One of my personal big theological questions that I have been working
on now for a several years is, who was Jesus? (And the related question
of who was/is Christ.)
This writing is an attempt to summarize where I am in my thinking,
studies, prayers, and experiences,
in answering this question. My words here should be taken just as the
point in my journey where I am right now in my own thinking and
personal theology in regard to Christianity in general.
The Journey
Four years ago after exploring Zen Buddhism and Native American
spirituality, I felt "called" to explore my own cultural roots in
Christianity. There is much about dogmatic/orthodox Christianity that I
find contradictory with our scientific understanding of the world, not
to mention reason and common sense. Much of Christianity came
across to me as bull
shit to be blunt. This applied especially to
the version of Christianity with which I was raised, i.e.,
Southern Baptist. (To all my Southern Baptist friends, sorry guys.)
Science and Religion
When you ask me to choose between science and religion, I will come
down on the side of science every time. However, science is not the end
all. There are many questions science cannot answer. Most of these are
of the teleological nature about design or purpose. Science can also
not test hypotheses about things it cannot measure with the senses or
extensions of the senses. If you can't see, feel, taste, touch, hear,
or smell it, science can tell us nothing about it. Science requires as the
father of protestant Christianity philosophy, Friedrich Schleiermacher,
called "sensuous" input. Input from the senses is the only way we as
humans have of encountering God or the world. (Ignoring mystery or
revelation for the moment, which science does.)
Agnostic Period
As a major in zoology and a student of evolutionary biology, as an
undergraduate at the University of Texas at Austin, I drifted away from
my religious roots. No, I ran! (Admittedly, a part of this was due to
personal reasons: I was angry at God due in large part to a failed
early marriage. See, "The Closet".)
It was not until our children had come along that I felt myself moving
back toward the church.
Back to the Church
My journey back to the church came as the result of two Episcopal
priests, The Reverends, Thomas Davis and Richard Elliot. In the
Episcopal church I found an enlightened religious view that had no
conflict with the findings of science, including evolution. Actually
Tom got me back. Richard helped me to stay--and, at the same time, set
me on my next leg of my spiritual journey.
This journey led me to mysticism and spirituality. My
experience of religion had up to this point been intellectual or
cognitive. I now entered a long phase into the mystery and experience of
the spiritual side of religion. I found I had special gifts of my own
that I had not developed and started developing and using these.
Returning and going deeper
God works in mysterious ways: One day in church, one of my fellow
parishioners snipped at me about helping out with cooking for a meal
the church was having. I had been attending irregularly and not very
frequently. When I made some lame excuse, Marjorie shot back, "Look, we
don't care about any of that, we just need warm bodies to help."
A door opened. I stepped through. I realized I was home. I had no need
to look elsewhere. Home had been right here where I was all along. I
was overcome momentarily with emotions so complex I could not define
them. Tears came to my eyes. I swallowed and said I would be there.
Several years before, I had had lunch with our Rector, Tom Davis, about
a book project I had been toying with, BioTheology. After we talked for
a little while, Tom said something to the effect of, Darrell, your
brain is over developed on the science side. You really need to get the
theological side up to par. You are like muscle-bound on one side and
need to work out the other.
That, in short, is how I got into the theology program that I am now in
my fourth and final year. But it was several years after Tom's comment
that I started the program.
OK, with that all as background, lets get back to where I am with
Jesus...
The Historic Jesus
Did Jesus really exist?
Was he a real person? I think the answer to that is pretty clear. A
definite, yes. The Jewish historian, Josephus, talks about him, for
example. Granted only mentions him.
Josephus was interested in writing a Jewish history that would not
anger the occupying Romans. So tended to be shy of controversial
subjects that my piss them off.
An important point to remember in all of this is that the Romans were
not happy with the Jews. There had been several attempts at rebellion
against Roman rule. The Romans were determined to quickly squash any
thing that hinted of rebellion.
Son of God, Son of Man?
