Rob Bell and Hell on Twitter
There has been much debate this week between various factions within the evangelical community. Many have sided with neo-Calvinist John Piper while others have defended Rob Bell’s progressive views. It is hard to believe that the eruption was over the yet to be published Love Wins, a book in which Bell explores the issue of hell and the possibility of universal salvation. It seems ludicrous that so many have taken such strong positions on this issue without having read the book. However, it is safe to say that Bell’s work will be progressive and ‘heretical’ to some. John Piper included.
What is most interesting to me is that, regardless of theology, most people automatically jump to one side. So the question is: are we followers of Piper, Bell, or Jesus?
In How (not) to speak of God, Pete Rollins discusses the idea that there is actually nothing we can concretely say about God. So while many disagree with Bell or Piper, we must remember that our idea of God is similarly misinformed or incomplete. So while we might be convinced that double-predestination or universal salvation are incorrect, there can really be no orthodox theology or belief that we can militantly counter with.
I do not believe however that this atheological view need resort to relativism. There are, I believe, some things that we can say God is not, or things that God is against.
For example, we must agree that God is not at all interested in religious practices where say human sacrifice is required, or ritual suicide, or both in the case of suicide bombers. So while we cannot directly say what God is, there are moments when we must say what God is not.
So are we followers of Piper or Bell, or are we followers of Jesus? Instead of immediately jumping to one particular side on an issue, we need to engage with public theological debate which is honest and transparent.
Who is Jesus?
From Constantine to the time of the ‘Enlightenment’, Christian orthodoxy reigned as the dominant religious and socio-political discourse within the Western framework.[1] Recently, the rise of secularism and Islam in the West have displaced Christendom and have been viewed by many as an inherent challenge to the place of Christianity and the person of Jesus.
It seems to me that Christ’s identity, as a revelation of God, should compel Christians to dialogue with alternative understandings of Jesus, rather than oppose them. It is only through this dialogue that the message of Christ’s transforming social and religious vision can begin to permeate our current context.
Recently, when I interviewed a Muslim, an Atheist, and a Christian around the identity of Jesus, I discovered an interesting picture of Jesus where all three perspectives combine historical and mythological characteristics of Jesus, albeit in different ways.
For this reason I believe that delineating between an historical Jesus and the mythological Christ can more successfully inform Christian, Muslim and Atheistic understandings of Christ. By being willing to dialogue, and listen to each other, we will discover how each voice can inform the question, “Who is Jesus?”
The identity of Jesus, as with any human being, is a difficult thing to define. For this reason it is helpful to discuss the identity of Jesus in somewhat abstract terms.
Christ can be thought of as existing as a plethora of persons, yet remain one in substance and being. Within this framework we need not consider the historical Jesus and the mythological Christ as one and the same, but rather the historical Jesus as one person of the Christ. Nevertheless, it is important to begin with the Jesus of history as a starting point for this discussion, just as he was the starting point for the early church.
Jesus as an Historical Person[3]
Jesus is consistently described as the central figure in the Christian religion. Jesus was a Jewish man who lived about 2000 years ago, approximately between the 1st and 34th year of the Common Era. He lived in the Middle East, more specifically Galilee in the province of Judea and was crucified by being nailed to a cross (a common mode of execution by the Roman Empire of the time). He was known as:
(i) a Rabbi (religious/moral/wisdom teacher);
(ii) a prophet;
(iii) someone within the Jewish tradition known as a ‘son of God’; and
(iv) a man worthy of execution, as a challenger of the ‘Status Quo’[5].
This is a picture of the historical Jesus that all our three voices (and the traditions they represent) could easily embrace. Interestingly, this is a strikingly similar picture to the historical Jesus that Marcus Borg, of ‘The Jesus Seminar’ outlines inThe Heart of Christianity. He describes Jesus as:
(i) a Jewish mystic (or a son of God);
(ii) a healer;
(iii) a wisdom teacher;
(iv) a social prophet; and
(v) a movement initiator.[6]
It is only the idea of Jesus as healer that remains absent from the interview data. However as we know, Jesus is also identified as much more than his historical self, even (as we shall see) by our Atheist voice. This mythological and metaphorical understanding paints the other side of our Jesus picture.
