Is Christ to be understood in terms of what he taught or in terms of what he did? At a popular level, Christianity has often been regarded as a repository of timeless wisdom such as that found in the sermon on the mount and the parables. It is this view that Gandhi espouses :The gentle figure of Christ,” Gandhi wrote, “so patient, so kind, so loving, so full of forgiveness that he taught his followers not to retaliate when abused or struck, but to turn the other cheek-it was a perfect example, I thought, of the perfect Man. And Bultmann’s view, that we can recover nothing of the historical Jesus and that his importance lies in his teaching, bestrides New Testament theology like a colossus.
But as I have only lately come to see clearly, through delving into the works of NT Wright, Christianity is essentially a claim about something that happened. The timeless and sublime ethic is there but it not the most important thing. And what happened, according to the NT, is that God through Jesus Christ decisively intervened in the world to put the world to rights- not just human beings and planet earth, but everything.
This raises two problems for me. 1. Jesus the timeless teacher can take his place among other timeless teachers, like the Buddha, or Lao Tse- perhaps primus inter pares. But Jesus the centre of the decisive event in world history seems to forbid such a comparison. We seem to be driven into saying that Christianity is the one true religion etc etc. But I find it very difficult to say in my soul that everybody else is wrong except the Christians – it is an unappetising form of religious imperialism 2. If Jesus Christ put the whole world to rights that means a universe that contains at least 125 billion galaxies (probably a lot more) and, possibly a huge variety of life forms with some (many?) more advanced than us. The seeming extreme anthropocentrism of locating the centre of everything in our speck of the universe makes me nervous.
Go into the whole cosmos and preach the gospel to every creature
Hi Paul
It depends on whether you build your theology from the bottom up or from the top down. From the bottom up you can say Jesus was this amazing teacher and maybe he was the most amazing teacher with the deepest understanding of what people were like and how they can be the best kindest and wisest people they can be. And yes, even a better teacher than Buddha or Marx. But this won’t tell you how he could possibly have anything to say to silicon based lifeforms in galaxies far far away.
A theology built from the top down is very different. If we believe the bible’s claim that ‘all things were created through him, things in the heavens (the universe and beyond) or on the earth … without him nothing was made that has been made’ Then whatever alien civilisation exist, if any exist, were created by the same Son of God one who created us.
Somehow we all need to go from our first encounter with the man Jesus and building a understanding of him ‘from the bottom up’ to bowing our knee to his mind-boggling claims about himself, his total respect for the bible, and commissioning his followers to spread the word (and start writing a whole new set of scriptures).
Then we can build a theology, from the top down, that has such an exalted view of Jesus Christ the Son of God creator of everything, that alien civilisations across 125 billion galaxies, no matter how numerous or how advanced, would not change who we believe Jesus really is.
Deacon
Top down, ground up - squaring the circle
Since you mention him, Tom Wright seems to present a way of bringing together the historical (which includes the teaching) and the theological Jesus, especially in ‘Jesus & the Victory of God’ (see the synopsis of the book on this site). The history and the teaching progress seamlessly into the theology. Historically, theology has separated the Jesus of faith from the Jesus of history. The crucifixion/resurrection is separated from the teaching/earthly ministry. Wright has an approach which brings the two together, and still gives us a life-changing gospel for today. If I am understanding your questions correctly.
Having said this, I submit that we still have teaching from Jesus which is timeless, not just historically relative. But a better set of lenses for seeing what he did in history as linked inextricably with the timeless significance of his teaching and ministry.
Timeless teacher?
I think I would advocate a more radical approach here and question whether ‘timeless teacher’ is at all an appropriate category for Jesus (cf. this page). It’s a very ‘modern’ assumption to make - what Jesus said must have universal significance, must be more true than what other religious teachers have said, and so on. It is this sort of assumption that forced a lot of misreadings of the Gospels and probably of Paul to some extent. Perhaps we can only really make sense of Jesus - at least, the historical Jesus - within the context of Israel’s story. He made no claim to be giving timeless, universal truth. He was Israel’s teach, Israel’s prophet, Israel’s saviour, Israel’s king. Take him out of that context and we make it very difficult to explain any global or cosmic significance. The biblical argument is not simply that the cross is the decisive event in world history. It is something more like: the cross is the decisive event in the salvation and renewal of the community through which God has chosen to embody his presence and bless the world. This doesn’t entirely avoid the charge of religious imperialism - except that perhaps we put the emphasis not on Christianity as being the religion that has the best religious teacher/saviour but on a community that bears the impression of its Lord. This is not to say, of course, that his teaching does not have universal significance - the point is that this is not the basis for his relevance.
