We should maintain that if an interpretation of any word in any religion leads to disharmony and does not positively further the welfare of the many, then such an interpretation is to be regarded as wrong; that is, against the will of God, or as the working of Satan or Mara.

Buddhadasa Bikkhu, a Thai Buddhist Monk


Showing posts with label John the Baptist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John the Baptist. Show all posts

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Save Yourselves

Among Protestants there is less debate about whether we are saved by grace or works than there should be.  Since the time of the Reformation, our pulpits have thundered with the essentially anti-Catholic preachment that we cannot save ourselves.  We are saved by faith alone, by God's grace alone.  Sola fide, sola gratia.  This, our preachers have long claimed, is the message of the Bible.  The problem is, as I've argued before (here and here), that is only part of what the Bible says.  In other places, it says, assumes, or implies that we are indeed saved by works.

One of the most famous works righteousness passages is Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus famously divides the sheep from the goats at the last judgment, sending the sheep to eternal reward and the goats to everlasting punishment.  The standard of judgment is strictly moral.  If you do good things for those in need, it is the same as doing them for Christ, and you gain reward.  If you don't, punishment is your lot.  That seems clear enough.  We are rewarded for what we do and punished if we don't do it.  I suppose that we could rationalize the matter by saying that it is only by God's grace that we can do these things, but then we could also rationalize that it is only by God's grace that we can do anything, even the ugly stuff we do.  It is better not to play that kind of game with the passage.  It says we are saved by works.

It turns out that Matthew 25 isn't the only passage in the New Testament that makes salvation so dependent on works.  In a similar passage, Luke 3:7-14, John the Baptist makes the same point.  John was in the wilderness preaching the message that people must repent in order to be forgiven for their sins.  He called the people who came to hear him preach "a brood of vipers" and warned them that being the children of Abraham did them no good at all.  In verse 9, John is quoted in the NRSV as saying, "Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."  In response, the crowd asked him what they should do, and John replied that they were to clothe and feed the needy.  He told tax collectors to collect only what they legally should.  He told soldiers they should stop extorting the public and learn to live on their salary.

"What should we do?"  Our Protestant answer has been that we should go through a process of repentance that includes becoming aware of our sin, feeling remorse for it, confessing it, and then receiving God's gracious forgiveness.  Then we should live faithful lives, which includes presumably helping others.  But, we insist—after having to do all of this work of repentance—that salvation is by faith alone.  Sometimes we will say that the good we do is actually God working in us and that this includes the work of repentance.  OK.  But, at some point we are involved, otherwise the whole process of salvation is nonsense.  Matthew 25 and Luke 3 are both clear.  Our salvation depends on our behaving with generosity toward those in need.

If by salvation, we mean here a full and meaningful life, then it is best to say that we are saved by God's grace and our own responses to that grace, which are measured in our generosity to those in need.  The choice between grace and works is a false one.  Faith and works come as a package deal.  We can't have one without the other.  Amen.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Back to Galilee - Mark 1:14-15 (vii)

Lion of St. Mark, Piazza San Marco, Venice
This posting is the seventh in a series (originally written in 1998) looking at the Gospel of Mark from the perspective of a historian. The first posting in this series is (here).

As mentioned in the fourth posting in this series, Jesus didn't begin his public ministry until John was imprisoned. And it's interesting to note that Jesus wasn't even in Galilee when that event took place. He had to return there. Assuming this sequence of events is correct, we have no way of knowing Jesus' reasons for rejecting a Judean ministry or a desert ministry in favor of a Galilean town & country ministry. A number of things are possible. Jesus, being Galilean, may have felt more comfortable at home in his own setting. We can assume that Galileans had their own foods, their own speech-ways, and a host of other mores familiar to Jesus. He may, on the other hand, have wanted to dissociate his own style and message from that of John, which would have been harder to do if he'd stayed in Judea. Funding may have been an issue. Jesus may have had sources of financial support in Galilee that he didn't have in Judea. We'll see that Marks' Jesus tried to remain semi-covert in some ways, and that may have been easier to do in Galilee than in Judea. All of this is purely speculative, of course, and all that we know for sure is that, if Mark is correct, Jesus consciously decided to initiate his own ministry in Galilee. It's also interesting to note that there was an interval of some time between Jesus' baptism and his ministry. The text implies that he stayed on with John, which again reinforces our sense that Jesus was John's disciple.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

John's Baptism - Mark 1:9-13 (v)

Lion of St. Mark, Piazza San Marco, Venice
This posting is the fifth in a series (originally written in 1998) looking at the Gospel of Mark from the perspective of a historian. The first posting in this series is (here).

