seeing 'Jesus' from below #55

[July 2004 journal entry]

A friend invited me to go with him to the annual Chet Atkins Appreciation Society gathering here in Nashville. By the end of the day, I found myself thinking about the choice of ‘appreciation’ (L., to value, to rise in value) by the individuals who named/coordinated the gathering. The appreciation so many musicians expressed for the liberty to explore/grow that Atkins encouraged impressed me most. Atkins did not limit or dwarf these musicians. Instead, they drew inspiration from him. Some have in certain ways moved beyond him. This experience strikes me as much healthier than the widespread approach to ‘Jesus’ within the ‘religious’ sphere.

seeing 'Jesus' from below #54

[April 2004 journal entry]

If history fades into myth re the story of Israel from the reign of David back to the opening chapters of Genesis (as I think occurs), then does not something similar happen re the story of ‘Jesus’ in the Gospels?

seeing 'Jesus' from below #53

[April 2004 journal entry]

I often hear radio advertisements for a ‘Christian Radio Station’ that promotes its programming as ‘positive and upbeat’. I realize the station has benefits for many teenagers. Still, I have two reservations – (1) It is clear the station is a variation on the fundamentalist/evangelical aim to stay far removed from actual ‘face to face’ experience in/with ‘the world’ and (2) The image of ‘Jesus’ that results from a ‘positive and upbeat’ framework/intent does not align well with the ‘Jesus’ I see through a ‘non-religious’ and ‘with the world face to face’ interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #52

Propositions:

‘Jesus’ was deeply spiritual (i.e., a centered and thoughtful life).

‘Jesus’ was not very religious (in the organized/institutional sense).

‘Jesus’ was radically ethical (e.g., a Sermon on the Mount ethic).

‘Jesus’ was not very righteous (in the self-conscious, tradition-driven, or ‘religious’ sense).

‘Jesus’ was very reflective (e.g., his ‘God’ language, his trust in sound judgment).

‘Jesus’ was not very dogmatic (in the ‘religious’ sense).

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #51

[August 2002 journal entry]

Was ‘Jesus’ envisioning/anticipating ‘Christianity’ (as institutionalized from the time of the apostle Paul forward in increasingly non-Jewish forms?) No, in my judgment.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #50

[March 2002 journal entry]

The nearer I draw to ‘Jesus’ (i.e., historie), the further I find myself removed from ‘high’/‘from above’ Christologies. Two resolves have contributed most substantially to my position/angle re ‘Jesus’ and orthodox Christologies – i.e., (1) to sustain a radically critical historiography and (2) to pursue the implications of having Shelly Korones and subsequently a number of other Jewish physicians among my core spiritual relationships.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #49

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The disjunction between ‘from below’ and ‘from above’ views of ‘Jesus’ was most pronounced in the Apostle Paul among the first generation of Christianity’s leaders. He claimed/referenced no personal experience (i.e., historie) with ‘Jesus’. He sidestepped this liability as he aggressively promoted his ‘from above’ theology, thus freeing him from historical restraints and freeing him to engage the dualistic cosmologies widespread in the Greco-Roman world. Paul saw no need for ‘from below’ historie, especially since he was convinced the end of historie was imminent. This gamble is analogous to the short life of a cut flower. To look ‘from below’, to invest in historie, was for Paul to revert to ‘the flesh’, to the past, to the ‘old’, to the ‘dead’. Paul’s extant writings leave no suggestion he would have encouraged a historie investigation of ‘Jesus’. Peter, James, et al could not go ‘toe to toe’ with Paul. His education, his travel, his ease with Greek and Roman culture, his evangelistic successes (and probably his energy!) would have overwhelmed them. The Synoptic Gospels are themselves ‘from above’ interpretations of ‘Jesus’ in that they center on the crucifixion and resurrection narratives. However, they are not similar to Paul’s dismissal of ‘Jesus’ in favor of the ‘Christ Jesus’ he considered sufficiently/profoundly experienced as present in the churches he was founding. Perhaps the Synoptic Gospels were written in part to ensure that the ‘Jesus’ who lived would not be forgotten, just in case time did not end as soon as Paul was confident it would.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #48

