I wanted to take a look at how folks look at the teachings of Jesus. There are a lot of facets to this, so I am going to try to not cover too much in any single post. To me it seems like the place to start is with the question, "If we should follow (or heed, or obey, or take seriously) the teachings of Jesus, what is it about either the teachings themselves or about Jesus that makes them worthy of being followed?". Why should we follow Jesus teaching? It seems that if we can't lay that foundation, then none of the rest of it really matters.
Back in the day, it was fairly common to hear people who
were not Christian say things like “Jesus was a great moral teacher.”. This kind of thing is what prompted C.S.
Lewis to come up with the “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” formulation as a
response. Now things are a bit
different. We live in a culture where
people who claim to be Christians say things like the following.
(Note, historically the pronouns referring
to Jesus are capitalized to indicate His divinity. One must wonder why to writers of the following quotes, who all identify as a Christian, chose not to capitalize. Is it possible that it is a way to minimize or deny Jesus claims to divinity?)
“The original sin of Christianity is to think it’s about
Jesus.”
“Jesus may have been a historical figure, but most of what
we know about his is in the form of legend.”
“Many liberal or progressive Christians have already let go
or de-emphasized belief in Heaven, that the Bible is literally true, that Jesus
is supernatural, and that Christianity is the only way.”
“But without the supernatural stuff, the teachings of Christ
were not original or even that progressive.
Nobody would give a shit if they didn’t think he was the creator of all
time, space, and matter. Hell, some of
his teachings were flat out draconian.”
“Of course Jesus didn’t exist prior to his time on earth.
Jesus was the name of a certain flesh and blood man born at a certain time
early in the first century of the modern era.”
“The search for the historical Jesus that has gone on since
the enlightenment is an act of creativity at least as much as discovery.”
“Another view gaining popularity is that Jesus was not an
historical person. Instead he was a composite
figure created over time.”
“1st century Jesus is not as inclusive and
feminist as I would like.”
“I think he is often harsh and is pretty consistently a jerk
to his closest followers, deriding them for their lack of understanding while
he intentionally speaks in abstract riddles.”
At the same time, within the scope of people that identify
as Christian, that the very existence of Jesus is up for grabs, and the
veracity of the words attributed to Him is “determined” by casting lots, how do
we respond to Jesus?
We also hear this kind of thing fairly often.
“Let us, please, take Jesus exactly at his word”
“But let us please take Jesus at his word and take THAT word
seriously, if we are going to be followers of Jesus.”
“And we should seek to embrace them all, if we are followers
of Jesus.”
“We should seek wisdom and truth in all these teachings,
seems to me.”
“Jesus followers should rationally follow Jesus’ teachings.
All of the ACTUAL teachings.”
“My point was to follow Jesus teachings.”
“Perhaps we really need to hold more tightly to Jesus
teachings?”
“We ALL should do better at heeding those teachings.”
“And I am quite specifically speaking of following Jesus
teachings, that was my point.”
“I’m positing that we, who follow Jesus, should follow his
teachings.”
So where does that leave us?
What does that do to the teachings of Jesus?
How should we treat the teachings of Jesus?
Can the two positions above both be considered Christian?
Are Jesus’ teachings objectively “good” or “right”?
But the single biggest question I have is why do these
people think we should “heed”, “follow”, or “hold tightly” to the teachings of
Jesus?
What is it about those teachings that are authoritative
enough that we should follow them?
"If Jesus was not God incarnate, if Jesus was a composite, does that make the teachings ascribed to Him more or less worthy of being followed.
14 comments:
Frankly, if Jesus is not God (nor even just the Son of God), then there is nothing inherently special about His teachings that compel us to adhere to them. It is mere personal preference, but not objective truth .
Which is,I believe, the point of Lewis' formulation. At best when you strip away Jesus' divinity you end up with someone on the same level as Buddha or any one of a number of "wise" men. The problem comes when you say "should ". Once you go there then it seems like there needs to be some sort of authority to justify the should.
I suggest we ought follow Jesus because his way is right, it holds up to rational and moral scrutiny, it makes sense, it leads to and contributes to grace, well-being, goodness, righteousness, love and moves away from hatred, war, harsh judgmentalism, hell. We ought NOT follow Jesus (I believe Jesus taught) simply because we find his words in the Bible or Scripture. We ought NOT follow Jesus out of a sense of legalism (even attempted legalism to Jesus' teachings). That would be contrary to the teachings of Jesus and, I think, to good sense and grace.
One man's opinion.
Do you think we ought to do those things which lead to grace, love, peace, etc? I'm sure you agree with my conclusion. On what basis do YOU agree with my conclusion, then, if not the same reasoning I hold? "Because the Bible says so..."? But the Bible says a good many things which you don't embrace, any more than I do. So, why? Sola Scriptura? But the Bible doesn't teach that, so that's a self-defeating argument, agreed?
Thanks Dan, you think that "we"(by which I guess you mean humanity in general" because you hold certain opinions about what you believe the teachings of Jesus do for ourselves. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have no objective proof for your opinions. Nothing to suggest that Jesup has any more authority than Buddha or any other human "teacher".