Mark 1:9 (TEV) says that Jesus went to the Jordan "not long" after John started baptizing. Mark 1:14 states that after John was imprisoned "Jesus went to Galilee and preached the Good News from God." Mark, we're going to find, has at best an obscure chronology. His sources, apparently, didn't tell the author much about Jesus' comings and goings. It could also be that he wasn't much interested in a precise chronology. But, Mark does imply that Jesus was with John for most of John's ministry, from close to the beginning until John was jailed. This is more circumstantial evidence suggesting a close relationship between Jesus and John, again leaving us with the possibility that Jesus was originally John's disciple.

Jesus' baptism was clearly a significant spiritual event for him. Mark states that Jesus had a profound experience with the Holy Spirit, one accompanied by visions. It seems, in fact, to be an entirely human pentecostal experience. If we set aside for a moment the later Christian belief in Jesus' full divinity, what we have is Jesus accepting John's call to confess his sins, repent of them, and be baptized. Jesus may have been in a state of some tension and agitation, for it's frequently in such a state that people have profound spiritual experiences. Note, also, that Jesus seems to have experienced God's forgiveness. What else could God's words, "I am pleased with you" mean in this context? Mark's Jesus was, thus, subordinate to God the Father and apparently felt himself in need of divine forgiveness.

We should also take note of Jesus' relationship to the Spirit. In 1:12, Mark states that the Spirit "made" Jesus go into the desert (TEV). Other translations (RSV, JB) use the word "drove" instead of "made". Language like this simply doesn't fit the later Christian dogma about Jesus being fully God-fully human and a co-equal Person of the Trinity. Jesus is clearly subordinate to the power of the Spirit.

2011 Notes:

[1] The point here is not that later Christian reflections on the divinity of Christ are "wrong."  The church has continued right down to the present to reflect on and discover new understandings of its initial experience with Jesus.  The point is, rather, that the Gospel of Mark stands very early in that process of discovery.  It is based on the memories of people who knew Jesus and knew that he was "just" a person like the rest of us but also knew that he "something more" than the rest of us.  The humanity of Jesus thus stands out most clearly while the struggle to understand that something more was still in its early stages.

[2] I'm not quite so sure today that Jesus felt himself in need of forgiveness, but it is clear that Jesus felt the need to submit himself to John's baptism and that in his submission he had a profound spiritual experience.  For some that may be startling to think of Jesus as having such experiences, but if he was fully human, as we say he was, then he would have shared in the good things of being human, including having profound spiritual experiences.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

John the Baptist - Mark 1:4-8 (iv)

Lion of St. Mark, Piazza San Marco, Venice
This posting is the fourth in a series (originally written in 1998) looking at the Gospel of Mark from the perspective of a historian. The first posting in this series is (here).

In Mark 1:2-3, the author of Mark put the Jesus Story on its largest stage, Israel and Israel's prophetic tradition. This next passage, Mark 1:4-8, sets the more immediate stage, the prophetic ministry of John the Baptist. Passages from the Gospels and the Book of the Acts suggest that Jesus may have been connected with John before his baptism and may even have been a disciple of John's. Jesus held John in the highest respect and only began his public ministry after John was imprisoned. Jesus associated himself with John's message of repentance and forgiveness.

Jesus didn't come onto the Jewish stage out of nowhere. He was linked to a contemporary prophetic tradition. It's probable that John had a deep influence on Jesus. If Luke 1:36 is correct, Jesus and John were relatives. Jesus could well have had a long association with John, who was only a few months older. Something, in any event, happened between John and Jesus that brought Jesus to the Jordan River for baptism. I think that John had some kind of direct spiritual impact on Jesus. It may well have been formative. Perhaps it was John who first awakened Jesus' deep religious concerns and faith. Or, again, perhaps John first helped Jesus articulate such concerns, wherever they may have originated. This all isn't quite pure speculation, because all four of the Gospels and Acts point to a special relationship between Jesus and John. It does help us, furthermore, to appreciate more fully the human side of Jesus. He, like the rest of us, was influenced by his culture, society, and particular individuals he knew.  Mark's attempts to put Jesus in his religious context also increases the historical credibility of his gospel portrait of Jesus. If Mark had claimed that Jesus came out of the sky and was without human antecedents, his gospel would have been diminished in value for the historian. This way, we have a sense that there was an actual person who was born into a real world of complex historical associations. We know distressingly little about those associations, but Mark at least informs us that they existed and that they're associated with Israel's prophetic tradition and with John.