Christ as Myth and Metaphor
Speaking of Christ as myth and metaphor is a challenging process for many within the Christian tradition. While this is not the place for a detailed defense of this method, it can be stated that such a methodology does not diminish the importance of Christ, nor does it consider Christ as theological aberration, but rather as an ontological reality.
Perhaps by speaking of Christ in mythological terms we can begin to find a synthesis between the varying voices surrounding the identity of Jesus. In doing so one must remember that this is not an exercise in relativism, rather it is an exploration into the meaning of Christ for us today.[7]
In doing so, the greatest respect must be awarded to the Christian tradition, as the identity of Jesus the Christ is not only dearest to them but is primarily formed and communicated from within that tradition.
The mythological Christ as the founding figure in the Christian religion. Christ can be identified with by people of all persuasions: i.e. to many Christians, Christ can be seen as sharing elements of their own identity;[8] to many Muslims, Christ can be seen as an important prophet of Allah; and to many Atheists he can be seen as humanist teacher or philosopher.
This fluidity of Christ’s identity is an important element to his mythological identity and the key to unlocking a point of continuity in our argument. It is within this framework that we can explore the meaning and importance of Jesus the Christ.
The Atheist Dialogue
The Atheist voice in my interview is that of a humanist and a materialist; with a post-Kantian, post-metaphysical worldview.[9] Like many Atheists, he believes that there is nothing beyond what we see, feel and touch, and that as humans we must work together to forge a positive future in the absence of God.
There remains little space for spirituality in such a worldview. This worldview is not dissimilar to that of Balkan intellectual and militant Marxist, Slavoj Zizek. Yet Zizek concedes the importance of Christ, and indeed Christians, within his sociological framework by declaring “a direct lineage from Christianity to Marxism; yes, Christianity and Marxism should fight on the same side of the barricade”[10].
This clarification must go beyond simple Christian/Marxist ideologies; where Christians, Marxists, humanists, materialists and other secularists fight on the same side, not against new-age spiritualities – as Zizek suggests – but against the injustices of oppression, racism, classism, sexism, etc. Militant Marxists and fundamentalist Christians alike can learn from the example of Jesus’ reversal from ethnocentrism to the radical embrace of ‘the other’:
Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me Lord, son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly. (Matthew 15: 22-28)
It seems that Jesus understood his mission to be to his fellow Jews and shockingly refers to the woman by the derogatory term ‘dog’. However even in Matthew, the most Judeo-centric of the gospels, we find that by engaging and dialoguing with the woman Jesus reevaluates his own identity, releasing himself of gender, cultural and religious norms to embrace ‘the other’.
Importantly, it is through dialogue, non-violence and openness that Jesus shifts his own identity, embraces the Canaanite woman, and sets about his movement of social and theological reform. From this vision of Jesus we can find parallels with the social theory of secular idealist Jurgen Habermas.
Habermas believes that society’s problems must too be addressed through reason, dialogue and non-violence, by engaging with each other using language and public discourse. He particularly encourages a shift from subject-centered reason towards an inter-subjective frame, in which our own opinions are shaped only through engaged argument with others.[11]
It is this imperative for dialogue that Peter Rollins explores in his book How (not) to Speak of God where he identifies the Atheist/Theist and a-Theology/Theology dialectics. Through such dialectics, Rollins believes that new ways of understanding God and the person of Jesus can blossom.
By dialoguing with Atheist, and other a-theological voices, and removing the confinements of static Christian doctrine, we allow space for God to ‘speak’, rather than limiting God with our own frameworks.[12] By embracing this A/Theology, Christians can begin again to see the richness of the Jesus tradition emerge, while engaging with Atheistic voices on the role of Jesus, God and religion.
The Islamic Dialogue
Unlike secularism with its philosophical, scientific and (ironical) Christian roots; the rise of Islam in the West has been born out of migration, mass communication and globalization. The Muslim voice from my interview was clearly the least informed of the three in regard to the historical Jesus. However, the Muslim voice was clear of the importance of Jesus as a prophet of God, while emphatic that Jesus was not to be considered God, or the literal ‘Son of God’.
There is much about Jesus that both Muslims and indeed Jews can affirm. There is little of what we see outlined by Marcus Borg regarding the historical Jesus that causes division between the Abrahamic religions. Without doubt, it is the divinity of Jesus that remains the most significant point of difference between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
In his Principles of Christian Theology, John Macquarrie describes the notion of God as having three ‘persons’[13]. Macquarrie points out that the hypostatizations of wisdom and word were well known in Jewish literature, representing the richness and diversity of the Godhead; paving the way for the Christian doctrine where Jesus (embodying wisdom and word) becomes the ‘second person of the Trinity’.
