The Human Jesus

Today, as most Christians will know, is Maundy Thursday. It is traditionally the day in which Christians commemorate the Last Supper, and reflect upon the night in which Jesus died.

Thinking back to the night in which Jesus ate his last supper with his friends, and prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, I am struck most by the humanity of Jesus at this time. Whether one thinks Jesus is/was the Son of God, an inspired man, a moral teacher with no divinity whatsoever - it is his humanity which is most prominent in this stage of his life.

The Gospel accounts of the Last Supper are fairly straightforward. They basically say the essence of what Jesus said and did. Now, this is not a criticism - how do I know what the evangelists were attempting to achieve with their accounts? It is quite possible that they did not intend to offer any more information than the bare essentials.

But when we read these infamous words, do we ever think about what on earth must have gone through Jesus' head on this night? To share bread, saying "Do this in remembrance of me". To talk about himself as a deceased person. To realise what he was going to face. And to point out that one of his friends, the 12 people to whom he was closest in his life (excluding, of course, his family and potentially a few of his other dear friends, female and male), was about to hand him over to be crucified? Did that break his heart? Would he have felt hurt?

Presumably fear struck him; as he prays in the Garden of Gethsemane this becomes evident. He admitted to his friends: ‘I am deeply grieved, even to death...' (Matthew 26:38).

And after this, the one thing he asked of his friends, they let him down in: 'could you not stay awake with me one hour?' (Mt 26:40). It may have seemed a small thing to some: falling asleep when it's late at night and one is exhausted; but Jesus was facing death and at a point like this, with emotions truly heightened, it must have felt as if the people he loved most repeatedly neglected him.

Luke 22:44 suggests that Jesus' sweat became like drops of blood. Jesus is more than aware of what is going to happen to him and he is probably more frightened than ever before. He is about to face public humiliation, torture, excruciating pain and a slow, agonising death.

So what's the point here? The point is that Jesus suffered immensely in the run up to his crucifixion, not just during it. In less than 24 hours he would have experienced hurt, disappointment, fear, anxiety and anguish. Yet he pursued his call to the end and faced what he had to. From this we can take both inspiration and comfort: inspiration to pursue what we believe is right at whatever cost, and comfort in knowing that at those times when we feel low, hurt, betrayed, scared or anxious, Jesus does not simply sympathise or look on from a distance - he empathises, saying "I've been there too".

Jesus the Radical

From time to time it really hits me just how radical Jesus was: in his words, in his attitudes, in his behaviour.

The passage from John's Gospel set as today's lectionary reading really brings this home. It's the passage in John 4:5-42 in which Jesus visits a well and asks for a drink from a Samaritan woman, leading to a discussion about the water of eternal life.

In focussing on the message of water in eternal life, it strikes me that there are three major aspects of this reading which could easily be overlooked, yet speak volumes:

1. Jesus was human.
   It's quite something when John makes a point of describing Jesus in a human way, for he usually takes great pains to emphasise the divinity and high status of Christ - far more so than the authors of the synoptic gospels. But in this passage, John specifically states:
   'Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well' (Jn 4:6).
   It's especially important to remember when reading John that Jesus is not some alien figure; like every other human being he experienced pain, fatigue, anger and a whole other array of human emotions.
   
   
2. Jesus overlooked race boundaries.
   For centuries Jews and Samaritans were divided; Samaria was in the northern kingdom, Judah in the southern, and since the united monarchy they had been separate. The divide was deep: children of Samaria grew up with the understanding that they didn't associate with people from Judah, and likewise those from Judah learnt very quickly to avoid Samaritans.
   
   But for Jesus, this wasn't going to happen. He was in need of a drink, and a Samaritan woman was present. Connecting with another human being on the human level was far more a concern than long-standing cultural animosity. The woman, however, is clearly taken aback when he asks her for a drink, for she asks: ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ (Jn 4:9).
   
   Clearly Jesus envisaged a kingdom of God which did not exclude anyone - certainly not on the basis of race.
   