These were phrases used for the Roman emperor. New Testament writers
were trying to get their point across by using these terms with Jesus,
that, while Roman might be in charge of this earthly kingdom, Jesus
ruled the heavenly one.
Not to be taken literally. We must be keep in mind that Jewish writers
both of the Old and New Testaments were not interested in historical
facts. They were interested in getting the meaning, not the facts.
Today when we think about history, we assume and demand it be factually
true. That was not the case with Jewish theologians.
As described by Bishop John Selby Spong in, Rescuing
the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of
Scripture, Jewish
writers used the technique of midrash
(biblical exegesis; interpretation with connotation of
investigation), which felt free to use exaggeration and fill in gaps to
come up with the higher truths they were trying to get across.
A new religion?
Jesus never meant to start a new religion. He was a very devout Jew who
believed in the Jewish tradition.
Had the Romans not destroyed the Temple (actually re-destroyed it) in
70 CE, Christianity would have probably never taken off as a separate
religion. In destroying the Temple, the Jews were deprived of their
national heritage, their center, their grounding. Romans were seen as a
threat and Christians became an enemy.
The result for the ousted Christians was they needed their own Torah,
there own heritage. Hence, the writings of the New Testament books
began.
Virgin Birth?
As a geneticist and biologist, give me a break! Let's look at this
logically.
First, the term, virgin, denoted a young woman back then. Not, as we
use it today, as in not having had sexual intercourse.
Second, no mammal has been shown of capable of virgin births. Now there
are some fish, amphibian, and reptiles that can do this, but no
mammals.
Third, Jesus would have been a woman, not a man, if he had been born
via a virgin birth. To be a male, he had to have a Y chromosome. The Y
comes from only another male. Where did his Y chromosome come from? Now
unless Mary was XXY (Kleinfelters Syndrome, which means she would look
like a male and had very low fertility), she had to get that
Y chromosome
from some male.
Let's say it was a virgin birth (contemporary meaning). Then, if the Y
came from God (God's got chromosomes?!), if we could just get a tiny
piece of that DNA, we could clone God. Then we wouldn't need him.
Stupid!
If I have not pissed off you yet about Jesus, let us move on to a more
positive understanding of who he was and his importance to us...
Jesus' Divinity?
Christians maintain Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Let
us take a look at this. I will cite two theologians here, Marcus Borg
and Barbara Brown Taylor.
I like Taylor's description better. In her Altar in the World: A Geography of Faith,
she talks about Jesus being fully human and because he was fully human,
he was fully divine. To be human is to be divine! To live fully into
our humanity, is to live fully our divinity.
Her's meshes with
my own understanding of Jesus the best. Not to go into this too much
here on this page, my view is that we as humans, along with all
Creation, are made from God-stuff. Hence, we, along with everything
else in Creation, are divine, holy.
Was Jesus God?
This is
related to the above. Sort of the same question, just restated. My
answer is, no. Or, yes. Depending on which way you look at it. He was
no more god than you are I are. He was a prophet, a holy man (another
meaning for the terms Son of God, Son of May).
Miracles?
His
reported healing miracles, yes. The reported nature miracle, e.g.
walking on water, no. As to the healing miracles, I know from my own
personal experiences as a healer and my understanding of psychobiology
and the power of the human mind, that healing miracles are possible,
doable, and do occur.
Nature miracles? Remember midrash above.
Jesus' message
Jesus'
teachings were primarily concerned with social justice, not salvation.
Or, his salvation was about social justice, not everlasting life or
resurrection.
Resurrection?
As someone who works regularly with the spiritual world (again see WindWalker),
I believe in life after death. But the "resurrected" are all in
spiritual "bodies", not a resusitation of a physical body. The Apostles
had visions of Christ after his death.
And yet...
Jesus also seems to me somehow bigger than life. He was a Holy Man, but somehow there is a sense in me, he was more also...
Amen
PS
This might get me excommunicated from even the Episcopal church.