From comments I made at a discussion at TitusOneNine, lightly edited:
Many traditionalists insist that we can truly claim to be a Christian only if we assent to the Nicene Creed, which is a particular set of factual assertions from 1,700 years ago about God, his creation, and his works. That, I submit, seriously degrades the title of "Christian."
To be a Christian is not at all the same as being, let’s say, a Keynesian or a Darwinian or a Freudian or a Marxist or a Newtonian. If I initially agreed with Keynes about economics, but then my views were later to change, then indeed I might no longer be a Keynesian by virtue of changing my mind.
But no matter what my particular views about theology might be, I can definitely be a Christian.
The Dominical Algorithm
To be a Christian, I claim, is simply to follow Jesus’s teachings about a basic approach to life, an algorithm if you will:
- Put God above all else — this of course is simply the Great Commandment of Torah, reiterated by Jesus the Jewish reformer in stories recounted in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-34, and Luke 10:25-37).
- Seek the best for your neighbors — all of them — as you would for yourself. This again is from Torah, and again was reiterated by Jesus (see ibid).
- Face the facts, no matter what they turn out to be — "He who has ears, let him hear" (e.g., Matt. 11.15). "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. ... But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear" (Matt. 13.15-17).
- When the facts indicate that your life is off course, then do what you need to do to correct the situation — this is metanoia, a change of mind and heart and life (usually translated "repentance").
I believe there's a good case to be made, with reasonable persuasiveness even if not conclusively, that when people follow this "dominical algorithm" for life, they do their (infinitesimal) bit as one of God’s laborers in his continuing creation of the universe, as part of his cosmic construction crew.
We can’t know with certainty that being part of the crew will pay off. But it’s a reasonably good bet. By all indications, in the very long term this divine construction project is going to turn out unimaginably well. It would seem to be better to have tried to do one’s bit, than not.
But How is This Different From ...."
Some will say, wait a minute, under this definition, a Jew could be a Christian. That's correct; I think a pious Jew could indeed rightly call him- or herself a Christian. Jesus — who was himself a Jew, of course — didn’t seem to be trying to start a new religion. The one he already had seemed to suit him just fine. He called on his co-religionists to be better Jews, not to adopt some new faith.
(True, Jesus may also have thought he was the Anointed One, who would imminently return to earth to free Israel from oppression, usher in the LORD's divine reign, and restore the LORD's chosen people to their rightful place in his service. If Jesus did think that, history seems to have proved him wrong.)
Can Traditionalist Christians Still Fit In?
I wish I could understand why so many traditionalists are reluctant to worship God together with those of us who hold different views about God and his works, solely for that reason.
I can’t stress enough: God is what he is — recall that scholars think the Hebrew YHWH meant something like I AM WHAT I AM or possibly I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE — and he has done what he has done.
Still, there are different viewpoints about just what God is and what he has done. None of the different viewpoints seems to be persuasive enough to convince those holding other viewpoints.
That being the case, it would behoove us to continue to worship and work together, in the sure and certain hope that someday, in his own good time, the Spirit will guide us into all truth.
I have one fundamental disagreement here (well, okay, I have more than one as a literal sense reading of the Nicene Creed kinda guy but I'll stick with one... ;-))
Jesus can fairly accurately be said to have said all of the things that you bring up on historical-critical grounds. But--like most rationalist Historical Jesus investigators over the years--you've left out some other things that it seems quite clear that he taught. The majority of biblical scholars who study the Historical Jesus at the current point in time agree that Jesus used eschatological language. That is, he stated that a divinely ordered and initiated shake-up was imminent. Repent *for the kingdom of God is at hand*--not because it's a good idea, it'll be better for you psychologically, or because it'll make people like you more. The reason for repentence is not rational but eschatological.
They also agree he spoke in parables. While there's disagreement over particular parables, quite a number of the parables--even in Mark--have quite a bit of eschatological content.
