Monday, December 23, 2013

What Is Faith? What Is It For? A Conversation



Video Summary:

James Alison says faith is relaxing in the presence of someone you're certain is fond of you. Lutheran idea: faith is trusting God's promises, not intellectually assenting to a set of theological propositions.

Faith is not given to individuals in sufficient quantities, but communities. Similar to how an individual might not believe every line of a creed, but the church as a whole does. In organizing her faith community, the statement of faith required of members will be participating in the liturgy and sharing the eucharist.


David Shay: My initial reaction to this was that it was awesome to hear something that made sense to me about faith, but that I haven't articulated myself before in this way. I've seen a lot of these concepts in books on orthodoxy that I've read, especially the idea of things being based more in the community, the body, not just the individual. What were your thoughts, Dave?


Dave Mantel: I did a quick word study on that 1 Corinthians passage she mentioned, where Paul is addressing a "y'all,"--the community responsibility for faith, rather than the individual--and it doesn't normally get translated that way, but it could be, which is cool. I think a lot of times with this kind of stuff most people will translate something a certain way because it's always been done like that. So that stuck out as something I really liked.

But there was something I'm not sure I know how I feel about, where she talks about the creed, and how not everybody has to believe everything, as long as it all gets believed in the end--that's okay. I can see how that would be encouraging. But I don't know where I stand with that kind of thinking yet.


David Shay: I get that, but don't think we can take what she's saying in this video as "the rules" of faith. It's kind of a catch-22; the way she's presenting it, you almost can't say you disagree, because what she's saying is "Exactly!" and you'd be like "But I don't agree with that" and she'd say "I know, exactly, but we both love Christ and believe he's God." And that's kind of why a lot of what she said makes sense to me. Which brings us back to the first part of what she says, which is that faith is relaxing in the presence of someone you're certain is fond of you. Most of the time we only talk about the rules and the function of us being in love with the Creator, and we don't focus on the relationship with the Creator; what are the emotions that you feel, what are the unwritable things that happen to you; that sense is something that would be nice to bask in.


Dave Mantel: I understand what's being communicated, but I have a problem with the way that it's being put. I think it's really cool--there's two ways to think about this: one is that you don't have to have 100% faith in every doctrine all the time, and that's okay, because faith isn't about having all the right ideas all the time; and the other way is this, that there are a lot of extra rules... Rob Bell has a similar problem in his book, Velvet Elvis, where he talks about "flexible doctrine," and he uses the example of the virgin birth, and I'm like "That's not a good example!" because the virgin birth important to all of Christianity, but if you were talking about something else- things that are really side issues that not the whole Church agrees on (I view the content of the creeds as main issues, not side issues)- it's okay to wrestle with those things during different seasons. James?


James Davisson: I have to admit that my initial gut reaction to this video was almost entirely negative. For whatever reason, my brain reacted to the sentence "James Alison says faith is relaxing in the presence of someone you're certain is fond of you" with the same kneejerk dislike I usually reserve for people proclaim inghow much they love eating organic produce while they do yoga. Liberal white people sitting around in a room agreeing with each other; I just reject the surface quality of this whole thing. Once I was able to get past that emotional response, I was able to get on board with a lot of what she was saying.

In fact, what I did with it was try to find someone more "orthodox" who might agree with or support her position, and what I came up with was something I remembered C.S. Lewis, that I think goes along with her second idea that faith might not require belief in every line of the creed:
The Resurrection and its consequences were the “gospel” or good news which the Christians brought: what we call the “gospels,” the narratives of Our Lord’s life and death, were composed later for the benefit of those who had already accepted the gospel. They were in no sense the basis of Christianity: they were written for those already converted. The miracle of the Resurrection, and the theology of that miracle, comes first: the biography comes later as a comment on it.
To me, that sounds like Lewis saying something similar, that the essence of Christian faith is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the impact that it has on humanity; everything else is commentary on that.


Dave Mantel: This goes back to our last conversation: what is the point of all this? What is it for? The end result of this conversation should not be "Do we all think the right things?" but "How does this help our relationship with God and each other?" So whatever we conclude should be in relation to those two things; not about doctrine, but relationship.