   
3. Not just race boundaries, either...
   The fact that this lady is Samaritan is not the only shocking thing here...she is, of course, a woman! To the twenty-first century reader, of course, this wouldn't raise an eyelid; but one must put oneself in the cultural context. It's 1st century Palestine...and women are effectively considered second-class citizens. Women would have had certain domestic roles, including of course as mothers - but this would have been their main domain. It would have been quite shocking for not just any man, but a man like Jesus who was revered in some circles, to have been in conversation with a woman. Yet Jesus time and time again is found talking to women and even defending them (cf. Matthew 26:6-13).
   
   In this passage, John explicitly states that: '[The disciples] were astonished that he was speaking with a woman' (Jn 4:27). He also tells us of her fundamental role in spreading the good news of Jesus: 'Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony' (4:39).

What is abundantly clear from this passage, therefore, is that Jesus envisages an inclusive kingdom where people of all races and genders are not only welcome, but also valued, having an important role. Perhaps churches and church leaders who attempt to exclude people from leadership or even membership would be well-advised to consider this.

Christ in Christmas?

I grew up hearing annually the complaints of other Christians about the Christ being taken out of Christmas...whether it was from people's (misinformed) objections to the use of the word 'Xmas' or myths being spread about the whole nation apparently replacing 'Christmas' with the term 'Winterval' (something which was in fact one campaign run by the Birmingham City Council in 1998).

After some reflection I've decided to argue that Christ is still very much present in Christmas in 2010 and that He shall continue to be.

It is of course true that Christmas is heavily commercialised (is it really necessary to sell Christmas cards in September?) and that dinners and snowmen and more the emblems of Christmas than a manger or wise men for many people. The approach I'm going to take will not be to deny this, but instead to reconsider what we mean by Christ being in Christmas.

Presents are one of my favourite parts of Christmas. I love that feeling of getting something you want - and perhaps even more that feeling of someone opening your present and their face lighting up. There is something truly satisfying in knowing you've made a person happy, helped them in some way, given them something they desired.

Some Christians might protest that presents are a commercial tradition and embody society's materialistic culture. However, one must not forget that presents originate from the tradition which says that Magi from the East came and brought gifts to the newborn baby Jesus. Of course, that isn't the thought in everyone's mind when they're giving presents - and I'm not going to try suggesting otherwise. But the fact remains that, for whatever reason, this tradition has continued.

Furthermore, giving presents is still a shift away from the individualistic culture we seem to have. I believe it is more than just a product of materialism; I believe it is a simple practice that represents people's inherent love, fondness of others and joy in the company of others. A lyric from Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World for me encapsulates this idea:

'I see friends shaking hands saying how do you do -
They're really saying I love you'

This act beyond shaking hands for me is this way of people expressing their gratitude for one another - a thankyou for friendship, or for the joy they have brought as a parent, child, partner, mentor.

Let it not be forgotten also that many people also give gifts through charities, help the homeless and work in soup kitchens, and take in people who would otherwise be alone at Christmas.

Why is this significant? Because this was the kind of attitude that Christ preached and lived by. Feeding the hungry, helping the needy, showing love to others - even one's enemies. (Here's where I also recall that Christmas is often a time of reconciliation.) Christ is not just present when we sing carols or attend Christmas church services. He is also present wherever people show love to others - be they relatives, friends, enemies or total strangers.

So, in summary - I'm not despairing just yet. Commercialisation and materialism may seem to be the dominating forces - but let us not forget two things: firstly, God is not bound by statistics. There is surely meaning in every case where an individual person who believes that Christ is central to Christmas; and secondly, that Christ is present not just in carols and churches, but in homes where presents are exchanged, in soup kitchens where the hungry are fed and where acts of charity and forgiveness and reconciliation abound.

A Brilliant Article

http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/

Just read it. A superb little piece.

Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time

The title words of today's entry are to be attributed to Marcus J. Borg, a theological Professor and member of the historical Jesus movement, The Jesus Seminar. These words were the title of a book of his which I have just read and felt moved and challenged by.