So--if you're going to say that you hold to the religion of Jesus then you have to decide where you come down on his eschatology.
btw--have you read Schweitzer's *Quest for the Historical Jesus*? It's a classic text in the field and one well worth reading if you're into the topic.
Posted by: Derek | April 19, 2006 at 02:21 PM
Derek, Jesus isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. As I noted in another comment, people can be spot-on about some things and utterly wrong about others. Lyndon Johnson arguably did more good in the area of civil rights than any president since Lincoln, but he also led the escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. William Shockley shared the Nobel Prize in physics for his early work on the transistor, but he later espoused racial theories that, shall we say, don’t sit well with most people.
It seems reasonable to assume Jesus did hold to a certain eschatology. And perhaps he did think he was the Anointed One who would imminently return from heaven and usher in God’s reign.
On those assumptions, Jesus seems to have been wrong on both counts. But that doesn’t negate everything else about his life or teachings. It doesn't mean he was a lunatic, pace C.S. Lewis; it just means that, on those particular issues, he was mistaken. By the standards of his day, his views might have been "in the band" for sanity. (Although the Gospels suggest that his family might have had their doubts about that.)
Posted by: D. C. | April 19, 2006 at 02:42 PM
The pertinent question, though, is how integral eschatology is to his worldview. I'd argue that it was foundational--inseperable from the rest of his teachings. The repentance issue in particular would serve as my Exhibit A.
I suppose my question would be, why does your worldview need Jesus? Deuteronomy effective reframes the Law the way that you are, downplaying to a degree the ceremonial law and placing a central importance on the heart's disposition towards God and neighbor. What extra bonus does Jesus give you that Deuteronomy doesn't?
Posted by: Derek | April 19, 2006 at 02:49 PM
Derek writes: "I suppose my question would be, why does your worldview need Jesus? ... What extra bonus does Jesus give you that Deuteronomy doesn't?"
A valid question. The best I can do for an answer is this: In our tradition, Jesus is a fact on the ground. I'm not interested in switching to a different tradition. So, I try to make do with the tradition I'm in, in a way that I can reconcile with my professional training and experience.
Posted by: D. C. | April 19, 2006 at 03:05 PM
Derek writes:
Ptolemy's earth-centered worldview was flawed. But many of his resulting astronomical calculations were quite serviceable all the same (e.g., for navigation).
Jesus's insight about metanoia might likewise have resulted from a flawed worldview. That in itself wouldn't necessarily invalidate the insight. If his eschatology came tumbling down, it wouldn't automatically bring down the metanoia with it.
Posted by: D. C. | April 19, 2006 at 03:46 PM
Alright--Jesus taught certain things like repentance and social justice. We like 'em and think they're good ideas. Jesus came to those notions not because they're good humanist notions to hold. Rather, his embracing of those on the marigins and of repentance is directly linked to his notion of a great reversal through God's action (the same one found in the Magnificat, btw, as well as the Sermon on the Mount/Plain). If you reject the apocalyptic eschatology that provides the conceptual framework of Jesus' thought and replace it with a liberal humanism you may indeed have several things in common. But is that to say that you are holding to the *religion of Jesus* and agrreing with his *basic approach to life* or do you hold several important notions in common though for different reasons?
Posted by: Derek | April 19, 2006 at 04:00 PM
Derek writes:
It's probably safer to say the latter. As to why I hold to some of his important notions, I was powerfully influenced by the book Non-Zero, by Robert Wright. It's a sophisticated, entertaining, and readable work about evolution, game theory, and social science. The author sticks to the facts, but concludes that the evolution of the human race is due in no small part to our capacity for love and reciprocal altruism. He also conjectures that the increasing orderliness in our corner of the universe (sometimes referred to as "the optimistic arrow of time") may point to the existence of a God and perhaps even a divine plan. Reading it was a milestone event in my faith journey.
Posted by: D. C. | April 19, 2006 at 06:05 PM