David Shay: Let me jump on that, relationship: I think that might be the cheesy part that James hated so much. My struggle with faith is that, when I look for someone who "has it going on" with their faith, it can be tought, I'm not actually sure I believe there's someone who actually knows who God is. I get emotional at church, but I'm just like a secular person in line at the Chiptole, or getting gift cards at Target; we live a very mundane life outside of church, outside of our practices. What is it actually like, though, when we analyze our lives and know we're dwelling beside the Creator; how does it make things different, what is the answer? It's not entirely to be found in what you believe, in doctrines, nor only in how you treat people, because we all know really nice people who don't believe in God. It's found in something else, I can't put it into words, but it's found in something that has no need to be proven to others; it's simply dwelling with God and letting God change you. I think we've lost touch as Christians because we're trying to prove too much to others, that what we believe makes sense, and we've forgotten to relate to God and each other. That's the obsession of the individual; all of us just trying to better our own lives instead of contribute to a community.


Dave Mantel: That's where I get sometimes; I get wrapped up in "head knowledge," in having the right ideas and telling other people about them. It's not something that changes my life; I'm not letting it. It's not expressed in loving other people, and that's the trap I get stuck in sometimes.


David Shay: Right. She says that maybe faith isn't for the individual, but I think it can be--there are people who have just, crazy amounts of faith, overflowing faith.

I know people who I admire as Christians, with very different theological views from me. I know a guy, he's very Reformed, and I am not, and I admire him, and I look up to him because of these weird moments we've had, like this time we were out with a group of people at camp in the woods, and it's midnight and crickets and animals are going off, and he says "Let's just stop for a second--y'all hear that song?" And we just stand there, silent, but the woods aren't silent--I think that sort of thing is more the point even than what this person even gave a sermon on earlier that evening, that is how the Kingdom of God can work. And that sounds pretty tree-huggish, wishy-washy, I get it, because I can't tell someone that story and it really hits them, necessarily, but I think that experience of community, faith, and God, that happen within that story, is an important thing. This person's theology that's different from mine, that's not as important.


James Davisson: Couple things. I question too what's important about Christianity and what sets us apart from good, secular people. And what does that is that we live in the age where Christ has come and changed things, and we can spread the word about that, and we can further his Kingdom even change the world for the better because of that story and the knowledge we have about it. And we too often look to the distant, end-of-time future, rather than this immediate future that we have the power to shape, as Christians. 

This other thing I was reminded of in listening to your comments was this item we've been meaning to talk about, this blog post called Twelve Myths Too Many Christians Believe, and the first myth is "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion." The idea is that we say things like this because we're uncomfortable with admitting that Christianity is a religion, because then maybe it's just one religion among many that are all equally right/wrong, the slippery slope of pluralism, etc. I'll quote from the post:
[I]it is entirely possible to believe that there are more religions than one while still holding to the perspective that yours is the right one. I feel that it is important to keep in mind that Christianity is indeed one religion among many because it will help us to see the Other as real – someone with beliefs that they hold as dear to them as we do ours. Naturally we think Christianity is the best religion available; if we did not, we would hold to a different one. Further, we believe that our particular church or denomination is the best expression of that faith; if we felt otherwise, we would go elsewhere. We must, however, allow ourselves to remember that there are others who do feel otherwise and are not idiots.

David Shay: My response is that God is not a religion, nor is Christ a religion; I think that our desire to know God is what created a religion. I think my biggest issue is that people don't acknowledge God as real, they acknowledge God as a figure, someone they know about that they read about in a book. But you have to experience God in the world.


James Davisson: I've heard some Christians speak on the idea that some people are given the ability to have faith, and some are not. Which is something that seems to be borne out in reality; cognitively speaking, there seem to be people who are and others who are not able to experience God, in terms of brain function. What do you guys think about that?


David Shay: I wonder about that; I wonder if it's something that appears outside of western societies. But it's an interesting question; what can you do? You love them, you share with them in experiences that you maybe see as spiritual and they maybe see as a good time. Go to a concert that you think is a spiritual experience and that they see as fun. And just believe what you believe; believe that the concert was spiritual and you shared it with someone who didn't feel that way.

Example, Erica and I went to a Sufjan Stevens concert and we all sang together, a capella, Come Thou Fount, I'm sure the theater was not filled with just Christians, but we all sang that song; people sang and closed their eyes, and I believe it glorified God. I don't know what the non-Christians would say about it, but I can say that I think it was good.



