This theological tradition of life in the shape of death and of power in the form of suffering is more than the dominant culture can receive or accept. That alternative discernment is evident in the theology of the cross as narrated by Mark and as articulated by Paul. While many texts might be cited,here I mention only the ancient hymn utilized by Paul:
Jesus Christ, who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father. (Phil. 2:5-11)
That tradition of radical criticism is above the self-giving emptiness of Jesus, about dominion through the loss of dominion, and about fullness coming only in self-emptying. The emptying is not to be related to a meditative self-negating, for it is a thoroughly political image concerned with the willing surrender of power; it is the very thing kings cannot do and remain kings. Thus the entire royal self-understanding is refuted. The empty one who willingly surrendered power for obedience is the ultimately powerful one who can permit humanness where no other has authority to do so.
The story of the foundation of the nation of Israel in the promise to Abraham made first that he would have a son and heir in his old age, a covenant that was sealed with the near but non-sacrifice of his second son, Isaac, but with the willingness of Abraham to go intentionally sacrifice his son, is something I never thought of in relation to the willingness of Jesus to, himself, go to an even more horrible death. I haven't come across a theological investigation of that though I'm sure it must have occurred to someone in the two thousand years of Christian theology. I don't get the feeling that it occurred to the Gospel writers, though, as I have to always mention, I'm a beginner at this. Has this seeming adoptionist view of the divinity of Jesus in this passage has ever figured into such an exploration of it? Jesus, instead of being the patriarch of a great nation would have a status like that Paul said was his due in the crucifixion, the Son of the Father.
The crucifixion and Resurrection are the heart of the problem Jesus and Christianity present to the world, no matter where or when in the past two thousand years. And the Resurrection is the definitive aspect of that. As Paul said elsewhere it is a stumbling block that a lot of even those who profess to be Christians can't get past.
I think a lot of the problem for many of them, as it was for me, was that they expect to just magically find that they suddenly believe in it when that belief is as much a matter of choice as it is an act of involuntary conviction. I think that psychology has done far more to alienate our experience of believing and knowing from what it actually is as people repeatedly demonstrate that belief and the act which is probably foolishly separated from it "knowing" through the demotion of human agency in the matter.
Considering the enormous public demonstration of the worst part of such human agency on full display as the true believers in Trump, Putin, Orban, ETWN, Jordan Peterson, etc. who demonstrate that what those people are convinced they know the most deeply absurd and contra-factual and malignant things are exactly that, based in their choice to believe what they want to, you would think the whole matter of the automatic act which is held to be "knowing" something would get more of a deep criticism. In fact, the very field of psychology in which huge sheets of such knowledge, as was contained in the various schools of Freudianism, Behaviorism, Evo-psy, and a myriad of other discredited and soon to be discredited structures deemed to be known enough to be taught as science in universities, only to be junked, waiting for those who made money as practitioners to die off before totally decommissioning that "knowledge" which was as much chosen to be believed as the Trumpists knew that horse medicine would cure Covid and drinking bleach was a health measure.
While the strength of an experience, such as those reporting near death experiences and, I wouldn't be surprised, Paul reported had may compel belief to the point where it reaches the level of conviction to be asserted to be knowledge seems to be a real thing - the conversion in their acts and personality are also attested to by those around such people - the final choice lies in whether or not the person chooses to believe in the reality of their experience. In some cases, no doubt, would-be "skeptics" can talk even those who have had profound experiences which you would think would override the typically tread-bare and 7th grade style coercion, out of believing what they have experienced.
If Jesus chose to believe what he said, as any mere human would have to, even as having a divine nature that he may well not have been aware of until his death, then that is probably singular in the history of the human species. It's unclear from the Gospels and Paul and Acts that Jesus was fully aware of being the Son of God in the Christian theological sense of the term, as I said yesterday it would explain his cry quoting Psalm 22 from the cross, or maybe he, facing the point of death, had an all too human conviction that he had been wrong about it all. Did his knowledge of who he was have enough strength at the point of death or was it necessary for him to experience our own ultimate fear at that point? I don't think it's possible for us to tease out the meaning of all of those things. For me it has more power of persuasion than if he had remained tranquil at that point. For me to believe in the divinity of Jesus, I have to believe that he was fully human, as well.
I think if the Gospel writers, if Paul had been able to they certainly would have made those points clear. But we would still be left with the choice to believe it or not. I was afraid to believe it for a long time, due in no small part to the anti-Christian propaganda sold as knowledge that was virtually everywhere in my formal education but, also, the very true scandal of the behavior of Christians in the past and then and, yes, still, now. It's clear a lot of Christians choose not to believe the heart of Jesus's Gospel. I'm not afraid to believe it any more and I'm not afraid to admit that what I believe is a great mystery. The great mystery. I say that while being fully convinced of the truth of what Jesus said. I had to empty myself of a lot of "knowledge" before I wasn't afraid to believe it anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment