Biology, Zoology, Christology

The word, Christology, is rather like biology, or zoology, or any other word with “logy” attached to the end. It is the study or knowledge of Christ. What is Christ? How is Jesus of Nazareth Christ? What does Christ mean to me/us? 

In seminary I had to submit periodic papers in which I described my own personal Christology. The formation of my Christology was, and continues to be, a process. I trust that process is growth toward the truth. The comments that follow represent my latest articulation of that process.

The question of Christ is an extension of the question of God. The identity and nature of God are at stake in the rabbinic debates which make up a literary form in much Hebrew Scripture. What is God like? It’s a primeval question; and the varied approaches in Hebrew Scripture may seem to reveal more contradiction than consensus.

One testimony, generally represented by more ancient wisdom and prophetic writings, describes God as adversarially jealous in regard to his (sic) people and his territory. This testimony portrays a brutal God: judging and punishing any who defy or ignore him. Not even Genocide bothers this God; indeed, he orders it.

Counter-testimony, represented primarily by later wisdom and prophetic writings, presents God as gracious, nurturing, and restoring. The role of judgment belongs to God’s antagonist, Satan, while God works to reconcile a Satan-duped humanity to himself (again, using the male pronoun only to be consistent with Scripture).

It was the latter representation of God that Jesus of Nazareth chose to manifest in his own life and ministry. The Gospel of John picks up on one Hebrew concept of God’s presence, viz., “Word of the Lord”, and identifies Word as a manifestation of the eternal, pre-existent quality or persona of  God: “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). In Jesus of Nazareth, that Word was lived out in human community—the “Word became flesh” (John 1:14). C. S. Lewis wrote, ““It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to Him.”[1]

Theologian, Walter Wink, begins the 9^th chapter of his book, The Powers that Be (Doubleday, 1998) with these words:

“American culture is presently in the first stages of a spiritual renaissance. To the degree that this renaissance is Christian at all, it will be the human figure of Jesus that galvanizes hearts to belief and action, and not the Christ of the creeds or the Pauline doctrine of justification by grace through faith. And in the teachings of Jesus, the sayings on nonviolence and love of enemies will hold a central place. Not because they are more true than any others, but because they are crucial in the struggle to overcome domination without creating new forms of domination.”

Recently on Facebook I posted a quote from a late colleague, teacher, and friend:

“If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong.” 

― Fred B. Craddock, The Collected Sermons of Fred B. Craddock

In response, a long-time friend (she used to baby-sit with our kids) posted: “If you're reading a Bible that justifies any of those things, you probably need to enroll in a remedial reading class AFTER you start wearing your new prescription lenses...”

That response is what stimulated this whole string of thought (for me, that’s not a difficult thing to accomplish!), and I responded:

“Actually, by being very, very selective in your reading of Scripture, it's possible to justify all of the above. The rabbinic method of testimony/counter-testimony debate runs throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and into the recorded teachings of Jesus. That method compared contradictory propositions and the subsequent debates among the rabbis were seen as ways of increasing the faith. There is a distinct and consistent trajectory throughout, and if we follow that trajectory we eventually find Jesus of Nazareth, who took sides in the debate, rejecting all the things named in the Craddock quote above. My choice is to affirm Jesus' position and try to live it. After more than 77 years, I feel as if I'm just beginning to comprehend what Jesus was all about.”

The thoughts kept coming. The following concluding comments are an expansion of a subsequent post in the Facebook conversation with my friend:

The idea of the biblical trajectory isn't my idea originally; I discovered it in the writings of a postmodern theologian named Derek Flood[2]. Moreover, the testimony/counter-testimony[3] tag is from Walter Brueggemann, a leading scholar of Hebrew Scripture. Perhaps a better way to apply Jesus' relationship to that trajectory is to say that it describes the human comprehension of the will of God, and Jesus CHOSE that trajectory (see the temptation narratives in Matthew 4, Mark 1, and Luke 4) and lived it out as "the visible image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). It is in his total obedience to that divine will that he fulfills the Hebrew anticipation of the servant of God. 

“Servant” is Isaiah’s characterization of the messianic anticipations of Israel. Isaiah described the “servant” in a series of Servant Songs: Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-7 and 52:13-53:12. Some scholars add Isaiah 61:1-3; although the word servant does not appear in the passage. I believe it was specifically through these passages that Jesus experienced and accepted his identity. It is through those servant songs that I find the clearest and most consistent understandings of Jesus as the anticipated Christ. To the degree that we live and manifest that same divine will we live "in Christ" (Romans 6:11, 23, et. al.)”

[Note: All footnotes were added during this present writing and did not appear in the initial Facebook posts.]

That’s how it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,
Jim

---

[1] C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol III, edited by Walter Hooper (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco: @ 2007)—Spcifically, a letter written to a Ms. Johnson on November 8, 1952.