Dave Mantel: I've had similar experience; I was a Thrice farewell show, and there was a song where the bridge was "We are the image of the invisible," and I looked around and thought of the people singing along "Do you believe in that, or know what you're singing? Because it's true." That was one of those moments where I thought, this is interesting, it's a moment that glorifies God, this primal acknowledgement of God.

I think this ties into our other conversation about salvation and evangelism; if it's not about believing the right things- if someone is not predisposed to believe in or desire a deity, how do we interact with them? We have to live differently, not to make them conform to a doctrine, but to bring them into contact with the invisible.


David Shay: I think we've come full circle! Because that sounds a lot like "relaxing in the presence of someone you're certain is fond of you." James, I want you to agree.


James Davisson: I mean, just after that sentence, I was like "I'm mostly on board," but before that I was like "Shut up!" That sentence just sounds so...homeopathic and new age-y to me.  My gut reaction, not my actual analysis.

Monday, December 16, 2013

Does Jesus' Skin Color Really Matter? (Yes. Yes It Does.)

by Dave Mantel

First, this happened:


Then, this happened:



Then something like this:


And I saw people say things like (all sic):
"Jesus decendant from David, tribe of Juda, an Israelite, the Europian white people today are the Israelite migrants over the cacus mtns, hence cocasians, we can conclude he was white."

"Jesus may have been middle eastern but I'm pretty sure his father wasn't lol. So his skin color could have been anything."

"A divine entity. He no longer has a cultural heritage. Let's allow Jesus to save people instead of using Him to advance our own agendas"

"Jesus is NOT middle eastern. Jesus WAS middle eastern. For 30 some odd years 2000 years ago. Jesus IS the eternal God and heaven is his address. He is so hard to describe that those who have seen his true glory use only symbols: "white as snow", "pure light", "flaming fire". They all shuddered at his sight and felt as they were as good as dead. It's hilarious that we should all debate to describe someone who by his very essence is beyond any description." 
All of those just lived on ONE Facebook post. I haven't even started on the blog posts yet... anyway, as you can see, there's a pretty wide range of ideas here in opposition of the idea that the race of the historical Jesus matters. As it happens, James already posted a very helpful introduction to this "historical Jesus" a few weeks ago here on the blog. Read that HERE. But in case you don't want to do that, let me just share this tiny bit with you:
A minority of Christians think and read about the historical Jesus, but most of us avoid this question [of who the historical Jesus really was]. Some of us just don't care, basically saying "Christianity is what we have now. It doesn't matter exactly happened back in Jesus' day. What matters is my faith today." But many of us are genuinely afraid of what we might discover about the historical Jesus. What if we find evidence that Christianity just doesn't make sense? That Jesus wasn't who we thought he was, and our religion is just...silly?

These are things that can keep Christians away, but refusing to look at the historical Jesus is a little intellectually dishonest. We're essentially saying saying that the truth doesn't matter. What's more, though, if we avoid these big questions about the historical Jesus, we risk missing out on answers that can enrich and help our faith. 
So that's what we're dealing with right off—there is a large group of religious people who just do not care to know anything about the historical roots of Christianity—i.e., Jesus—and because of that, have mutated this religion into something other than what it started out as; in this case, transforming Jesus from a man who actually existed in space and time and history to some strange caricature in the name of timeless divinity. But why is it important that Jesus be a man tied down by such things as ethnicity and skin color? Isn't he beyond all of that now? I hear you asking those questions. And my answer to them is this: it's important because if we pluck out the bits of Jesus that we want to use today, leaving behind all the perceived uninteresting or irrelevant bits, we're creating a new, hollow religion based on something wholly unreal. White American Jesus is not the Jesus in the Bible, and thus (if you claim to believe the Bible) not God. He is a construct of our minds and our times, and an idol.

Secondly, by creating a god in our own image, placing him in our culture and time, we're missing out on so much of the actual richness and meaning to be found in the Bible. Reading scripture through 21st century, western eyes is difficult to begin with, but it is even harder when we are indoctrinated with the idea that the actual context of scripture is irrelevant because Jesus has transcended all of that.

"So Dave," you may ask, "what skin color did Jesus have? Just so I can be straight on the issue." And the answer to that question is: nobody actually knows! I know. Crazy.