Jesus: historically contextualised and timeless
There is a huge amount in what you say that needs to be absorbed Andrew, and also much that is worth debating (in a positive sense), because such important points are raised.
I take as given the value of trying to get back into the mindset and historical thinking of 1st century Jews, as far as we are able to undertake such an exercise, and the groundwork for much of this task has already been laid.
It is also daunting when behind the clear thinking which you bring to the subject lies the even more daunting (eminence grise?) of Tom Wright, beside whom we are all minnows splashing around in a domestic garden pond. Can any questions be raised at all in the light of such formidable and extensive scholarship? I believe they should - even though there may be overwhelmingly convincing answers to be given.
Also I deliberately exaggerated (or rather simplified) what I took to be your position on the atonement in my attempted summary in a previous post (A pretty ambitious attempt etc). I subsequently wondered if I had got it wrong, but I don’t think so, in that you do suggest, as I see it, that the atonement is primarily for Israel, and only indirectly for the gentiles. This is as far as it is presented from the side of history given by the gospels, as a ‘coda’ to the Old Testament.
From the point of view of seeing history from that angle of approach, the far side of the glass door as it were, I’m not sure your position is the whole story, but I do believe we should undertake the imaginative exercise which you are embarking upon. The fuller picture is that a covenant-keeping God was planning to fulfil the covenant and deal with sin long before the covenant was expressed to a racial nation, Israel. This is obscure, but not hidden in the Hebrew scriptures. Before the exodus narrative, which is explicitly echoed in the atonement, there is the Abrahamic narrative, and the creation/fall narrative. How is it valid to confine the significance of who Jesus was and what he did to the immediate concerns and context of 2nd Temple/post exilic Israel, when post exilic Israel had the prophets and the entire pentateuch to inform them of their sense of identity and history? The full significance of their own scriptures and history may not have been apparent to them, but then there was much that was not apparent to them for which Jesus held them accountable, and culpable.
It may be arguable that in his teaching Jesus said little or nothing explicitly about the universal scope of his mission, but he set in motion a quite different way of viewing Israel’s destiny and understanding of her scriptures which made it, in my opinion, inevitable that a broader, worldwide understanding of their significance should arise. Here, it is not the view of Jesus’s contemporaries that we should heed, but the radical re-interpretation of their destiny which he offered.
That’s not to say that the teaching of Jesus was designed to inaugurate a new, worldwide religion based on timeless, universal truths. The value of Tom Wright’s perspectives has been to demonstrate that Jesus was engaged with the various ‘narratives’ that were on offer in Israel at the time, in a way that brought him into direct conflict with all the existing power systems and mindsets: he wasn’t wafting through an idyllic holy land with an other-worldly aura. Rather, he was fulfilling the purposes of a covenant-keeping God in history. His ‘spiritual’ significance was acutely political and contemporary.
But I believe it is misconceived to limit the significance of Jesus’s mission to his own immediate historical circumstances. I also think we are in trouble if we circumscribe Jesus’s teaching so radically. Where else are we to learn how to live our lives if not on the principles he gave to his disciples? To be sure, the teaching relates keenly to contemporary history and mindsets. But, to take an example from Tom Wright, it is limiting the timeless significance of the parable of the parable of the prodigal son if we take it purely as a paradigm of the exile and return of Israel. To be sure, such a perspective on the story gives it an acutely contemporary relevance. But the value of the story is that it applies in contexts throughout history. It speaks to us today because it presents so faithfully and astonishingly the character of God. And we learn even more about God’s character when we see and understand various aspects of the historical significance of details in the story. The value of the sermon on the mount is that it is a truly challenging picture of how we are to live our lives in all historical periods, and this notwithstanding its immediate relevance to a community which needed to be prepared for the obliteration of the temple and all that had popularly shaped Israel’s (mistaken)sense of self identity in the world.
There is huge value in the current historical approach as pursued by Wright and yourself. For instance, we are encouraged to see the Christian faith not as confined to some spiritual compartment of our lives, but as a challenge and alternative to prevailing values and power structures. If we aren’t making somebody worried, we might question what our faith means in the world. Likewise if we aren’t making some positive alternative contribution - or affirming that which reflects God’s values.
Another huge value of Wright’s (and your own) approach is in showing that the Christian faith is not simply a private concern between an individual and his maker, (although it is that), but a corporate affair - we join the community of God’s people. To be justified by faith is to wear the badge of membership of God’s people - not just to obtain entry into a spiritual salvation in a private and individualistic way. The significance of this has yet to be fully appreciated and unpacked in the church at large.
What I’m trying to put across in the light of my understanding of radically historical-relative presentations of Jesus, the gospels and the New Testament, is that the texts as we have them were far more tied into historical concerns than we have ever given then credit. On the other hand the texts have made their own transition to wider contexts than 1st century Israel, and I would argue on balance, successfully. (In that the knowledge of Jesus the messiah of the world as well as Israel has spread round the world, as it was intended to do).