[2] Derek Flood, Disarming Scripture: Cherry-Picking Liberals, Violence-Loving Conservatives, and Why We All Need to Learn to Read the Bible Like Jesus Did. (San Francisco: Metanoia Books, 2014), 82, et. al.

[3] Walter Brueggemann. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 317-318.

The True Word of God

I am confident that no one will admit this; however, the human race always has created God in our image—in direct contradiction to the biblical affirmation that the revers is true: God created humans in God’s image. Two contrasts help me understand how Western culture in general, and American Christianity in particular, has done this. There are other clues; but, I’ll restrict my comments to these two.

First, the nature and identity of God is revealed in God’s self-identification in Revelation 21:5 (NRSV) “See, I am making all things new.” In the original language of the New Testament, the verb is imperfect, implying ongoing, as yet unfinished action; thus, “I am always making all things new,” or “I keep on making all things new.”

In contrast, it is the nature and identity of humanity to try to hold on to the way things are right now and/or to try to revert to the way things were in some utopian “good ol’ days,” or to actualize life the way it “ought” to be. The key here is the phrase, “hold on to”, regardless of the preferred paradigm.

This contrast goes a long way toward explaining why there are so many different, sometimes mutually exclusive, and too often antagonistic ways of understanding reality and reality’s God. The standard of measure begins with individual humans’ preferred way of being—the way things are, or the way things used to be back when, or the way things “ought” to be… Our cultural paradigm, whether chosen or by default, establishes the lens through which God is perceived, viz., God is perceived as existing for the purpose of helping us obtain and sustain life as we want it to be.

In other words, we humans prefer a secure (read: unchanging) God of stability; so, we create that God and worship him (sic). But, when the perception of God emerges out of any human desire or preference, given the diversity of human desire and preference, the inevitable result inevitably is chaos and antagonism.

And all the while, we humans are missing (or ignoring) God’s promise of new life: “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! (II Corinthians 5:17 NRSV)

So, what is meant by this cryptic phrase, “in Christ?” In its most basic understanding, it simply means being who Christ is and doing what Christ does. It means “dying to self” (those human insecurities that lead to the chaotic and antagonistic reality mentioned above) and being raised to new life as imitators of Christ, whose paradigmatic identity was manifested fully in Jesus of Nazareth.

In the second contrast, it is the nature and identity of God to desire unity, in Christ, of all things (Ephesians 1:9-10). That unity is the end and goal of God’s ongoing creative industry (“always making all things new”.)

The contrasting human desire is for uniformity in human desire and behavior. So, the God created by humans has the compound duty, first, of meeting our human needs and desires and, second, of making everyone else “like me/us.”

Remember that muffler commercial from several years ago—the one in which a guy in coveralls with greasy hands is wielding a two-pound maul and says, “Ill make it fit”? Whether consciously and intentionally or obliviously and by default, all of us some of the time, and some of us all the time, begin interpretation of Scripture with the intention of making it fit what we already have decided to believe. And then the various denominations and cults square off and point accusingly at one another and demand conformity. The majority of faith-based human ideologies insist on the exclusive merit and absolute correctness of their interpretation.

Indeed, most will deny that their approach is an interpretation at all. They will insist that their “understanding” is clearly the only true meaning and intention of Scripture. Well, to quote my nephew, Christian Piatt, “There is no uninterpreted Scripture.” I will take it a step further and say that a literal understanding of Scripture is humanly impossible.

We cannot totally free ourselves from the preconceptions and expectations we bring to any reading of Scripture. For most of us who read the Bible in English, even when simply reading, verbatim, the exact words of scripture, we at best will be reading a translation (probably of a translation) which inevitably redirects some of the subtle nuances of the original language. Without some knowledge of, or guidance through, the original languages of Scripture, we begin our reading with several layers of translation between us and the text.

And while God’s Spirit always is available to guide the writing of Scripture, not all humans are in tune with that guidance when they translate or interpret. The contradictions among the multiplicity of English versions of Scripture makes my point.

Moreover, we bring to any reading of Scripture all the bits and pieces of remembered, half-forgotten Sunday School lessons, camp songs, Hymns, sermons, devotional readings, and opinions shared over coffee with friends. It’s difficult to clear the attic—to sweep away the shards and cobwebs of partial memory to make way for a new reading—to let the Scripture speak fresh, as if for the first time.

Even a verbatim reading will be an interpretation, simply by the emphasis and inflection we inflict on the individual words of the text. Finally, one’s choice of text in any given situation will reflect the preconceptions with which one approaches Scripture.