I personally hold the idea that he probably looked like Sayid from LOST, but the Bible never mentions Jesus' skin color. We know he was Jewish, grew up in Egypt and Nazareth (the hood), but that's pretty much it. Is that important? It's super important.

Remember LOST?...Never mind. I don't want to talk about it.

It's important because, on the one hand, we have this historical context to place Jesus in—he had a family, friends, a home he grew up in, a place in history...he was a person. But he also transcends that. Theologians love these kinds of both/and situations. So Jesus was a person tied to an ethnicity, gender, skin color...but, being God, he also transcended those things for us—most clearly in scripture, through his words. The kinds of people Jesus taught us to be when he said, "Follow me," are the kinds of people who are beyond ethnicity, beyond culture, and beyond every other thing that divides. Yet, those things still make up who we are, just as they made up who Jesus is. It's amazing!

There's a cool paragraph at the end of a good article that appeared in the Atlantic this week on this very subject, which reads like this:
Within the church, eschewing a Jesus who looks more like a Scandinavian supermodel than the sinless Son of God in the scriptures is critical to maintaining a faith in which all can give praise to one who became like them in an effort to save them from sins like racism and prejudice. It's important for Christians who want to expand the church, too, in allowing the creation of communities that are able to worship a Jesus who builds bridges rather than barriers. And it is essential to enabling those who bear the name of Christ to look forward to that day when, according to the book of Revelation, those "from every nation, tribe, people, and language" can worship God together.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Is "The Sinner's Prayer" Harmful?

This week, we sat down for a discussion, prompted by the video below, in which pastor David Platt talks about the Sinner's Prayer, a prayer that many evangelicals and people in other Christian groups ask people to pray when they convert to Christianity. The prayer consists of an admission of sin and a request for Jesus to "enter your heart" or become the central figure in the pray-er's life. Platt questions its validity and warns about its use, and that's the jumping off point for our conversation. Note that this is a transcript of a verbal conversation; we're speaking off the cuff. So feel free to take issue with things we've said, and talk to us in the comments section; we may very well agree with you, and at all events you'll give us a chance to clarify our thoughts.



James Davisson: Platt starts the video by claiming that people in churches are "missing the life of Christ" because of the sinner's prayer. What do you guys think of that?


David Shay: The main thing I disagree with David Platt about is a little outside the context of the video—I don't agree with him because I think that, there's a level of "the life of Christ" that reaches all life on this planet, regardless of a sinner's prayer. But in this context, he's saying there are people who aren't true followers of Christ because they are saying a prayer that doesn't really mean anything, that they're told to say, and it doesn't reveal the full essence of Christ to them. And I agree with that.

JD: Can you talk more about why you agree, David? Do you feel like you know a lot of people who fit his description, people who go to church but are missing the life of Christ?


DS: I can think of people, but of course I wouldn't want to say who I think is a "false Christian!" But I think this stems from a culture where, say, a person would be like "I said the sinner's prayer when I was four years old!" and then that person goes to church every Sunday, and they say they love Jesus, but you want to say to them "Remember when Jesus was yelling at the Pharisees for these reasons? You're kinda doing what the Pharisees were doing, every day. I think Jesus would yell at you." But you can't have that discussion with them.

So it's maybe not even the sinner's prayer that's the problem, but the culture of a church that thinks that all you gotta do is say the sinner's prayer and then you're in. There just isn't discipleship; the church becomes a hangout of people who have said this prayer at some point, and there's no difference between them and non-Christians. I've always wondered with people like this that I've met, like "Why don't you just not come to church on Sunday, and be productive on Sunday morning instead? It seems like almost nothing Jesus said matters to you."


Dave Mantel: And what is "salvation" anyway, right? Are there people in the church who really believe, in their heart of hearts, that doing a "repeat after me" thing is sufficient for an immediate, complete life change? Or is it something more? Something we don't actually understand, but over the years have consistently whittled down to these three or four sentences that somehow transform a person eternally? I know there's the whole "confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord" in Romans 10 but... I don't think what we're talking about is exactly what Paul had in mind.


