A friend of mine recently attended a lecture in Edmonton by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. Both are biblical scholars and Jesus Seminar fellows …Crossan engaged in biblical archeology while Borg an influential voice in progressive Christianity – among other things of course. My friend discussed a few of the ideas he took away from the lecture – one of interest to me was the notion of Jesus as a man rather than something larger …like the son of a God for example. I decided to sample a smaller book by Crossan titled Who Is Jesus – Answers To Your Questions About The Historical Jesus …and to see what this idea of Jesus as someone other than …Jesus, exactly is.
From what I can tell, both Crossan and Borg are controversial with most further right Christians, as well as some left leaning ones too. In the same breath, a lot of religious people who have had a hard time with the Modern Church have found their views refreshing; the result being a new found sense of Faith that was previously in question. If you’ve read some of my other posts then you’d realize that I’m not religious in the sense of what religion typically means to typical people (can I be anymore vague) however, I’m always fascinated as to why people think and act the way they do, religious or not, and the Bible without a doubt, has a great impact on culture here in Canada – as well as with our close US neighbors to the south. With this in mind, here are some excerpts from his book that caught my attention as well as my mixed-up thoughts on a few of them.
——————-
“Every religion, Christianity like all others, must be experienced as absolutely unique to the believer. But all religions, Christianity like all others, must acknowledge that others experience that same uniqueness. Religions may and even should compare themselves to one another in public discourse, but no religion can claim an initial monopoly on the holy, the sacred, or the divine. Indeed, in any such monopolistic claim there lies embedded a genocidal impulse.” p24
I like this. The problem though, if you take things to their logical conclusion, is you can have thousands of different religions and all of equal merit. What would tie them together? Perhaps this idea leads to the notion that religions can be universally bound by some sort of general, humanistic value/outlook to and of life, which in turn would negate the need for the organized structure of religion in the first place …that that value might simply be inherent in the human condition? With or without religion, we each experience our own uniqueness with the world, and the ‘organizing’ of it shouldn’t necessarily be granted a level of credibility.
“As we have often seen, later Christian scribes looked backward to cull from the Hebrew scriptures passages that might interpret the ministry of Jesus – and sometimes those passages become the inspiration for actually creating events“ p101.
Hummmm. And the scribes of the Hebrews scriptures culled from? Etc, etc…
“To be a Christian is to live in the tension between Jesus’ radical message/lifestyle and the requirements of daily life for most of us. Meeting Jesus is a little bit like watching Michael Jordan play basketball. You’re probably not going to be a Michael Jordan, but you see in him amazing possibilities for the human body – and maybe you start treating your own more respectfully. In a similar way, in Jesus we see new possibilities for human living. When we take him seriously, we live in a creative tension between the requirements of our usual life (…) and the radical challenge of living counter-culturally.“ p 92
This one is tough. I know what he’s getting at with the MJ analogy, but who exactly is MJ aside from just another guy? Is his world any more special than ours? The problem with this idea of ‘creative tension’ is that there’s more (or rather there should be more) to a spiritual life than aspiring to some other persons greater ability. Looking up to someone other than yourself is normal. The same can be said for admiring chess champions, opera virtuosos, card counters, billiard kings, prize winning chemists, medal-winning ski jumpers or countless other less popular ‘achievers’. How should that be ‘God-like’? If I thought of Jesus at all, I’d like to think that meeting him would be more than just meeting another skilled orator who caught a wave of Judaic popularity, was envied by his peers and then subsequently had his accomplishments noted as holy scripture. We all have skills …but it just so happens that some are valued more-so than others, which unfairly translates to popularity. I’m sure Jesus would be the last person to proclaim his ‘value’ …just as MJ would be the first to admit he’s just a normal guy who got some lucky breaks with what he did. The importance should instead, I feel, lie in recognizing those talents/gifts in others without the exclusion based on popularity. If Godly virtues can be extolled through man, then what’s the need of God? Without Jesus as something more than man, we’re only proclaiming ourselves in a sense. If that makes sense…
Question: “But is it possible that he (Jesus) was buried?” “Yes, it is possible. What I must deal with, as a historian, is probability. If I were giving testimony in a courtroom, and I were asked in cross examination, “Now Professor Crossan, isn’t it possible that…” I would have to answer, “Yes – of course.” In historical reconstruction we do not deal in certainties. What I have offered here – and elsewhere – is my best judgement, based on my historical research – of the most likely scenario.“ p113
‘Probability’ is a fantastic way of looking at past information, and provides that solid foundation on which other judgments are based. Much of the Bible though, is a history of similar probability – not certainty. For myself, the idea of doubt or uncertainty in one instance translates across others …that is, when one basic premise is in doubt, all subsequent processes built on that premise must also share that same doubt. Things don’t improve when you get further down the line either, and problems abound when formal arguments and systems are based on uncertain foundations.