The book is one I would recommend to anyone who, like me, may have grown up with an image of Jesus as God's Son sent to earth to bear the punishment for my sins, to be sacrificed for my sake. If you are, or have the suspicion you may soon be, at the stage where the notions of sin and hell and judgement and Jesus bearing God's wrath become either stale, or tasteless, or no longer concepts to which you can relate, this book is most definitely for you.

Far from being what many conservative Christians would consider liberal theology to be - watering down scripture, removing what is significant from the heart of the Christian faith and leaving you with nothing of any meaning - in Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time Marcus Borg focuses on truths about who Jesus was which are so often neglected by the church and modern Christians in favour of one specific strand of theology which is actually based on a very small amount of the comparatively large New Testament Gospels, and upon only one of the three most significant stories of the Old Testament (which, for Borg, are the Exodus from Egypt, the exile to Babylon and the Priestly Story; the dominant doctrines of salvation, atonement, etc. are purely based on the latter of the three, and pay no attention whatsoever to the former two).

As I have probably made quite clear by now (!) I thoroughly recommend this book. You may not agree with everything Borg thinks (I myself don't, either), but there is compelling truth in this book that presents Jesus in a way which is far removed from the almost cringeworthy picture which is proclaimed ad nauseam by evangelical Christianity.

I conclude with some words from Marcus Borg himself:
For those of us who grew up in the church, believing in Jesus was important. For me...that phrase used to mean...'believing things about Jesus'. To believe in Jesus meant to believe what the gospels and the church said about Jesus. That was easy when I was a child, and became more and more difficult as I grew older...
Believe did not originally mean believing a set of doctrines or teachings; in both Greek and Latin its roots mean 'to give one's heart to'. The 'heart' is the self at its deepest level...Believing in Jesus does not mean believing doctrines about him. Rather, it means to...give one's self at its deepest level, to the post-Easter Jesus who is the living Lord, the side of God turned toward us, the face of God, the Lord who is also the Spirit'.

As a friend of mine frequently says, 'amen to that, brother!'.

Public Equality vs Personal Conscience

Ever since the implementation of the bill making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, numerous debates have ensued. Inevitably the same questions have been banded around: what about the rights of the religious believer? Whose rights matter more? Do people's consciences not matter? And, on the other side of the discussion - how can we ever attain equality? How far is discrimination acceptable?

I have decided, albeit hesitantly, to at least explore this issue. My stimulus is the news that Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, stated that, in his view: "if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home".

When he puts it like that, it seems reasonable. However - the fact is, these people have chosen to operate a business in their home. As a corollary, their home, as the premises of the business, must surely be treated as the premises of any other business? Grayling himself claims that it would not be reasonable to allow a hotel to discriminate on who they allowed to stay in the 21st century. Why is a B&B different simply because it is run from the couple's home? If they know they are going to find it difficult to admit up to 10% of potential guests, is it really wise to set up such a business in the first place?

As Christ himself said: "‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s" (Matt 20:21). In an age where equality is the goal, it cannot be acceptable for any business owner to pick and choose to whom they provide a service. Otherwise we must ask where the cut-off point is. Are Christian shopkeepers allowed to choose not to serve divorcees? (Incidentally, Jesus had a lot more to say about divorce than he did about homosexuality). Or perhaps atheist B&B owners who find Christian beliefs offensive should be allowed to ban them as guests? Maybe homophobic pub owners should be allowed to refrain from selling alcohol to homosexuals?

Some Christians interpret the Bible to mean that God doesn't like gay people. They therefore find homosexuals offensive. But our society, which aims for people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, political and religious views to be able to live in harmony with one another, finds such discrimination offensive.

For Christians who would struggle as the B&B owners to admit gay couples, or Muslims, or atheists, or anyone else whose beliefs/lifestyles offend them, perhaps they ought to consider that (1) setting up a business in an egalitarian society isn't the best idea; (2) If their convictions really are correct, will Jesus really condemn them for simply allowing them to stay in their B&B? They're not exactly joining in(!)

Thinking Day

Today has been a day of me thinking. This has been for two primary reasons.