JD: When English the word "salvation" comes up in the Old Testament, especially when it's used in the Psalms, it doesn't have the meaning that the New Testament does when it talks about "salvation," and it certainly doesn't mean what evangelicals mean when they use the word. In the OT, it just means, "[I am in physical danger right now and require] rescue [from said danger.]" It's a mistranslation or an imposition to call that eternal salvation. But we've stated elsewhere on the blog that reinterpretations and fresh meanings for older scriptures can be positive, so that's not to say that we can't use the Psalms to talk about a different kind of salvation from what the Psalmist meant.


DM: Right, and there are so many different kind of examples in the New Testament, too, of how salvation happens in people's life. Jesus told Zacchaeus that salvation had come to his house when he just said he was going to be a better person—he hadn't actually done anything yet. Just said he was going to. The criminal on the cross just asked to be remembered, the lame man was brought to Jesus by his friends and lowered through a roof—he technically didn't do anything except have cool friends...there are loads of other examples...it just seems to me that salvation comes in a lot of different ways and means a lot of different things in scripture, so to make up this thing about some kind of prayer happening and then a moment in time when you receive "salvation" seems a little silly (to put it mildly) to me.

Unfortunately, instead of simply accepting that salvation is something mysterious and possibly different for everyone, evangelicalism has created this kind of easy, one-size-fits-all answer, because Modernity had this need to create answers to every question, even if they're wrong. The focus in evangelicalism has been, for decades: get-saved-so-you-don't-go-to-Hell. But if that's not the point, since that doesn't seem to appear anywhere in scripture...if salvation isn't something to be achieved, per se, and doesn't take place in a single moment in time, and its primary purpose is not to save us from an eternity in Hell, then what is it, and how does it happen?


JD: It's a big question. Let's focus for now on shallowness of Christians that Platt is pointing toward, and how that's related to the sinner's prayer. Are there other sources of shallowness in Christianity, besides this notion that Christianity is about trying not to go to hell?


DS: I feel like that's the biggest one. That's almost why some people might say that Catholicism and "Christianity," western, Protestant Christianity, are two different religions. Western Protestantism today seems to be based around that notion of avoiding hell. I think there's all kinds of shallowness, though, there are shallow things Christians say all the time, and I think that's why many people raised in the church are becoming atheists. Do you know that there are people in the church who use Job to comfort people? "Hey guess what, God's just ruining your life to test you, are you going to follow God?" And people are like, "I would rather believe that there is no God and the world is chaotic than believe in a God who would torment me on earth just so I would still love God."

I'm bringing up that example because it's in the nature of what Dave Mantel was saying: there's something that we don't know, so we just insert an answer so we can sleep at night. Well you can't sleep at night, though, when your family members have died and say you then have a terminal illness, you know—when your life starts to look like Job. Before that point, you might say God tests people who say they love God by making their lives suck, but once that happens to you, you might think "I don't believe in a God that does this."

Another example: no one can say what happens after death. We can say what we think, but we can't know. And I was talking to a Christian friend, and he said, "People need direction!" And I said "Are you saying they need answers? Because what's worse, not telling people something that no one knows, or making up an answer to something that no one knows?" As far as life after death, we only have what we believe; we can't direct people to certain answers. I think you can be a Christian and still say that.


JD: For me, the big source of shallowness in Christianity is the failure to articulate really well the other reasons there are to be Christians outside of not going to hell. I got the message growing up that it was also about being free from sin and ceasing sin was part of it, and I think being free from sin is good and is a part of why being Christian is worthwhile. But the thing is, you can stop doing wrong without being a Christian, you can be an atheist who doesn't habitually do wrong things—there's lots of them, I know them.


DM: And there's another point where I feel like, at least for evangelicals, we've really missed the mark... because, what is the Gospel? What is the point of being a Christian? Is it to be able to stop doing bad things? To avoid hell when we die? I don't mean to sound like a broken record here, but if we don't know what the point of all of this stuff is—why we do what we do—then we're just following a morality paradigm and maybe being involved with a social group once or twice a week, you know?


DS: I feel like the only convincing argument for creating a religion out of Jesus' life is the Great Commission, "go and make disciples," and I don't even see that as being a convincing reason to make a religion. But I do think that making disciples is an essential part of the gospel; the book of Acts is full of this, it's a great follow-up to the gospels, because it's just the disciples going and being empowered to make connections with other people in other lands. I think we are meant to connect with each other, and I think that's part of the message of the gospel; you see Jesus breaking down walls and getting judged for it, eating with sinners, going to Zaccheus's house, talking to a woman at the well. That seems to me to be more in the nature of what God wants from us. I don't know if that would be on David Platt's agenda, but to me, that's the thing about the sinner's prayer, it distracts us from the importance of making connections.