“My Bible says…” should be replaced with, “The way I read scripture…”, because in all honesty that’s the best any of us can do. That’s why St. Paul insists, “…we walk by faith, and not by sight” (II Corinthians 5:7) That’s why he insists, “ For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (I Corinthians 13:12)

But we don’t want to walk by faith. We want an absolute guarantee. So, since the Bible offers only faith, we create the guarantees. And the result is the absence,  not only of the uniformity we seek, but also of the unity which is the will of God as demonstrated in Christ.

I love the C. S. Lewis quote, “It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to Him.” For me, the Gospels and the Christian Epistles are consistent in their definitive testimony regarding Christ; therefore, I approach all of Scripture through the lens of Christ—the Word-become-flesh. In him, my faith has hands and feet, and a voice.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Put On Your Own Oxygen Mask First

I've been interested in this year's FIFA Women’s World Cup in which the American team (wouldn't you know it?) attracted significant notoriety because of the impudent boastfulness of some of its players. 

Since the emergence of the Human Potential Movement in the 1960s[1] the idea of self-actualization or self-realization has been variously revered or cursed, used and abused. It has been instrumental in promoting mental and emotional well-being, and it has produced unprecedented and increasing levels of self-aggrandizement and narcissism.

·         A women’s beauty product commercial featured a woman cooing, “It’s expensive; but I’m worth it.” 

·         A fast-food chain chanted, “Have it your way!”

·         A professional athlete snapped photos with a top-of-the-line camera because, “Image is Everything.”

·         A high-end restaurant chain and a banking corporation enticed customers with, “It’s all about you!”

·         Professional football players beat their chests, choreograph their touchdown celebrations, and otherwise scream, “Look at me!” over the slightest accomplishment on the gridiron—even if their team is trailing by three touchdowns!

Whatever happened to the shy, humble slugger who ducked his head, muttered, “Aw, shucks!” and then knocked the cover off the baseball? What has happened in American culture so that even the President of the United States leads the parade of impudent narcissism?

Did it begin with Mohammed Ali screaming, “I am the greatest?” Indeed, was his mantra actually narcissism, or was it an honest acknowledgement of self-actualization? At that point in time, he was, in fact, “the greatest” (at least in the boxing world). Joe Namath said, “If I say and then do it, it’s not bragging.” So, when one reaches that level of self-actualization, is it OK to beat one’s chest and shout it from the highest hill?

The debate begs the question: “What does it mean to be self-actualized?” What is the highest level of selfhood a human can reach? It seems obvious to me—does it seem obvious to you?—that the answer necessarily varies with each individual human, emerging from his or her innate potential. But, in general, it seems to me that one quality of self-actualization would be the absence of any need to flaunt one’s status or to prove anything to anybody. So, whence the braggadocio?

We could play “junior psychologist” and surmise that it began in the depths of loneliness and abandonment in Generation X—the generation of latchkey kids whose parents were busy “being successful” and climbing the corporate ladder. The truth is, I don’t really see that kind of behavior from that generation (except for professional athletes).

Or, we could theorize that it’s a byproduct of the advertising industry—a culture immersed in shallow jingles and sensuous imagery. 

Self-actualization is the top of five levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, which include, in order: Survival, Security, Social Needs, Achievement, and Self-actualization. Maslow believed that each level of need motivates specific behavior, and that once a need is met (but not before), one moves into the next level. 

I think what we’re seeing in today’s rampant narcissism and braggadocio is a category of people fixated in a not-yet-realized need to achieve. Too often, one judges one’s own value or achievement on the basis of other people’s accomplishments or notoriety. Consequently, too many people simply don’t recognize the value of their own accomplishment and the value of their own lives.

At its root, self-actualization is a good thing; indeed, it even has spiritual value. As a preacher and (I hope) a theologian, I immediately recall Jesus’ ranking of God’s greatest commands: “Love God, love neighbor as yourself.” Certainly, Jesus seems to affirm self-importance in “as yourself.”

When you board an aircraft, prior to takeoff a flight attendant will make a safety speech which includes the instruction, “In case of cabin depressurization, oxygen masks will drop from the overhead. Put on your own oxygen mask first!” Until you have your own oxygen mask in place, there is the risk that you will lose consciousness and therefore be totally ineffective in assisting anyone else, and in particular a child or a person with any level of disability or physical challenge.

That illustration is a utilitarian application both of Maslow’s self-actualization and of Jesus’ exhortation to love others as yourself. In a somewhat more mundane expression, there is a song from the Broadway musical, “Golden Rainbow”—"I Gotta’ Be Me!”—the lyrics of which include the line, “I can’t be right for somebody else if I’m not right for me.”