On the other hand, there are some insights emerging which have a very important bearing on on our understanding and practice of the faith in this particular era in which we are living, which we urgently need to get hold of. But substantially, faith in Jesus will be what it always has been: life-transforming, and sustained by a living Spirit, at work in creation and in our lives, forming a people who will make a decisive impact on our world in ways that are both proclaimed and demonstrated.
Yeah, but Christianity still seems to be top religion......
The responses to my post, especially that of Andrew, suggest that I need to refine my thinking.
I accept what Andrew says about the inappropriateness of describing Jesus as a timeless teacher. It does not make sense to describe Jesus (or anyone else) as a timeless teacher. Anything expressed in language is time-related and, indeed, culture related, since language is a cultural artefact. However I think I was correct in asserting that as long as we see Jesus as a teacher or a prophet, comparisons which seek to put one religion (eg Christianity) above others are difficult to sustain (although I would not have thought the desire to do so is a modern phenomenon, as Andrew suggests- I would have thought it has a fairly lengthy history)
I also accept that it is it is not possible to understand what Jesus said or did except in his context as a first century Jew. BUT, having once understood Jesus in this way, it seems we are driven to saying that what he did was of universal significance- in the same way that the creation or the fall were of universal significance. Is this a basis for asserting the special place of Christianity over all other religions and hence for a charge of religious imperialism? Andrew wants to say: not quite, “we put the emphasis not on Christianity as being the religion that has the best religious teacher/saviour but on a community that bears the impression of its Lord.” But it sounds from this as though if push came to shove Andrew would say that Christianity does have a place over all other religions.
Of course you could argue that while Jesus’ action has made an ontological difference to the world it is one which benefits people of whatever faith. This does not appear to be an option for the majority of subscribers to Open Source Theology since 61% think that those who die without belief in Christ will either suffer eternal punishment or be annihilated.
Does nobody share my unease about us being the privileged speck in a universe of 125 billion galaxies? I don’t think anybody has directly responded to that question.
over or under?
The apostle, Peter, for example, did not seem to be greatly motivated towards / aware of the “Every Ethnos” commission, at least until the Spirit was undeniably and visibly poured out upon the Gentiles. It then took an early church council for this to be recognised formally, but still no clear moves were made to act in any obvious more-urgent missionary sense, upon this revelation, were they? It took a persecution to really thrust the apostles outwards, as far as we can tell, at least until Paul came into view.
Perhaps then, the ‘universal’ element can only really come into its intended impact if the missionary task really is undertaken and completed: without it people will continue to remain outside the Covenant purposes of the Creator (subject to an indeterminate eternity, unlike those within the Covenant purposes, who receive their notice of deliverance right away…)
Shalom!
John
The lowest religion?
I certainly think this idea needs exploring further as a response to Paul’s question. By acknowledging the lordship of one who became a servant do we make ourselves servants to other religions? What might that mean in practice? Does it help to say that what motivates the follower of Christ is not a sense of being more right but of being called, despite ourselves, fearing God, to serve others, to help them realize what is intrinsically good and holy within their self-understanding? I do not want us to lose the confidence that we our the unique people of the living God, but it matters enormously how we formulate and live out that uniqueness. Perhaps we can let go of the right to be recognized as right for the sake of others.
Boldly going where no theologian has gone before.
I feel PaulHardigan’s angst. But I feel it even just here on earth. There is an undeniable inclusivity to the gospel, and yet an undeniable exclusivity as well.
But toward the discussion at hand… my sensible side tells me not to bother with such speculation until which time it becomes relevant. Cross that bridge when we get to it!
But I can’t resist, because I love to speculate, and I also think that it is a good intellectual exercise to sharpen our theology. So, is there intelligent life out there?
You’ve probably heard the argument against time travel — if there ever will be such a thing, why has no one come back to visit us? This begs the question that those who would travel back would alert us to their presence, but it’s an interesting argument nonetheless.
I would apply the same argument to life on other worlds. If there is a form of life out there with superior intelligence to ours, why haven’t they found us? Think of how far transportation technology has come in the last few centuries. I imagine that in another 10,000 years or so we will be exploring the furthest reaches of our galaxy, and I’m being conservative. 10,000 years is but a moment in the history of the universe. If there are other forms of intelligent life out there, they are either technologically behind us, or technologically ahead of us by only a whisker. But perhaps evolution has it’s own Moore’s law, and intellectual development has a fairly predictable rate, so we’ll all converge somewhere in outer space on our exploratory missions… anyway….
