Not according to Garry Wills, anyway. He describes Jesus as radical, scandalous, and one whose presence was subversive. Jesus opposed church and societal hierarchy and resisted formalisms in worship, quoting Hosea 6, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." And Jesus often challenged the arrogance and authority of spiritual leaders.
What's more, Wills contends, Jesus was against religion, so religion went against Jesus. "The most striking, resented and dangerous of Jesus' activities was his opposition to religion as that was understood in his time." Many of Jesus statements and actions were directed against religion; and so, it was religion that killed him! No doubt, this view creates a big problem for the What-Would-Jesus-Do (WWJD) crowd, and takes "wanting to be more like Christ" into the opposite direction. A true understanding of Jesus, Wills asserts, can't be gleaned just from understanding what Jesus said. It is necessary for us to understand what Jesus actually "meant" by his strange actions and vague words. That is the central premise of his book.
What did you like most about Will's view of Jesus?
What did you like least?
How well do you think Will's makes his case based on your reading of the relevant Bible passages and context?
What points did Wills assert, but, in your mind, was not convincing enough for you?
Posts
27 comments:
I liked this book and give it two thumbs up. Here is some of my thinking.
Wills did an excellent job challenging the WWJD picture of Jesus, and showing that Jesus was a radical whose ideas and actions threatened religious leaders! And who communiated ambigiously while sowing a transformation.
Wills also effectively elaborated the extent to which Jesus violated the societal and religious order (holiness code) including relationships with the "unclean."
Ideas that stretched me were the chapters "Heaven's Reign, Descent in Hell and Death of God." Those will require much more reading and soak time for me.
I agree with one of the book reviewers who called it a "spiritual workout."
While I haven't finished reading this book yet, what I have read has been provocative. In a good way. Such as explaining how Jesus may have learned Hebrew from the Essenes and how his departure from carpentry and then from the ascetics of John the Baptist pretty much disappointed everyone near him.
I think the foreword title "Christ not a Christian" is misleading. Intentionally so. And I'm wrestling with the idea that Jesus didn't always practice what he preached but remained sinless? [i.e.-sounded mean and sarcastic and intentionally confrontational when 1 Cor 13 says love is patient and kind and keeps no record of wrongs.]
Wasn't Wills point in the beginning of the book that we can not always do what Jesus did because he was God? Can't Jesus be our example without us becoming His carbon copy?
Yeah, I agree.
But now, looking through lens of Wills, I´m afraid to imagine what Jesus would see and do if He came to any of the local churches and Christian communities?
I wonder if we would welcome or resist Jesus? And how would we deal with Him? A different twist on the WWJD idea because it may be more threatening than we previously thought?
Pretty cool to be blogging with you from Rio!
Isn't the point of being christian to be Christ like?
No, the point of being a Christian is to become a UNIQUE child-of-God. Not a clone but rather a human, born of this world, inviting God-likness to grow in my unique genetic soil. Becoming a child-of-God does not require the sacrifice of individuality.
I’d say the point of being a Christian is to know Jesus. At least that's what I think Jesus' goal was for His disciples in John 17:3 NIV. Paul said it this way in Philippians 3:8 NIV “I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus.” Could being Christlike be more the result than the goal?
If God, Jesus, is all knowing how can he learn? I don’t know. But that’s what Hebrews 5:8 NIV says He did about suffering. Which makes me think in his humanity Jesus learned other stuff too. Such as how to breast feed and walk and make stuff from wood...
My previous comment was published under Anonymous. It has now been corrected.
To the issue:
"As`a man thinketh in his heart so is he;" this aphorism not only embraces the whole of a man's being, but is so comprehensive as to reach out to every condition and circumstance of his life. A man is literally what he thinks, his character being the complete sum of all his thoughts.*
*(James Allen's "As A Man Thinketh")
When one becomes truly justified, the transformation begins. One's thoughts change...what one thinks about gadually shifts as one gets to know God.
There is nothing mystical about santification. It is natural to the nature of man.
The religous experience (evolving toward being a true child-of-God) doesn't defy sociology or psychology, the phenomenon of transforation actually operates quite comfortably within our understanding of what man has learned about what makes us tick.