JD: I think the gospel is something along the lines of: Jesus came to change human history, in part by teaching us not to exclude people and to love each other and be in community, and also in some mysterious way, by defeating death. I don't know how to define the gospel, and that's embarrassing. The big problem for me is that my definition of the gospel doesn't feel uniquely Christian enough—anyone can come along and say "love each other, and also we'll never really die."


DS: I think that's a pretty good answer though. I've had this conversation with others, atheists and agnostics, who are like "Anyone can be nice!" and I'm like "I know anyone can be nice, because Jesus is for everyone, God is for everyone; everyone can be nice because these things are from God and God wants them for everyone." Which is kind of a cheap answer, an infuriating answer, and it's one way that my theology is kind of cheap and shallow. It's kind of a cop out. But you can't believe in a God who is love, but the only way to experience that love is to say some words properly. What is more ridiculous, that a God has come and given us love, and everyone on the planet experience it and have it whether they know God by name or not, or the other thing, where some white guy from the U.S. comes to you and says "Say this! 'I'm a sinner and I accept Jesus.' You feel it? You feel the love?!"


JD: Any final thoughts?


DS: I agree with David Platt in that this prayer specifically is causing people to not really be Christians but believe that they are Christians. What an actual Christian is, he and I might disagree on, but we agree on that, and I think it's nice that he said it.


Photo Sources: 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnragai/6999511358/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/powazny/2999422498/

Monday, December 2, 2013

The Historical Jesus & The Divine Messiah

by James Davisson

A few months ago, a big controversy blew up over an interview in which a Fox News reporter repeatedly asked a Muslim scholar why he had written a book about Jesus, as if this were the most utterly baffling thing! His response was basically "because I'm a scholar of religion and because Jesus is an interesting religious figure," which most people seemed to think should have been good enough.

All this talk got me interested in the book this guy wrote, which I read some reviews of and which sounded like a pretty middle-of-the-road book about "the historical Jesus." And it got me thinking about the value of the historical Jesus for Christians; what can thinking about and reading about the historical Jesus do for us? 

What does "the historical Jesus" even mean?

It's basically the answer to a BIG problem Christians don't think about too often, either because it's too scary or because it seems irrelevant to us. The problem is this: Christianity is a religion. It focuses on worshiping Jesus as God and celebrating his death and resurrection.

But, if you think about it, there's a HUGE question to be asked about this religion: did the historical person, Jesus—who lived and breathed and taught and healed in first-century Palestine—intend to start a religion? If so, how do we know? If not, what were his intentions? It all boils down to this: who exactly was Jesus, what did he want, and what was it like in the world he lived in?

Was Jesus white? Did he have a beard?
Was he constantly glowing? We may never know.

Why should anyone care?

A minority of Christians think and read about the historical Jesus, but most of us avoid this question. Some of us just don't care, basically saying "Christianity is what we have now. It doesn't matter exactly happened back in Jesus' day. What matters is my faith today." But many of us are genuinely afraid of what we might discover about the historical Jesus. What if we find evidence that Christianity just doesn't make sense? That Jesus wasn't who we thought he was, and our religion is just...silly?

These are things that can keep Christians away, but refusing to look at the historical Jesus is a little intellectually dishonest. We're essentially saying saying that the truth doesn't matter.

What's more, though, if we avoid these big questions about the historical Jesus, we risk missing out on answers that can enrich and help our faith. 

But James, I'm not a Christian.

So, what, the person whose life started the world's most practiced religion is totally irrelevant to you? There are literally billions of people currently affiliated with this guy, and tons more who were formally associated with this guy (RIP dead people). If thinking about who he really was a little bit seems completely boring and worthless to you, you need to grow a little curiosity, man. Is all I'm saying. 

Okay, prove it. Prove that this is interesting and important.

Word. I'll try.

Real talk: Jesus' heart got up to some wacky stuff in its day.

Topic: How could Jesus be the Messiah?

A big problem that comes up a lot for Christians is that Jesus was not the Messiah the Jews expected. I've actually heard this occasionally from  Jewish friends: "James, Jesus just doesn't fit the profile for the Jewish Messiah."