I propose that self-actualization—identifying and maximizing one’s purpose in life—is not an end in itself. It is an act of “putting on your own oxygen mask first.” Human potential, in its most basic manifestation, is a manifestation of the image of God in which each human is created; more concretely for the Christian, it is living one’s life so it reflects the presence of Christ. The more nearly one approaches self-actualization/Christ-likeness, the more effectively he or she can participate, as all humanity is called to do, in God’s ongoing acts of creation—the more productively he or she can contribute to the fulfillment of the prayer Jesus taught his disciples: “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

When a person lives at that level, there’s no need—or desire—to brag. 

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my worldview.

Together in the Walk,
Jim

---

[1] Thanks to Abraham Mazlow’s theory of self-realization as the highest level of human achievement, and to subsequent kneading through Jungian psychology (William James, Carl Rogers, Fritz Perls’ Gestalt Therapy, The Esalen Institute, et. al.)

Walk With Me

[Continuing a journal of a personal quest for a more effective evangelism: an evangelism with credibility and biblical integrity.]

In my last blog I discussed what I see as a counterproductive approach to Evangelism, viz., an “ambush” strategy. It’s based (at least theoretically) on a concern for the eternal destinies of people; however, there are at least two flaws in the system. 

First, it begins with an assumption that people (particularly people who aren’t in our group) need what we have—without asking them. It’s presumptuous in its assumption that what we offer is the only right way to God. That assumption overlooks the findings of multiple polls and surveys that indicate 95% (more or less, depending upon the specific survey) of North Americans believe in God. But for the evangelicals, beyond that oversight is the conviction that believing in God is not enough. One must jump through very specific hoops (the ones we offer) in order to be “saved.”

What 95% of the North American public needs is a faith community that supports them in their faith journey and walks with them as they attempt to follow Jesus. They don’t need to be targeted as “unsaved-in-need-of-our-five-step-Roman-Road-to-Salvation.” They already “believe.” What most “dones” and “nones[1] really need is guidance and pastoral care in their sincere desire to follow Jesus. They haven’t found that guidance and care in the church; that’s why they’re not there anymore.

A second flaw in the antiquated and counterproductive system is its vulnerability to a prideful competitiveness and success-orientation. Granted, no one—NO ONE—will own up to that; however, that tendency to “keep score” is a part of the image (right or wrong) from which the “spiritual-but-not-religious) are fleeing.

So, at this point I’m thinking the focus of our evangelism, while not abandoning the lost, should emphasize the “spiritual-but-not-religious”—those Thomas G. Bandy calls the “spiritually yearning, institutionally disillusioned public”.[2] That population, says Bandy, is the largest and fastest growing spiritual population in North America, and the Millennial generations account for its overwhelming majority.

And I suggest the motivating vision for our evangelism should be that of Jesus in Matthew 9:35-36 (NRSV) “Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. ³⁶When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”

At the next level, I’m beginning to believe that “invitation evangelism” won’t work. The key word for our evangelism should be the same as the key word in Jesus Great Commission,[3] viz., GO!!! They already have been-there-done-that, and/or have declined our invitation.

While the “spiritual-but-not-religious” make a lot of generalized assumptions about church; there is enough evidence to make those assumptions valid. So, maybe a prior step is for the church to clean up its own act—or, at least to divorce itself from the stereotypes that repel. In doing so, I suggest we begin with a focus on the Baby Boomer values of “success” (rather than obedience), “achievement” (rather than faithfulness), and consumerism (rather than service). I think those Boomer values are the foundation of the “institutional disillusionment” that fuels the current exodus from the church. This topic merits attention that transcends the boundaries of a simple blog; nevertheless, some deep soul-searching is in order.

Finally, when we GO!!!, our primary purpose will not be to proclaim, but to listen. I know, the kerygma[4] is the heart of the Gospel; but, for the “spiritual-but-not-religious,” the kerygma is a bus that already is moving 40 mph. We need to stop the bus before we expect them to board, and I'm thinking the "Good News" for those groups is, "Somebody cares enough about you to listen."

A major life experience for the “spiritually yearning, institutionally disillusioned public” includes stress, depression, and anxiety. These life qualities are a spin-off from the fast-paced pressure-cooker life of the corporate world created by the Baby Boomer generation. It impacts the Millennial generations severely: their work, their relationships, and their world view. 

They truly are a generation “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” and they need—and as children of God they deserve—to experience the love, and grace of Jesus. They already know about it; and when they didn’t find it in the church, they left to seek it elsewhere. By all accounts, they still haven’t found it. 

Perhaps the primary question for the church is this: is “it” even in the church, anymore. After beginning with listening, what if our evangelism should proceed with, “I’m hungry for a closer walk with Jesus, too. Will you walk with me, so we can help each other find that closer walk?”

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] These are nicknames (somewhat demeaning) for those who are “done” with playing church and those who never got started.

[2] Thomas G. Bandy, Christian Chaos, et. al.

[3] Matthew 28:19-20

[4] The Greek word for “preaching” or “proclamation.”