All too often fundementalist-Christians belittle/denegrate God's most miraculous creation: Man and his wonderous ability to THINK.
Thinking is not incompatible with harmony with God.
Blind, thoughtless, heartless obedience is repulsive to God.
I do not beleive that we must justify everythng with a verse of scripture.for it has been quite correctly cited that "any fool in error can find a verse of scripture to justify his point-of-view."
God's gift to man is THOUGHT; not to be worshiped but to be revered.
always doubtful
It seems that all too often we deny Christ his humanity. We've made him purely and solely God and have ingnored the nottion that Christ is a unique and mystical blend of diety and humanity. We say we wish to be Christ-like; rarely does one say they wish to be God-like. When someone says that they wish to be God-like it is usually viewed as an ego that has gone out of control
When did we stop worshiping God the father? Is it because we associate God the father with the angry God of retribution and judgeent that we find portrayed the the Old Testament? Is Christ easier to deal with? Is it because he, by virtue of living as a man, understands our "feelings", our emotions, our conflicts?
Why is it necessary to view Christ as our intercessor when God and Christ are ostensibly the same?
Why is it so hard to view Christ as God's chosen vessel to become the Messiah? Why do we insist on Christ being equal to God?
Is the thought so repulsive that monotheistic God of the Jewish faith is the father, which is exactly how Christ himself continually refers to Him, and the human-woman, Mary, being his mother? Is Christ somehow diminished by this union of God and man...the God-Man?
I do not find Christ diminished at all be this; in fact, I find him so much more explainable, appealing and approachable.
Always Doubtful
Wow, these are excellent questions you raise, Always Doubtful!
Unable to answer your questions off the top of my head, I consulted the Gospel of John, which I assumed is the most articulate voice for the doctrine of the threefold God. Still consulting.
I also consulted Fast Facts on Trinity...
"Christians regards their religion as monotheistic, since Christianity teaches the existence of one God - Yahweh, the God of the Jews. It shares this belief with two other major world religions, Judaism and Islam.
"However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but that three distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity (from Latin trinitas, "three").
"The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
Arianism (4th century)
Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Unitarianism
"Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
"Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative."
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm
I'm still processing. In the meantime, would anyone else like to jump in?
Dear Life is Good:
Life IS good by the way!!!
Just a quick note to acknowledge your thoughtful replay.
I'm headed out of town and will respond more fully when I can grab some time to ponder.
My initial reaction was triggered by your correctly citing the commonly expressed definetion of the trinity as "one God, three persons." Frankly it gives me pause to chuckle.
To my way of thinking, A rose by any other name is still a rose...and you can call a horse a chicken but you'll never get one to lay an egg.
You can call three dieties ONE but three God's is still polytheism.
Always doubtful.
I've been following the discussion and will jump in now. I just copied the last few posts into a Word doc and will take this home to write a response-- hopefully-- tonight.
Good thoughts all around.
This is a great discussion thread. I'm glad Gulliver is traveling in...I'm eager to hear Gulliver's musings, and others.
Interestingly, I find myself trying to understand the duck, (if it quacks like a duck) as Always Doubtful casts it beautifully as a "rose by any other name."
My predicament is this: I find the concept of the trinity (as defined by folks from Nicene) hard to explain (rose by any other name). But what blows me away is that those movements commonly known as "cults" above (because they are extra biblical also includes early Adventism, EGW and James) are those most resistant to the doctrine of the Trinity.
So as a contrarian, I find it easier to go against the grain (Nicene), in terms of the trinity. But as a proponent of sola scriptura, I find myself supporting reading John and accepting the traditional view of the trinity, which I find hard to understand.
What's a fellow or gal to do?
Hey Always Doubtful, it would be so cool to get you blogging from Casablanca! Here's lookin at ya!
Safe travels!
I am sorry I have been distracted for a few days.Sola Scriptura = ?
I agree that it is possible to prove many things just by quoting a verse of scripture that is why it is essential to look at all of, or at least major portions of, scripture to get the points. (Or are you suggesting that we should use something other than the Bible as a guide? Please do not tell me conscience.)