Putting aside for now the question of what modern Jews expect from a Messiah, let's talk about the Jews of the Jesus' time, the first century CE. The Jews of Jesus' day were expecting a descendant of king David to come to Jerusalem, defeat the Romans, and set up a kingdom of God on earth. This is what we learn in church, and this is what has long been believed in scholarly circles.

So Jesus failed to come through on most of that. He didn't defeat the Romans, he didn't set up a new kingdom: nothing. Let's set those issues aside for the moment; I may come back to them in another post, because they're interesting. The biggest problem with Jesus being the Messiah is actually that Christians believe he was God. Not only that, but we even believe that Jesus himself thought he was God and that he even claimed to be God. Everyone knows the Jews were, are, and always will be absolute monotheists. The Jews of Jesus' day only believed in one God, and he wasn't some person who walked around and talked to people, but an all-powerful cosmological figure! So it's a big problem for Christians to think that Jesus told people he was God. Wouldn't his fellow Jews just have called him crazy? Why would anyone follow this guy? It all sounds made up and weird.

There are two traditional approaches to this specific problem with the historical Jesus, which I'll call "the problem of the divine Messiah."


Would God really flash the sign of the horns in a portrait?
There's no way God is into metal. Therefore Jesus isn't God. QED.

THE PROBLEM OF THE DIVINE MESSIAH

The Skeptical Approach:

Skeptics and scholars often resolve this problem by saying that Jesus never claimed to be God. They say that Jesus' divinity and claims to be divine were invented by later Christians.

What's missing in this approach is a compelling historical reason for Christians to have come up with the idea that Jesus was God on their own. Without a supernatural event like the Resurrection (which a skeptic would naturally exclude), Christians don't seem to have had any reason to come up with the notion that Jesus was God. It would have been sheer madness for them to have imagined it on their own. And an argument that ends up implying that early Christians were all simply crazy is not particularly satisfying.

The Christian Approach:

Christians have generally said something like "God doesn't play by human rules! Just because the Jews of Jesus' day weren't expecting it, doesn't mean that Jesus couldn't have been God."

What's missing in the Christian approach is a compelling non-religious reason to buy this answer. If you're not starting from a place where you know God exists and can do amazing things, there isn't any reason to buy the idea that God just thought up a crazy, unexpected scheme to come to earth and die. And while it's okay to only have religious reasons to believe religious ideas, it is undeniably helpful and powerful to have logical, historical information that backs up your religious beliefs.

So both approaches leave something to be desired.

+  +  +

The Historical Jesus Approach:

I want to talk about two scholars, one Jewish, one Christian, who, in looking at the historical Jesus and his context, have come up with some much more compelling responses to the problem of the divine Messiah.


(1) Daniel Boyarin: The Idea of the Messiah in the 1st Century

One sneaky and excellent way to tackle this problem is to question the basic premise. Daniel Boyarin, in his book The Jewish Gospels, argues that it's just not true that the Jews of Jesus' day weren't expecting a divine Messiah.

Boyarin shows that there were actually many competing ideas about the Messiah in the first century CE. In order to prove, then, that the historical Jesus could have thought of himself and spoken of himself as God, we only need to know that some Jews of Jesus' day believed that the Messiah would be God.

In other words: if at least some Jews expected the Messiah to also be God, they might not have reacted to Jesus as completely crazy when he claimed to be both the Messiah and God. And early Christians, in turn, would not have had to come up with the idea out of thin air after Jesus' death, because it would already have been both a part of Jesus' ministry and the culture around them.

Boyarin spends several chapters giving the reader insight into 1st-century Jewish readings of Daniel 7, a text in which Daniel sees a vision of someone described as "an Ancient of Days" transfer his power and glory to someone who looked like a "Son of Man." Almost all first-century Jews took this chapter to be a picture of the relationship between God and the Messiah. And Boyarin argues persuasively that many of them would have interpreted it to mean that the Messiah would share not only God's power and glory, but also God's divinity.

