This essay is written with a two-fold intention:
1. To pay tribute to Dr. Marcus Borg, a well-known New Testament scholar who passed away January 21st. Dr. Borg was a member of the Jesus Seminar, which was a school of thought (some say a movement) which focused on the writings of the New Testament and on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Dr. Borg, along with other members of the Jesus Seminar authored and co-authored books and other writings which focused on the historicity of Jesus, and on whether the contents of the New Testament were literal or legendary and mythological.
2. To have us consider the following questions:
a. Do faith and scholarship cancel each other out?
b. Can one be a man or woman of faith while engaged in scholarship?
c. Does one have to take the contents and message of the New Testament literally in order to be considered a Christian or individual of faith?
d. Does allowing room for the possibility of legend and myth in the New Testament, mean that one is "throwing out the baby with the bathwater?"
This writer (yours truly) a simple follower of Jesus, like Marcus Borg was, an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament, and small scale theologian, following in the footsteps of scholars like Dr. Borg, and who has wrestled with these questions for many years. At the end of the day, Dr. Borg was considered a man of deep faith, though his theological positions were not always the ones held to by conventional Christianity. Though it was only in the last two years, that I had become acquainted with Dr. Borg and the Jesus Seminar, I had wrestled with the issues that he had brought up along with those who had preceded him with the quest for the historical Jesus for many years.
The so-called "Liberal" school of theology has affirmed that we must make a distinction between the Jesus who is the product of the Church's faith on the one hand, and the Jesus who lived in history like all other human beings on the other. On the basis of the Gospel writings and its ancient traditions, the Church has always affirmed that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, i.e. God in human form. This affirmation has cost the church ridicule, scorn, and even at some points in its history, political persecution, especially from governments that believe that their authority is threatened. On the other hand, the so-called "liberals" (I say so-called, because they are not really liberal in the true sense of the word), on the basis of "historical research," examination and classification of literary genre, and accommodation to society's standards of establishing truth, insist that we must consider Jesus strictly in terms of his humanity, and not attribute to him characteristics which are not real such as divine origins. These two polar positions have caused divisions and sub-divisions within the Christian community. As a result of the tension between the two, some Christians have retreated into a defensive and entrenched position about the meaning of what it means to be "saved," and what it means when we say that the Bible is "inspired." Other Christians, have resorted to integrating their faith with the latest "scientific discoveries," and as a result, no longer subscribe to the notion of a literalist approach to Scripture, or to a faith which requires miracles in order to be self-authenticated.
It is not my place to judge or question the validity of either position or to judge the persons who for whatever reasons hold to them. I can only humbly speak for myself in terms of where I am at in my spiritual journey relative to these issues.
As I said earlier, I am a simple follower of Jesus. This for me means that I do not know or understand it all. I am constantly seeking to make sense out of issues generated by the faith. My simple faith, informed by Scripture and by the traditions of the Church, lead me to continue to believe that Jesus is indeed, the incarnate, i.e. the God-human.
I believe in the miracle stories of the New Testament, including the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. However, I do not believe that subscribing to these positions is what validates a person's relationship with God or lack thereof. I've known several sincere Christians that take these stories as embellished legends or myths designed to authenticate the faith of the Church. While I do not necessarily resonate with this latter group's position, I will admit in all honesty that it presents a challenge to those of us who look to the miracle stories as the basis for validation. I also believe that if we need the miracle stories for authentication and validation, that we run the risk of converting our faith into an Alice in Wonderland or Cinderella fairy tail. The truth of the Gospel stands on its own two feet without the need of miracles or supernatural occurrences.
Like Dr. Borg and other so-called "liberal" scholars, I believe that Jesus was also fully human. What this means for me is that I have no problem with the idea of Jesus playing, running, and falling down, and scraping his knees. Nor do I have any problem with the idea of his mother Mary changing his diapers when he was an infant. While many Christians would be offended at the idea of Jesus as a human being experiencing sexual attraction and urges, this writer has no such problems. One Scripture writer informs us that he was tempted in every point as we are, but without sin.
En fin, I do not believe that there is any real distinction between the Jesus of faith, and the Jesus of history. The community of faith, at some points in its history, has wanted to go to the extreme of divinizing Jesus so much that they deemphasize and almost deny his humanity. That is why in the body of the New Testament itself (John's Gospel account, and the three letters of John) certain thing were written, i.e. to combat the notion of Jesus not being human. On the other hand, the community of both religious and secular scholars has gone to the other extreme of dethroning Jesus and making him a mere human creature. They see no need for people to deify him in order to believe in his prophetic message.
All thanks and praise be to God for persons like Marcus Borg, who are constantly challenging us to rethink and reevaluate our faith, as well as the grounds for all our assumptions and presuppositions. They challenge us to seek to put things into proper perspective by having a faith which is not only informed and shaped by Scripture, tradition, and experience, but also a faith which constantly engages with the other branches of human knowledge, i.e humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, it order to be able to think through our faith in an analytical and critical manner.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Please feel free to comment
No comments:
Post a Comment