Faith is essential for salvage, so most definitally was the sacrfice of the cross,but these verses and others make it clear that obeying is essential also: Luke 6:46-49; 8:15; 8:21; 11:28 John 3:21; 3:36; 8:51; 14:21; Matt. 7:24; 12:50; 19:17
Mark 12:28-34
Acts 3:22-23; 5:29; 10:35;
Romans 1:5; 2:1-6; 16:26;
1Corth. 7:19 these are just in the first few books of the New Testament. There are many more. In fact, I reknowned Bible scholar told me that there are three times as many refernces to obeying than there are for faith.
The Trinity sure is a mystery. I think is was Wills that said God the father was with Jesus up to the point of Gethsemane. that maybe why he was able to speak to him as a seperate being.
Hey Anonymous...glad to see your thoughts.
Just to clarify... I'm using "sola scriptura" or 'by scripture alone'...as one of the five solas that came from the protestant reformation, and are principles commonly embraced by mainline protestant churches...glory to God alone, through Christ alone, by grace alone, by faith alone, by scripture alone...
In my mind, that means the Bible is the only infallible authority for Christian faith. Not prophets, popes or other types of church leaders or founders that came after the Bible was written. And certainly, not conscience. Hope that clarifies your questions.
I agree there are many texts for obedience. But it is the sequence of faith, justification and obedience on which we don't agree, it seems.
I accept the formula that justification or being declared right by God is received by faith in Christ alone and that "faith in Christ alone produces justification and good works."
However the formula for catholic (and other movements)is "faith PLUS good works produces justification or being declared right by God."
Dear “Life is Good”
In my earlier message to you I concurred that, indeed, Life IS Good.
For some others within our little community of S-T-R-E-T-C-H responders there may be a legitimate cause to question how anyone who refers to himself as “always doubtful” could possibly have a “Life is Good” mind-set. Allow me to explain. Always being doubtful is not a sentence in purgatory nor is it jaded nor pessimistic nor eternally sour. Quite the contrary; a spirited skepticism can be invigorating and satisfying if it is tempered by optimism and an honest relationship with God.
To question…to wrestle…to demand good logic and good sense from one’s structure of core-beliefs is conducive to maintaining healthy psychology and a growing relationship with God.
In my mind, those to be pitied are the timid souls who accept without question those rigid doctrines that have been chiseled in stone never to be challenged. Their doubts are closeted and locked away with that catch-all admonition, to doubt is to lack faith or perhaps they are held in check by the fear being belittled by the “spiritual bully” (aka a “spiritually stronger brother or sister”), smugly spouting some obscure verse of scripture or passage from some other generally regarded inspired source.
Expressing doubt is, on the other hand, liberating. It constitutes an acknowledgement that sanctification IS the work of lifetime. It is a confession that, “I don’t have all the answers but by golly I’m going to question them until I am satisfied.”
And, I’m sorry to say but, currently… in my own opinion; the Bible is not the only source of truth. There are too many contradictions and incompatible theologies for me to depend on it as my sole source for determining what I believe. Don’t get me wrong, there is no other document I respect more and it is certainly the first document to which I will refer when I seek comfort or need answers. The difference is that I view it as A RESOURCE not as THE SOURCE.
Well, enough about that!
Thank you “Life is Good” for your mini-whitepaper on the Trinity. I truly appreciate your capacity for objectivity and willingness to dive in.
I’ve spent some of my own time pondering the matter and still conclude that the Trinity doesn’t make sense to me. Some might say Always, (friends call me Always) “it doesn’t have to make sense; you have to accept it on faith.” There’s that catch all admonition again.
Whoa, stop! Are you telling me that God wishes us to abandon the Gift that differentiates us from all other living creatures; our ability to think, to reason, to understand value, to discern? Man is inferior to other animals in all other characteristics…animals are faster, stronger, sometimes more cunning. They’re senses are more acute; better vision, hearing, smell, touch. But they can’t think the way we think…they cannot analyze to the depths we can nor can they immerse themselves in the abstract. They can problem solve but not make complex judgments based on values, and history and philosophy. That spark of God in us is somehow tied to our ability to think and to communicate our thoughts.