For Macquarrie these three belong together “under the trinitarian symbolism of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God… [They] belong together in the ‘substance’ of the Godhead.” However, this still leaves us with the problem of Islamic monotheism and its reluctance to accept Jesus as a person, face, or even symbol of God.
For this reason, the Christian community must bring its current dialogue surrounding the divinity of Jesus into the public arena. The spectrum of views surrounding Jesus’ divinity ranges from Christian humanism to the embodiment of a transcendent deity. While these divisions can be unhelpful, they do illuminate the vast array of Christian understanding; some of which are less alienating and confronting to Islamic faith.
I am not suggesting here a wholesale conversion to Christian humanism as a means of placating Muslim detractors of Christianity; rather, the process of public dialogue and theologizing creates transparency and reduces fear of ‘the other’. It is possible that through this dialogue; Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of all faiths can identify in some way with both the historical Jesus and the mythological Christ, or in the words of Marcus Borg: the pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus.[14]
The most explicit of Trinitarian language in the New Testament comes in what Christians call The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). However, it must be noted that Jesus does not speak these words pre-Easter, but post-Easter. This theological symbolism where God and Jesus are alluded to as Father and Son belongs firmly within the post-Easter tradition, as a witness of the early church.
The Christian Dialogue
It is the Christian conception of Jesus that undoubtedly has the most to say, and the most to lose, in a dialogue such as this. Therefore it is important to affirm with Macquarrie that:
“Jesus Christ… is for the Christian faith the decisive or paradigmatic revelation of God… In Christ, as the paradigmatic experience, we receive a renewed understanding of ourselves that amounts to a new possibility of existence.”[15]
No amount of compromising or theologizing can diminish the importance of Jesus Christ in the Christian tradition. We can find the centrality of Jesus in the creeds of the Church, one of which is the Apostle’s Creed:
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended into hell. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.[16]
It is here that we must turn to the bookends of the Jesus story: his birth and his death and resurrection. It is these two narratives that form so much of Jesus’ identity within the Christian tradition. For this reason they remain the most debated and contested of all the Jesus narratives. Rather than enter the debate regarding the literal/historical accuracy of the birth narrative, I will simply point out some the rich metaphorical meaning inherent in these interesting texts.
In Matthew’s gospel we encounter the metaphor of Jesus as the new Moses. In Matthew 2:13-23 we see the unmistakable allusion to the Moses tradition, both in the massacre of the infants (Ex. 1:22-2:10) and the emergence from Egypt to Israel. If we turn to the birth narrative in Luke we find no mention of these seemingly significant events.
Whether elaborations, or simply different foci, the message is clear: depending on context, some characteristics of Jesus’ identity can be more important than others. In Matthew’s community, amongst other things, it seems it was important to remember Jesus within the Moses tradition.
Whatever the reason for each community’s associations, we can propose that even from the earliest stages of the Christian tradition the identity of Jesus was a fluid and malleable concept. The death and resurrection of Jesus is a theological idea far too dense to fully unpack here and like the birth narratives there is no need to debate its literal/historical merits.
However, as we discussed above, it is sometimes necessary to discuss it in pre-Easter and post-Easter terms. By including the risen Christ under the framework of the post-Easter Jesus, we can begin to unlock not only the full meaning behind the resurrection but also behind Jesus’ life and death.
In viewing the birth and resurrection narratives metaphorically, we can embrace a more-than-literal meaning[17], and start embracing its textual richness and mythology as a means to encourage imagination in growth and understanding.[18]
However, more than this, the Christian witness affirms a new ontological ground, whereby “On the basis of the resurrection of the crucified One, we can now believe that ultimately love and peace and justice will triumph… [and] nothing, not even death, can separate us from God”[19].
Who is Jesus?
If this discussion has demonstrated anything, it is that there is no simple answer to the question, “Who is Jesus?” We have seen that it is very difficult to say anything concrete about Jesus, yet there remains an urge to answer the question in great detail.