When you say "his" way is "right", are you suggesting that there is a way that is objectively "right" or that "his" way just seems "right" to you?
Just for grins name one thing the Bible says that I don't "embrace"? FYI, I think the term embrace is one of those intentionally loaded terms you love to use so that you drive the answer in the direction you want. I would say that there is no teaching in the Bible that I do not take seriously in its proper context.
That it seems right to me and many others, yes.
And no, I have no objective proof that I am objectively right, just as you have no objective proof that you are right.
Do you agree that you have no objective proof to support we ought to do what you think the Bible says because it is the Bible saying it? Or that "God said it" is applicable to your interpretation of a particular passage? Or because of the human theory of SS? That all of these theories are subjective, not objective? Not provable?
What do you not embrace in Jesus' teachings? I don't know that you do. I am concerned that you appear to embrace additional teachings Jesus never taught (like Penal Substitutionary Atonement or Sola Scriptura) as being teachings that Jesus "taught" and that God demands we embrace, but maybe I'm mistaken on that point.
That is, I'm more concerned about what you might be adding to Jesus' teachings that he didn't teach (and claiming it is of Jesus, not humans) than any specific rejection of Jesus' literal teachings. But you tell me. I don't know that I have said that you don't embrace Jesus' teachings. Since I accept you as a brother in Christ, clearly I do think that you do generally embrace Jesus' teachings.
Do you think the same of me?
Oh, I see what you're asking. You don't embrace polygamy, even though it is literally there in the Bible. You don't embrace the notion that God commands people to sometimes kill babies (or maybe you do, you tell me). You don't embrace the idea that we ought to kill adulterers (or maybe you do, you tell me). You don't embrace the idea that we ought to not have menstrual sex (or maybe you do, etc). Like that.
Apparently unlike you I am able to recognize that there are a number of things that are taught in scripture without being explicitly named in scripture (a trinitarian view of God for example )
I realize it's a bit more nuanced than you'd like, but it seems reasonable to conclude by looking at Jesus words, that they (and scripture as a whole ) do support many of the doctrines you deride. The fact that you don't /won't accept how others have characterized Biblical teaching is really quite immaterial.
I must admit that your derisive use of "God said it", intregue's me. Most Christian believers would consider God said it as something to be treasured not put in scare quotes.
Your last comment makes no sense, maybe you could try to be more coherent.
Despite your failure to comprehend what I expected from you at the other post, and my promise to delete your comments until you complied with what I asked of you, I am going to respond to this because it demonstrates quite clearly your willingness to misrepresent the positions of others. It demonstrates quite clearly your inability to back up your claims with either fact, evidence, or support.
"You dismiss "God said it" when someone claims that God wants us to kill babies and cites a passage from the Bible. You dismiss "God said it" when someone says that Jesus doesn't want us to kill our enemies."
My response to this blatant misrepresentation is that unless you can provide actual quotes from me to support your claim, you have simply chosen to make up what you imagine my position to be. To imagine my position in a way that supports your twisting of my position. To imagine my position in a way that cannot be supported by anything other than your misrepresentations. To be clear, your statement above is 100% false. If you repeat it after having been corrected in this manner, you will be engaging in intentional and willful lies.
Clear?
"And I see you're not answering any of my questions, while continuing to ask questions of me."
And I see that you are just as bitchy, demanding, and impatient as ever. I chose to make some limited responses to your comments from my phone during some down time at work towards the and and after my 14 plus hour workday.
So how about you give me a break, stop the bitchy whining, show a tiny bit of patience, and maybe just the teeniest smidgen of that grace you always brag about.
"Do you think we ought to do those things which lead to grace, love, peace, etc?"
Sure, as a response to our salvation. Not as the means of our salvation. Oh, and because (in one of those rules you don't like to admit exist), Jesus commanded it. Then He said that if we don't keep His commandments, we don't love Him. I wonder what He though about people who deny His commandments are commandments.
"I'm sure you agree with my conclusion. On what basis do YOU agree with my conclusion, then, if not the same reasoning I hold?"
You phrased this as a question, but it seems more like self congratulatory hubris. Since I haven't seen anything that qualifies as "Reasoning", beyond "This is my hunch...", then I have no idea what your reasoning actually is.
"But the Bible says a good many things which you don't embrace, any more than I do. So, why?"
Name one thing the Bible says that I "don't embrace"? Your "question" is based on you assuming facts not in evidence, therefore is invalid.
"So, why?"
Why what?
"Sola Scriptura?"
Is this a question, or just using a question mark so you can later whine that I didn't answer your question?
To answer the question I think you are asking. After years of study, I have come to the conclusion that the term Sola Scriptura represents a formulation that most closely summarizes what I see in scripture. I have concluded that this doctrine best summarizes a rational and accurate way to look at scripture and the role of scripture in the life of the Christian community. Specifically, and in context, it is a much more Biblically supported position than the RC position of placing scripture and tradition on equal footing. Further, it is much more coherently in line with the Biblical witness on how to live in community and to relate to others than to simply accept that fallible human "Reason" and experience will provide any sort of coherent framework for either communal or individual life.