The first is that I celebrated my birthday. Birthdays do often have that habit of inducing thought and reflection upon one's soul. And as I pondered I thought of the miracle of childbirth, and the greater miracle of what such tiny babies can one day become...to think of all those who were once tiny babies - Einstein, Newton, Churchill, Thatcher, Kant, Picasso - and so many more.


And of course - Jesus. To think that the saviour of the world began life as a helpless, crying baby.


And then I thought of the last years of my life - some of the experiences with which I have been blessed, or indeed cursed. And I pondered whether the positives outweighed the negatives, and, of course, deep down -they do.


The other reason I was in a "pondering" sort of mood was that today was in fact that the 70th anniversary of Britain and France's declaring of war on Germany. This news would have been terrifying and frightening to thousands of children and adults, men and women, soldiers and civilians alike - but at the same time was felt necessary to undertake in order to ensure the freedom of Poland, and indeed later on, many more countries, including our own beloved nation.


As I was watching the ITV1 programme 'Outbreak' - a superb documentary chronologically accounting, hour by hour, this day in 1939, I found myself attempting to imagine what it must have been like - for the soldiers, for the evacuees, for the women losing their children and their partners - and those men, and of course women, who served faithfully not knowing whether they would live to see the next day. I felt, and indeed feel, such admiration.


And so the combination of the anniversary of the outbreak of the war - combined with the comparatively trivial anniversary of my birth! - led me to conclude that, as always, God is very much 'in the picture'. He sees through time and time again the miracle of childbirth, and nurtures his creation. He inspires, motivates and touches the lives of thousands upon thousands, and in a time of war when people seemed devoid of hope, he was present.


I am eternally grateful, too, that I am fortunate enough to (currently) live a life of comparative luxury in relation to the lives of those during WW2. And I therefore thank God that we, at least, can know 'Peace in our time'.

An unreasonable command

Sorry, Jesus. You may have loved us enough to die for us, but we feel You're asking too much of us to simply love each other in our daily lives.

You see, we are a bit too busy. I'd love to help my neighbour in need, but I am far too preoccupied. I can't even help my friend, so I feel it's unreasonable to expect me to help my acquaintance.

And we are kind of a bit more 'out for ourselves' now, Jesus, you see. We "look after number 1" - who else will, after all?

So we go for what we want. It doesn't matter if two people love one another; if we fancy one of the two partners we will do our best to get to them. To hell with the feelings of the other person.

If I want to make money, I'll do it. Sorry, but money is important! It makes the world go round. I can't afford to sacrifice a single penny in a recession, even if it means hurting other people in the process. They won't help me, you see. But money will!

And if my friend irritates me sufficiently, I feel I have the right to at least smack him in the mouth. In fact, if he really gets to me, I have the right to beat him up - and set my 'mates' on him. He deserves it, after all.

And if my 'gang' gets 'dissed' by this other gang - we have the right to make sure we stab that gang's leader or another member to death. They deserve it, after all. Sorry, but it doesn't matter that that person will have parents and siblings and relatives and friends who love him. He wound us up, and that's all that matters.

And what about all those people suffering who need rest? Well I would like to give them peace, but if I'm angry, I have the right to shout. Even if it does disturb the terminally ill patient's rest. Sorry, but you seem to have forgotten - I look after number 1.

Charity? Well, I can't afford to donate a thing. It's a recession, as I've already said. Yes, I know that people don't stop dying in a recession. I know that those in the 2/3 world who suffer severe poverty are the worst hit at times like this - but hello? Remember? I need to make sure I'm all right here!

So the bottom line is, Lord, I know you want us to love one another - but this is not realistic in today's society. We are too busy with other things to take 5 minutes to help a friend or neighbour out. The fact is that sometimes, also, we just can't be bothered! Is it such a crime if I can't be bothered to pop round and visit the old lonely housebound lady? And we know what's important - looking after number one. We have unwritten permission to do whatever it takes to make sure we're all right.

As for everyone else? Well, they just don't matter, I'm afraid.