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: I find no compelling reason to think that the first leaders of Christianity understood ‘Jesus’ any more clearly after his death than during his life (the Synoptic Gospels indicating they understood very little during his life), their self-certifying claims – e.g., appeals to miraculous confirmations and to immediate revelations from ‘God’ -- after the death of ‘Jesus’ notwithstanding. They lacked an approach to ‘Jesus’ that would call for radically critiquing their various institutionalizing tendencies. Reconstructions and interpretations of the life and thought of ‘Jesus’ by representatives/guardians of Christianity then or now were/are bound by and serve/d the interests of Christianity as a ‘religion’. The reconstructions and interpretations tone/d down and sift/ed out the radical (i.e., to the root) edges of ‘Jesus’.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #47

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The first leaders of Christianity were not centered on ‘the gospel of Jesus’ or anchored in historie, but ironically created and worked off of new versions of the fundamental characteristics of the ‘religion’ opposed by ‘Jesus’ (e.g., hierarchical organization, infighting, otherworldliness, inequities, marginalizing of women, . . .). How would ‘Jesus’ have reacted to a reading of each writing in what became the Christian canon of scripture (including the Synoptic Gospels, but especially Acts through Revelation)? How would he have reacted to the ‘religious’ institutionalizing done in his name? Would he conclude, “They got it!”

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #46

[February 2002 journal entry]

Proposition: The first leaders of Christianity retained interest in the historical ‘Jesus’ as the backdrop to the ‘from above’ (or ‘looking back’) angle created by the resurrection narratives and by the subsequent immediately present guidance from ‘God’ they claimed. To use Karl Barth’s categories, geschichte replaced historie. ‘From below’ perspectives were quickly left without representation in what eventually became the official record of the first years after the death of ‘Jesus’. Variations – historical as well as theological -- within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm, to be approved, had to build off this ‘from above’ methodology. My ‘non-religious’ approach (1) gives priority to historie over geschichte claims and interpretations, (2) considers historie as building material, (3) has reservations about geschichte claims/interpretations both as credible language and as a credible methodological starting point.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #45

[February 2002 journal entry]

It is striking to me that ‘Jesus’ (i.e., the actual person who, if accessible to historical reconstruction, is known almost exclusively through the Synoptic Gospels with minimal contribution from the Gospel of John and a few sources outside the Christian canon of scripture) is virtually absent in the other early writings (Acts through Revelation) that became canonical for Christianity. There are, of course, allusions. But there is no biographical information (other than references to his death), no episodes from his life (other than Paul’s reference to ‘the last supper’), none of his teachings (other than the one quotation in Acts that is not paralleled in any of the four Gospels), no use of his parables (or the story-telling method, for that matter), . . . . No reconstruction of the life of ‘Jesus’ is possible from these writings.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #44

[January 2002 journal entry]

The more critically informed/shaped one’s view of Jewish scripture and Christian scripture, the more diminished the finality and authority of the theologies advocated within those writings. At some point across the Christology spectrum from ‘high’ to ‘low’, a threshold is crossed/passed beyond which the lack of finality and authority re the methodology, theology, cosmology of ‘Jesus’ must be admitted and incorporated into one’s approach to ethics and spirituality.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #43

[October 2001 journal entry]

I cannot read the four Gospels or Acts any more literally than I can so read Genesis 1-11.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #42

[September 2001 journal entry]

The lower my ‘Christology’, the more ‘Jesus’ becomes typical of his time re worldview and, thus, subject to criticism from a ‘non-religious’ perspective.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #41

[April 2001 journal entry]

I am very far removed from understanding the ‘give us this day our daily bread’ prayer to imply there is no need to bake the pita, trusting that the baking will occur due to direct and intentional divine intervention. First, the pita simply will not be baked without a baker getting the work done. Second, most ‘God’ language offered as commentary on ‘give us this day our daily bread’ ignores, goes around, is unaware of the anthropomorphic and sociomorphic meaning/limitations of such ‘God’ language.

Where is ‘Jesus’ (as represented in each of the four Gospels and, to the degree possible, as distinguished from these representations)? I want to say that ‘Jesus’ would have much to teach us re understanding the anthropomorphic, sociomorphic, and cosmomorphic meaning/limitations ‘God’ language. However, I realize that seeing ‘Jesus’ in this way cuts against the grain of the way ‘God’ language is used in Jewish scripture/thought, in Christian scripture/thought, and in today’s ‘religious’ sphere. And viewing ‘Jesus’ as essentially human diminishes the likelihood that he sensed/valued this language limitation.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #40

[January 2001 journal entry]