"But the Bible doesn't teach that, so that's a self-defeating argument, agreed?"
Presumptuous much? While the Bible does not use the term "Sola Scriptura", that does not mean that the doctrine that became labeled SS is not evident in scripture. So, since you simply asserting something to be factual doesn't make it so. Since your unsupported claims are unconvincing, mostly because you don't feel the need to support your claims. Since, you haven't provided any Biblical evidence that demands that SS not be accepted, nor have you provided a Biblically based alternative to SS. My answer is that I do not agree with your claim, simply because you declare it to be so.
"That it seems right to me and many others, yes."
After years of disparaging what you call appeals to numbers, you do what you criticize when you think it benefits you. Consistent much?
"Do you agree that you have no objective proof to support we ought to do what you think the Bible says because it is the Bible saying it?"
I would argue that if you are going to exclude the Bible as support for any position you disagree with, that I probably don't have anything that fits your personal subjective definition of "objective". Given that, my study convinces me that a strong Bibical (and historical) case be sustained that supports that doctrine of SS. The problem with you question, is that you made a specific claim about certain behaviors being "right". I asked you for objective support for your specific claim (which you haven't provided), you ask for something while subjectively excluding some or all of the possible evidence.
"Or that "God said it" is applicable to your interpretation of a particular passage?"
I already dealt with this. But, yeah, if God said something I'd tend to take it seriously, not dismiss it with "scare quotes". Your whole attitude seems to be that the concept of "God" saying something is some bizarre fantastical notion that only whacko nutjobs would even consider, therefor it's something to be marginalized with "scare quotes" rather than seriously considered.
"Or because of the human theory of SS? That all of these theories are subjective, not objective? Not provable?"
As stated before, my research leads me to the conclusion that the SS construct is a viable, rational, Biblically supported conclusion. You are free to disagree if you like, but any for any serious student of scripture to dismiss the formulation out of hand is just short sighted.
"What do you not embrace in Jesus' teachings?"
Good question, you made the claim that I did not embrace Jesus' teachings, how about you substantiate your claim. Either that or admit that it was a false claim?
"I am concerned that you appear to embrace additional teachings Jesus never taught (like Penal Substitutionary Atonement or Sola Scriptura) as being teachings that Jesus "taught" and that God demands we embrace, but maybe I'm mistaken on that point"
See, when you base your "concern" on your own hunches, Reason, or on your imaginary version of my actual position, it is going to lead you to false conclusions. I have clearly never claimed that God "demands" that we embrace either of the two doctrines you mention. I do find them both to be consistent with the teaching of Jesus and with the witness of scripture as a whole. The very fact that your fevered imagination led you to conclude that I would have the hubris to "demand" that anyone believe anything should have been your first clue that your vaunted Reason had led you astray. So now that you know that I do not "demand" that anyone believe those doctrines or that I believe that God "demands" that those doctrines be "embraced", can you please quit lying about my position?
"Do you think the same of me?"
I think that it is pretty clear that you "embrace" Jesus' teachings selectively. You will insist that one part of a sentence (or sermon or story) be taken in a wooden literal manner and that it is foolish and unreasonable to even entertain otherwise, while declaring that a later clause in a sentence (or line in a sermon or story) can only be taken as "metaphor". This seems an incredibly inconsistent and self serving hermanutic method. Further, when you do declare something "metaphor" you rarely if ever provide any sort of explanation for the meaning of the "metaphor" rather you simply act as if "metaphor" renders that saying so ambiguous so it can just be set aside. Finally, you quite clearly have a view of scripture that sets up ranks or tiers of scripture to which you give varying degrees of weight. I have identified the what seem to be the following tiers that you subjectively assign scripture to.
1. What you see as the most "central", "common", or "obvious" teachings of Jesus.
2. The teachings of Jesus that you believe to be less "central", "common", "obvious" or those you deem "metaphor".
3. The teachings of the rest of the NT authors. I suspect that you place Paul on a slightly lower tier than the rest, but I am not certain of this.
4. The teachings of the OT which you agree with
5. The teachings of the OT which you don't agree with
6. The parts of the OT you consign to "myth" status
The above is not exhaustive, nor do I claim it is 100% accurate, but I believe that is is a reasonably accurate summary of your view of scripture based on various thing you have said in the past. It is my opinion, I am specifically not claiming that this is fact. So, don't even bother asking me to "objectively' prove my opinion. Clearly the words I quoted lend some degree of support to my opinion, but certainly not enough to claim I am factually 100% correct.
Well, there you go. Every single question you asked in this thread answered or responded to.
See how much easier it is to simply answer questions? See how impatient and graceless you look with your whining and bitching?
Oh, I'm deleting any post 8:30 this morning comments until you can muster up an unqualified apology for your misrepresentations. I apologize, but felt it important to be consistent and be a man of my word.
Post a Comment