It is nearly impossible to answer this question from the “bottom-up” arguments. However, these kinds of scenarios do inform our top-down approaches. These life forms, I think it is safe to say, would not be included in the Adamic curse. They would not be fallen creatures, unless they have their own salvation history with a similar catastrophe. If they did indeed have a kind of “sin-concept” then it is natural to believe that God might orchestrate a similar redemption event. Again, I suppose we could assume that God would take the form of their flesh as He did ours. Would it not be fantastic if this alien race did indeed have such a belief system. Oh, the comparative studies would be marvelous.
However, I suppose we should also consider that their race is not fallen. This is a disturbing thought. Where in the cosmos is the line drawn, where the consequences of sin extend no further? And would our mere presence do such a race irreparable harm? Perhaps this is why they keep their distance!!!
What if such a race had completely different religious notions? If they were sufficiently advanced, would that lend credence to their belief system over ours? I can see the battle lines being drawn now. Those who believe the aliens offer enlightenment, and those who believe they are minions of Satan to deceive us in the last days!!
Now my brain is really starting to go off on tangents, so forgive me. I don’t subscribe to any of this, but I will pursue it as a mental exercise. However, it does not seem to require too forced a reading of the Scriptures to reinvent polytheism according to the new world order that these aliens might bring. Let Yahweh be the God of Earth, the God of humankind, of the Milky Way. Let there be other Gods of other planets, other galaxies, other unique lines of soulishness. This could fit with the concepts we read about in the Old Testament of their being other gods who at times seem to have power, and yet are no gods at all. Could these be Gods of other jurisdictions? Could Yahweh be truthfully presented as God above all these Gods not because he is inherently more powerful, but because He is operating in this His sphere of authority?
We read the creation story as cosmic, but there is very little of the cosmos that Moses could have imagined (please allow me to assume Mosaic authorship of Genesis for the duration of this article). Genesis 1 basically attests to some sort of quasimaterial soup that God divides above and below and creates our atmosphere. Then he separates it left from right to create land and sea. There’s a canopy above that holds the water above us, with windows that occasionally open to let some rain down Apparently many shiny stars are stuck to this canopy. There are clouds upon which God makes his dwelling, these regions are called “skies” or “heavens.” There’s a sun and a moon. And there’s a bunch of plants and animals on the earth, in the skies, and in the seas. That’s about it. There’s nothing in this description that requires anything beyond the bounds of our galaxy. Our tendency to believe otherwise comes not from the Genesis, but from trying to marry it to Big Bang theory.
There are, to the contrary, passage such as Colossians 1 which attest that Jesus was involved in the creation of “all things,” but even in these passages what is meant by “all things” does not seem to extend beyond our galaxy (in fact, what is meant does not seem to extend nearly that far).
It’s also very relevant to observe that the process of creation greatly resembles God’s redemptive act at the Red Sea. In other words, the creation is a very contextualized story whose purpose is to show God’s provision and purpose to a million or so Israelites wandering around in the desert. God’s primary activity and concern has always been to establish fertile land for His people. This should seriously temper our tendency to give it cosmic significance.
Unless we are the only soulish creatures in the universe, there are also theological reasons not to read the creation narrative as cosmic in scope: the fall. Adam would presumably not be the representative of all life, only all humanity. Alien races would not necessarily fall under the curse or suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin. I suppose we could let Adam be the representative for all life in the universe, but now we’ve proclaimed ourselves as privileged beyond what Scripture requires.
Of course, I should mention that the idea of a superior, possibly un-fallen alien intelligence suggests parallels with angelic beings. And perhaps is there an alien race which is fallen but not redeemed? The devil and his minions? Have these races actually visited before (Gen 6)? But you all can chase that rabbit trail yourselves. At least in this model, we get Yahweh back on His throne as Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
I could write a book, and sell a million copies. All it takes is controversy, and a good measure of sheer silliness, and I think I’ve shown that I can conjure up my fair share of both.
Sometimes taking our theology to such extremes can illuminate its shortcomings. Hopefully that’s the beneficial aspect of this kind of zany speculation.
reassurance for evangelicals against reform?
Adam, Angels, Aliens and God
These observations are interesting and mirror similar speculations the late C.S. Lewis boldly explored before “Star Wars”, “Star Trek”, indeed, before man ever entered the “final frontier”.
I would recommend his so called Space Trilogy, “Out of the Silent Planet”, “Perelandra” and “That Hideous Strength”. They are all excellent, each with characters that are at times uncomfortably contemporary and familiar, and culminate in the final novel’s micro-apocaplyse.
It is constructive to read Lewis‘“Abolition of Man” prior to reading the novels as foundational to the serious point they illustrate and advance.
Alario