“I don’t deny that in these stories we are entertaining a world of thought and practice that is very, very strange to us. That may, indeed, be the beginning of wisdom: to recognize that the world of the biblical story is, in many ways, not our world. That recognition will at least keep us from making gross errors of assuming that we can understand it on twentieth-century terms.“ p66
Separating our lives from fiction would hardly be an indicator of wisdom …so perhaps he’s suggesting that in the case of the Bible (being often regarded in its entirety as fact), that when considered from a modern perspective, is granted as wisdom? Those who take biblical stories literally are far and few between I think, but any interpretations (putting aside wreckless or lazy study) are still subject to individual beliefs. The problem though is why should one interpretation be better than another? To what ‘goals’ might these interpretations be directed? Wouldn’t all interpretations be subject to our own ‘fundamental assumptions’ …or axioms, as Alan Watts mentions in this interesting video (click).
“…resurrection is one – but only one – of the metaphors used to express the sense of Jesus’ continuing presence with his followers and friends.“ p121.
Throughout the book Crossan comments on much of what he feels is symbolism and metaphor in the Bible. This is probably hard to take for the literalist, but as mentioned earlier, it’s the probability of something having occurred that generates its possible doubt …which then leads to its dismissal as symbolic. “…the Emmaus story isn’t a fact, but it is true. It’s a symbolic picture of Christian faith deepening over time.” p125. Statements like ‘fact but not true’ kinda reminds me of the Clinton trial unfortunately.
“But if we build the meaning of this present life on its being eternal, I’m pretty sure we’re wrong. Or if we use the prospect of eternal life to dull us to the present world and its injustices, we’re wrong. If there is not enough meaning in life that we must imagine having it in a future life, we’re wrong.” p131
I like how ‘pretty sure’ is followed by ’sure’ …kinda funny. To dismiss the entire ‘life after death’ belief would be out-there for most believers I think. Without it, you’re pretty much stuck with the life you live. Your soul doesn’t ‘go’ anywhere when you die, there’s no ‘reuniting’ and there’s no comfort in having someone ‘looking down from above’ …or looking out for you at all for that matter. The whole ’spirit’ thing kinda becomes null and void in a way. Shouldn’t these be a big part of religion …a big part of its mystery? The endless, nonexclusive, imaginative possibilities of the ‘idea’ of ourselves after our physical death?
——————————–
There are other interesting ideas of course, but these are the ones that compelled me to take notes, and as I mentioned earlier …I’m not ‘in the loop’ and I’m sure I’ve missed countless other worthwhile thoughts. Although I think there’s more shades of belief in the world than shades themselves, and there’s a lot to be learned from any sincere attempt at understanding the world we live in, this idea from Crossan kinda takes the religion out of religion. Is he sincere in his portrayal of Jesus as a man? I believe so. And I also believe that the writers of the Bible, as divinely inspired as they were, were also men …or man – like you, me …and MJ.
Religion though, I think, should be something greater. Shouldn’t it? The problem is that the only people who can express that (or have ever expressed it!) happen to be human. They happen to be us. You, me and MJ. How then, can we express more than what we are? How can we express the inexpressible? Could this be the point where faith begins?
Or might faith simply be a measure of probability?