I have recently been thinking about ‘Jesus’ as leaven, the point being that ‘Jesus’ -- and not just his followers/students -- disappears and is indistinguishable in the way leaven disappears and is indistinguishable in baked dough. ‘Religion’ emphatically opposes this proposition.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #39

[January 2001 journal entry]

‘Jesus’ becomes less and less orthodox as I imagine writing him into the story/play Job as the missing character in the story/play – i.e., a character who can be with the ‘scrapheap’ Job without harming further or disrespecting him.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #38

[December 2000 journal entry]

In a conversation with the senior pastor for Nashville’s 2^nd Presbyterian Church (USA) re my views of ‘Jesus’, he observed, “Your approach to Jesus gets to the essence. I agree that so much about the ‘religious’ Jesus – heaven, hell, deity, resurrection, . . . – is extraneous to the Jesus who lived 2000 years ago.” He then asked, “Why did you get it when so few do?” Prefaced with an admission that in the final analysis I do not know, I mentioned the following – (1) studying history, (2) being exposed, through my first wife’s illness, to human frailty and old-age conditions as a young adult, (3) the inner drive for thorough analysis and for consistency, (4) . . . .

I am convinced one must either move more deeply into or move out of the ‘religious’ Traditional/Orthodox (T/O) paradigm. Most professional guardians of the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm have too much invested in the ‘religious’ sphere to do other than draw individuals inward.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #37

In the Broadway dramatization of the legend about medieval England (Camelot), King Arthur objects to the logic that ‘might is right’. Instead, he envisions his Camelot as the heart of a new order of chivalry committed to the idea of ‘might for right’. Heralds announce Arthur’s dream and soon the map of England is covered with the royal seal as knights from across land and sea join the Knights of the Round Table. When Lancelot and Queen Guenevere betray Arthur “in their hearts”, he momentarily tilts toward revenge, but recovers, determined not to let passions destroy the dream. However, even as peasants report that their villages no longer need door locks and their children walk free on the roads, insurrection stirs among the knights. Finally forced to set punishment for Lance and Guenevere, Arthur sees the Round Table die. Once Lancelot rescues Guenevere from the stake and flees across the channel to his castle in France, battle is inevitable. The knights thirst again for what Arthur knows to be “that most worthless of causes -- revenge”.

While putting on his armor at dawn on the day of battle, Arthur despondently recalls to himself all they had been through for “the idea” and sees only folly. Then he hears rustling in the nearby brush and calls out, “Who’s there?” A young lad sheepishly steps out, expressing his intent to be a knight. Arthur asks the stowaway how he had decided on this “extinct profession”. The boy enthusiastically responds, “Only by the stories people tell -- might for right . . . right for right . . . justice for all . . . the round table where all knights will sit”. After knighting the boy Sir Tom of Warwick, Arthur -- the gleam in his eyes restored -- orders the boy:

Hide behind the lines till the battle is over. Then return to England alive to grow up and grow old. Ask every person if he has heard the story and tell it strong and clear if he has not. Don’t let it be forgot that once there was a spot for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot. Now shout it out with love and joy!

To which inspired Tom responds, “Camelot! Camelot!”

The ‘gospel of Jesus’ is more than the memory of an idea; it is an announcement. In the Jewish man ‘Jesus’ of Nazareth, for a fleeting moment light shown uniquely in our midst, the will of ‘God’ was done on earth; mercy and justice merged. ‘Jesus’ sent his disciples into the world to keep alive, by life and thought, his good news of a way of life so extraordinary as to meet injurious aggression by the seemingly foolish and impossible standard of turning the other cheek.

That a trace of what he envisioned may endure is his legacy.

Seeing ‘Jesus’ from below #36

A few days into the Montgomery bus boycott, Martin Luther King, Jr. answered a midnight phone call and heard – “Nigger, we’re tired of you and your mess now. If you ain’t out of town in three days, we’re gonna blow your brains out and blow up your house.” Weary, frustrated, and fearful for his family, King told himself he had to “call on that something and person Daddy used to tell me about, the power that can make a way out of no way.” He discovered that “religion had to become real to me and I had to know God for myself.”

‘Jesus’ does not attempt to tell those who will listen what they should do in every situation involving adversaries. He does inform them that they will be distinguishable in their attitude and behavior toward their enemies. Even if forced to harm an enemy in defense of those for whom they have an overriding obligation, their process of decision-making and their reaction to the painful consequences that befall an enemy will be exceptional.