Why would God counsel his special creation to “come let us reason together” if he has no intention of allowing our reason to be a key element of our becoming one with him?
I believe that if God wants me to accept the Trinity, he will lead me to understand.
Right now though, I’m not buying it.
The traditional Reasons Given for believing in the Trinity you quoted were:
1. It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible.
Racism, the inferiority of Women, anti-semeticism and God as an exacting, vengeful and spiteful deity are also taught indirectly in various statement in the Bible
2. It explains the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism.
It does? I don’t think so.
3. It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds.
Wow, talk about the ultimate smug evasion and exactly to my point that God has no intention of reasoning with mankind.
4. The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authorative.
To whom? When one studies the Council of Nicea and becomes acquainted with the politics, deal making, petty jealousies and treachery of these early church fathers, one would blanch with embarrassment. The image of the Council being Godly men, prayerfully seeking divine enlightenment is a myth that has been successfully marketed by the many generations of church fathers that followed.
Additionally, we should invest some further thought to Christ as the Second Adam, the Lamb of God or the Son who continually submits himself to God’s will before we claim that Christ is God.
Always Doubting
It seems the trip to Casablanca gave you time for further thinking on this issue, Always Doubtful. Welcome back. You've expressed your thoughts clearly.
I've seldom questioned the concept of how three gods can be one God. I just accepted it because it was never an issue for me.
However, I'm not as sure about how well I understand the three-in-one as a monotheistic Godhead as I once was. The more I study the life of Jesus, and especially Jesus's intimate and passionate prayers to his Father in John 17, it is becoming harder for me to see the Trinity in the same way I easily accepted before.
Jesus the Son's loving and pleading prayers to God the Father in John makes it hard for me to see the Godhead as one God, rather than separate beings of Son pleading with Father. And not Son pleading with himself as Father.
In John 17, as Jesus continues to talk about being one with his Father, Jesus the Son also prays that those who believe in him will be one with "us" as Jesus and the Father are one. I'm not sure how such unity melds separate beings into one. That is a mystery.
That's all I can think about for now, anyway. At least on the Trinity issue. And I leave much room for the idea that God also can leave mysteries for us.
I'd like to comment on a different point...
Clearly you make a great point about God giving us the gift to think and reason. No question. Especially as it applies to complex doctrines of understanding the Trinity as monotheistic. I agree.
However, when it comes to the doctrines of forgiveness, grace, belief and justification, I wonder whether the ability to reason can cloud judgment of simple gospel truths as these.
Here's why.
When I look at those who seemed to understand the grace of Christ quickly, it took the intellectuals, lawyers, priests and scholars much longer, if ever, to trust and accept the grace of Christ.
Whereas the beggars, prostitutes, and more "common" people or outcasts seemed to get Jesus quickly. And it seems that Christ's affinity to the "least of these" has something to say about whether intellect, or ability to reason may cloud the ability to understand and accept a simple truth of forgiveness, belief and grace.
Wills makes the interesting point that the disciples Jesus picked to move his gospel truth forward were not giants of intellect but simple people like fishermen and wild men like John the Baptist.
And, with regard to the Trinity doctrine emerging from learned minds at Nicea, it is probable that the Council may have been composed of some of the same types of minds that the Pharisees and Saducees had with regard to the Law. So there is nothing absolute about its conclusions. I agree.
I'm not sure about the relationship between thought and faith, between a "reasoning faith" like Abraham in Romans 4, and "blind" faith of the woman who touched Jesus garment.
I wonder often whether reason and dependence on intellect can get in the way of the kind of faith Jesus wants us to have as we trust in him, like the thief on the cross.
Thanks for stretching us here, Always Doubtful. You raise great points. I am eager to read your further ideas as well as the thoughts of others whom we're inviting to respond to this dialog.
Please jump in soon, gang!
Dear Life is Good:
You ARE a friend, so feel free to just call me "Always."
Read your response and accept it as valued-added grist that helps turn those millstones in my mind.
I fully recognize that Christ avoided the "Scholars and Academics" in selecting the Strike-force that would lead the assault on the world's old thinking.