As Peter Rollins very eloquently phrases, “That which we cannot speak of is the one thing about whom and to whom we must never stop speaking.”[20] By listening to three very diverse voices on the identity of Jesus we were able to isolate an historical Jesus who could be described as a Jewish mystic, a wisdom teacher, a social prophet, and a movement initiator.
Like the early church, we were able to affirm this historical, pre-Easter Jesus and then move into a concept of a post-Easter Jesus, who is most describable in metaphorical and mythological language. Central to this metaphorical language is “Jesus is the Son of God”[21].
We are in a way free to allow this metaphor to speak in its own way to different communities; however it is as a person of the Godhead and symbol of God that this metaphor finds it meaning within the Christian tradition. This metaphorical symbolism surrounding the identity of Jesus is easily transposed to different communities.
Like Matthew’s faith community, we are encouraged to discover for ourselves the most important person within the identity of Jesus. For the Atheist it might be that Jesus is “a role model and because he has shaped the modern world’s morals”[22], easily identifiable with humanist and even Marxist ideologies.
It is not that we try to make Jesus fit our identities and ideologies; rather it is that we see the best of our identities and ideologies in him. We discovered that Jesus was a person who encouraged open and public dialogue, himself willing to listen and be changed by these dialogues.
In doing so discover that Jesus is ultimately inclusive and embracing of ‘the other’, moving beyond his own ethnic, religious and social identity. This illuminates Jesus as a non-violent reformer, willing to critique and address the problems within his own social context.
For the Muslim, “Jesus was a prophet sent by God”[23] and a paradigmatic revelation of God. However, it is the Christian who ultimately has the final on the identity of Jesus.
Unlike the Muslim, the Christian sees Jesus as the paradigmatic revelation of God, representing the triumph of love, peace and justice, and signifying God yearning to be reconciled to us.
[1] Frost, Michael. Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture.Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. p3-8.
[2] Dupre, Ben. 50 Philosophical Ideas You Really Need to Know. London: Quercus, 2007. p35.
[3] From the sample data, it is possible to sketch a picture of the historical Jesus that can be generally accepted from the perspective of all our three demographics.
[4] From here I will designate the combined voice of the Christian, Atheist, and Muslim from my interviews under the persona of CAM.
[5] Even the misinformed view of Jesus being hanged reflects Jesus’ identity as steeped in dissent and heterodoxy.
[6] Borg, Marcus. The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith. New York: HarperCollins, 2004 p89-91.
[7] This is a central tenant borrowed from the Christology of Bonheoffer. See Bonheoffer, Dietrich. Leters and Papers Form Prison. New York: SCM, 1971. p278-81.
[8] To a medieval European Jesus was often depicted as having blonde hair and blue eyes and dressing in contextual clothing. Similarly, in much post-colonial art, Jesus has been depicted as having black or brown skin; sporting indigenous dress, hairstyle, etc.
[9] Palmer, Humphrey. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason; An Introductory Text.Cardiff: University College Press, 1983. p4-13.
[10] Zizek, Slavoj. The Fragile Absolute: Or Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? London: Verso, 2008. pXXIX.
[11] White, Stephen K. The Cambridge Companion to Habermas:Practical Discourse and Communicative Ethics. Cmabridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. p143-60
[12] Rollins, Peter. How (not) to speak of God: The Aftermath of Theology.London: SPCK, 2006. p20-30
[13] Without delving into a complicated exploration into substance and person, or a substantial doctrine of the trinity, it is enough to note that the persons of God can be thought of akin to changing masks in a Greek play where the actor remains the same yet their appearance and ‘persona’ changes.
[14] Borg. The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith. p82-99.
[15] Macquarrie, John. Principles of Christian Theology: Study Edition. London: SCM, 1974. p249-50
[16] This is an Anglican version of the creed, sourced on 29/11/10 from http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/word/creeds.html
[17] Borg. The Heart of Christianity. p13-4
[18] Keck. The Premodern Bible in the Postmodern World, Interpretation, Vol. 52.4 Oct. 98. p138.
[19] Lorenzen, Thorwald. Resurrection Discipleship Justice: Affirming the Resurrection of Jesus Today. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2003. p80.
[20] Rollins. How (not) to Speak of God. pXII
[21] ‘Sarah’. Appendix A.
[22] ‘Michael’. Appendix A.
[23] ‘Adil’. Appendix A.
Mark Payne