Boyarin backs this idea up with analysis of a 1st-century Jewish text, 1 Enoch, in which someone called a Son of Man (= the Messiah) sits on God's throne and exercises God's authority:
"And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man, and he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth, and those who have led the world astray." (Enoch 69:27)
In The Jewish Gospels, Daniel Boyarin shows that the problem of the divine Messiah is not actually a problem at all. He argues that it would have been totally possible for a Jew, like Jesus, in first-century Palestine to claim to be both the Messiah and God without all of his fellow Jews assuming he was simply insane. They might think he was a liar, a blasphemer, and someone intending to lead them astray, but only because they did not believe his claim, rather than that the claim itself was impossible.

+  +  +


 (2) NT Wright: Jesus as Divine Redeemer, New Temple

In his book, The Challenge of Jesus, NT Wright goes a step further than Boyarin: not only was it possible for someone to make a claim to be both God and Messiah, but it is extremely likely that Jesus thought of himself this way.

Wright starts by discussing an image that's all over the Hebrew Bible: after the exile of the Jewish people, God would return in person to Jerusalem and restore justice to his people. This idea can be found in a range of books, from Isaiah and Ezekiel to Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, all the way to Psalms.

The problem was, Wright says, that until this actually happened, the exile wasn't really done for the Jews; they had returned physically to Israel, yes, but they were still an oppressed, occupied people until God returned to Jerusalem. The spiritual exile, in which God had not yet restored them to their rightful place as God's beloved people, wasn't over yet. This was a terrible situation, and Jews prayed and hoped fervently for the end of this spiritual exile.

Wright then goes on to show how, on every step of his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, Jesus saw himself and portrayed himself in the role of God returning to Jerusalem to wipe the slate clean and end Israel's exile, once and for all. One amazing example to me was the story of the prodigal son; I'll quote Wright here:
"Among the dozens of things people regularly and often rightly say about this parable, one thing is missed by virtually everybody, though I submit that it would have been blindingly obvious to most first-century Jewish listeners. A story about a scoundrel young son who goes off into a far pagan country and is then astonishingly welcomed back home is—of course!—the story of exile and restoration [that is, the son is a metaphor for the Jewish people]. And Jesus told the story to make the point that the return from exile was happening in and through his own work. The parable was not a general illustration of the timeless truth of God's forgiveness for the sinner, though of course it can be tranlsated into that. It was a sharp-edged context-specific message about what was happening in Jesus' ministry." (The Challenge of Jesus, 41-42)
Jesus saw his own coming to Jerusalem as acting out God's ending the spiritual exile of his people. It makes sense to say that he saw himself and portrayed himself as God.

Wright also makes a powerful case for Jesus claiming God's authority and power for himself, through a discussion of the main symbols of God's power on earth (Temple, Torah) and the things God's character was thought to be composed of (Spirit, Glory, Wisdom). Jesus ends up claiming the power of each of these elements of God's power for himself.

To me, the most interesting of these was this: Jesus thought of himself as replacing the Temple, the primary symbol of God on earth in first-century Judaism. Wright shows that Jesus actually thought of himself as the new Temple. The most obvious one is this: the major function of the Temple in Judaism was that it was where you went to get your sins forgiven. Jesus, controversially, claimed the power to forgive sins for himself!

NT Wright shows us that Jesus had a well-thought-out theology of who he was and what he was sent to do. He shows that Jesus felt called to enact God's promise to return to Jerusalem and restore Israel to her rightful place, though in a way that Jews at his time did not expect. We can see ample evidence of this throughout the gospels if we look for it. I would encourage readers to check out The Challenge of Jesus for more persuasive arguments.

Conclusion:

The historical Jesus was someone who claimed to be God. This is true, and it doesn't mean that he, or his followers, were crazy. This is something to really think about, friends.

Jesus might or might not have set out with the intention of starting a new religion, but examining in detail who he was and what he did and thought need not be a scary proposition for those of us who practice the religion that came after him. In doing so, we can certainly learn something that will impact the way we live and think about our faith. I know examining this question and others about the historical Jesus through books like the The Jewish Gospels and The Challenge of Jesus has renewed and invigorated my faith, rather than weakening or killing it. What might it do to yours?


Sources:
Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels
NT Wright, The Challenge of Jesus

Photo Sources:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jezus_-_actor.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Sacre_Coeur_de_Jesus_%28HS85-10-32787%29.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1135_Mosaikikone_mit_Christus_dem_Barmherzigen_Bodemuseum_anagoria.JPG

http://andyrossagency.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/jewishgospels.jpg
http://vialogue.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/challenge-of-jesus.jpg?w=594