Christianity. But which Jesus should we contemplate? This may on the surface seem a frivolous question, but a deeper look will reveal a multitude of perceptions of who he was and his significance. Many consider the Bible to be the primary source of information, and while this is basically true the New Testament as we have received it today can hardly be considered a firsthand account.

From the beginning interpretation has played an undeniable role in the telling of the gospel story. It would have been helpful if Jesus would have written his own autobiography, but that too would have been influenced by his perception of himself. Alas, we read that at best he made a few scratches in the sand, and the telling of his life and what it meant was left to others who in all likelihood had no firsthand knowledge of their subject. Multiply this process by two-thousand years and your end product is fundamentally mythological in character.

But back to me; which Jesus is best suited to my needs, wants and desires? The personal savior model is extremely attractive. What could possibly be better than some mystical creature that is willing to die on a cross in order to save me? It is true that I am hard pressed to find in Scripture that he ever said as much, but the growing popularity of today’s Christianity has to have something to do with a Messiah that is committed to vanquishing anyone or anything that stands in the way of my salvation—whatever that means.

Lent 2005 - Day Two

Day Two
We’re taught that selfishness is a bad thing. But why? There are the basic three necessities—food, clothing, shelter—that I must have in order to sustain my existence, and if I don’t exist it is impossible for me to do anything for anyone else. I am all that there is, and so selfishness transcends any subjective “moral value” as the critical key to survival. Every person’s fundamental responsibility is to provide the necessities of life for her/himself.

When we get right down to it, isn’t any ideology that argues against selfishness the truly bad thing? Any talk of putting others before ourselves is really just idealistic tripe. It sounds nice, I suppose, but it certainly doesn’t jibe with reality. Again, my personal existence is the most important thing and anything that threatens or stands in the way of it must be eliminated. The continuation of my self is my offspring, and so to selfishly provide for them (and in so doing, me) is actually a noble thing.

Any proposal of “selflessness” is arguably selfish at root. Why would I ever put the welfare of another before my own unless it was ultimately to my own personal benefit? The truth is I would not. When it is to my own good I may be motivated to promote the welfare of others, but no such motivation reasonably exists without that selfish incentive. You say you disagree? Take off your rose-colored glasses and see how the world we live in really works!

Lent 2005 - Day One

Day One
It’s really about me, right? Dust to dust. Ashes to ashes. That’s my dust. That’s my ashes. I am the consciousness that is experiencing this thing called life, and when that consciousness ceases to exist so, for all intents and purposes, do I. So it makes perfectly good sense—it is logical—that my worldview be from the perspective of me first. How could it possibly be any other way?

Such egocentricity is the only really objective perspective from which to understand my place in the scheme of things. Take me out of the picture and there is no longer a picture. Of course this is not true for other sentient beings, but they are nothing more than the exterior trappings of my personal experience. It may be regarded as humane to care about what happens to these “others” but in truth I am afforded such a sentimental luxury only by caring about myself first and foremost.

Therefore, I unapologetically approach this “Lent” thing from the perspective of what’s in it for me? If the name of the game is self-denial, how is that going to benefit me? It’s nice to know that this all culminates in Easter, but how does this ancient myth genuinely assure my personal salvation? Am I going to be resurrected? Am I going to live forever? Am I guaranteed a place in heaven? You see, it’s really all about me.