Why the avoidance? Perhaps it was because they viewed themselves as "intellectuals" and had fallen in love with the debate rather than the answers. In my mind, they had lost touch with the practical side of asking questions; searching for answers.
The danger of thinking that you're smart is that you tend to take yourself too seriously and fail to realize that everyone else is also smart. You don’t have t have a Degree or Pedigree to be smart. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known did not have degrees.
I suspect that these "simple people" that Christ selected weren't simple at all but actually quite intelligent.
I would further suggest that they didn't just naively accept everything that their dynamic, charismatic and controversial teacher had to say. They questioned, pondered, questioned again and sometimes perhaps bristled with some of the responses that the Savior delivered.
Did not the wild-eyed fanatic, John the Baptist, doubt? Didn't he send messengers with the question; "Are you the one or should I be seeking another?" I am also sure that the documented doubt of Thomas was not the first time that Thomas needed a better explanation or more compelling evidence to satisfy his questions.
No, the disciples weren’t at simple at all. They were strong minded, opinionated and intelligent but, thankfully they did not have a predisposition to become members of a debating society. They just wanted answers.
One of the wondrous aspects of Christianity is that there is room for the simple faith of the Woman who touched the hem of his robe and for the scholarly thoughts of Nicodemis.
To the Trinity issue: The Trinity is not necessary to explain Christ. His miraculous birth, his life, his message, his mission as God’s chosen one to become the Messiah is enough.
The need for the Trinity represents an over-kill.
Hello Always Doubtful and Life is Good.
Sometimes I think we try to overthink things. Don't get me wrong, I really like the indepth questions and talk. But the Bible - if we believe it to be inspired - says for us to do simple things - such as believe, have faith and love each other. Believeing is not always easy, but John 3:16 sums it up well. Then earlier in John (I think), Jesus said the one commandment is to love each other as Jesus Loves us. He loved us enough to die for us so we could live forever with Him.
I enjoy reading the postings, and maybe it is my simple mind, but if I have the faith to believe in Christ, along with love and care for other people, I know this helps me feel calmer inside today to better cope with life.
Hey Cowboy:
You are of course correct in your observation that the essense of the Christian experience is built upon the simplicity of acceptance of the gift and then allowing yourself to become emmerced in love.
The rest is designed to satisfy individual cravings for extraneous detail that, while intellectually stimulating, does little to improve one's standing with God.
My best
Always Doubtful
Wills' point about the Heavenly Banquet, and abundance in God's reign is an attractive image to me.
I especially liked the the "ecstatic excess in scripture" and the rich imagery of abundance in the final banquet Wills uses to describe various stories and parables showing excess throughout the Bible. Like Christ turning 100+ gallons of water into wine in Cana, or overflowing amount of bread and fish.
Dear Life is Good:
Yes, great symbolism on Blessings and gifts far in excess of that which we, by our acts, would seemingly deserve.
? How often though do we declare how unworthy we are? ? But allow for a few questions! ? If Jesus, the Son of Man, beleives we are worthy of his gift is it insulting for us to declare our wretchedness? ?Is any child of God wretched? Can we feel comfortable in denigrating ourselves when, no matter how far removed we may be from Adam, mankind remains the crowning achievement of God's creation?
Always Doubtful
Fides Quarens Intellectum
Always Doubtful's comments about the Bible not being the only source of authority for him is a challenging concept for me...especially after believing all these years in "sola scriptura (Bible alone)" principle from the Reformation.
Now, after discovering much about the oral traditions, authorship of books of the Bible, various church councils, and the process (if you can call it that) of canon in the old and new testament, I'm no longer sure that God would rely SOLELY on the Bible to reveal Himself to mankind, and would confine His revelation of His loving plan to save the world just to the context of Jewish-Christian world and its traditions resulting in the Bible as we know it now.
My smug comfort in my previous belief that the Bible is my only authority is now cautiously open to inquire about other forms and ways God reveals himself to us and to others who don't know him, and who did not have access to Jewish-Christian traditions.
What happened? Did we answer all the questions? So, what Have we learned?
Post a Comment