Punctum Saliens

Rudolf Bultmann in Jesus Christ and Mythology writes:

This raises in an acute form the question: what is the importance of the preaching of Jesus and of the preaching of the New Testament as a whole for modern man?

For modern man the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer and of redemption, are over and done with. Is it possible to expect that we shall make a sacrifice of understanding, sacrificium intellectus, in order to accept what we cannot sincerely consider true—merely because such conceptions are suggested by the Bible?

Or ought we to pass over those sayings of the New Testament which contain such mythological conceptions and to select other sayings which are not such stumbling-blocks to modern man? In fact, the preaching of Jesus is not confined to eschatological sayings. He proclaimed also the will of God, which is God’s demand, the demand for the good. Jesus demands truthfulness and purity, readiness to sacrifice and to love. He demands that the whole man be obedient to God, and he protests against the delusion that one’s duty to God can be fulfilled by obeying certain external commandments. If the ethical demands of Jesus are stumbling-blocks to modern man, then it is to his selfish will, not to his understanding, that they are stumbling-blocks.

What follows from all this? Shall we retain the ethical preaching of Jesus and abandon his eschatological preaching? Shall we reduce his preaching of the Kingdom of God to the so-called social gospel? Or is there a third possibility? We must ask whether the eschatological preaching and the mythological sayings as a whole contain a still deeper meaning which is concealed under the cover of mythology. If that is so, let us abandon the mythological conceptions precisely because we want to retain their deeper meaning. This method of interpretation of the New Testament which tries to recover the deeper meaning behind the mythological conceptions I call de-mythologizing—an unsatisfactory word, to be sure. Its aim is not to eliminate the mythological statements but to interpret them. It is a method of hermeneutics.

. . .

To de-mythologize is to reject not Scripture or the Christian message as a whole, but the world-view of Scripture, which is the world-view of a past epoch, which all too often is retained in Christian dogmatics and in the preaching of the Church. To de-mythologize is to deny that the message of Scripture and of the Church is bound to an ancient world-view which is obsolete.

This is something about which I’ve been thinking lately: if the Bible is the timeless, eternal Word of a timeless and eternal God then how can it depend on a particular time or world view or world philosophy? It absolutely must be able to speak to me, right now, right here and to you, right then, right there. This is only common sense. Therefore, while figuring out the exact intent of each word based on the writer’s time, place, and current mindset may provide some insight into what the passage meant for the writer and the writer’s contemporary audience, it really has precious little insight for me because I, in my time and place and mindset, am so completely different than the target audience. And forcing me to think of the text as if I were living in the time of the author only causes un-rational, un-defensible beliefs that must be defended at all cost because they are too fragile to be intelligently discussed.

Of course, the major problem I see with this is the four letter word myth. We have a difficult time using the word myth when talking about the Bible or Jesus or God. I’m hoping to discuss myth in more detail later but for now all I’ll quote Bultmann again:

Myths speak about gods and demons as powers on which man knows himself to be dependent, powers whose favor he needs, powers whose wrath he fears. Myths express the knowledge that man is not master of the world and of his life, that the world within which he olives is full of riddles and mysteries and that human life also is full of riddles and mysteries. … Mythology expresses a certain understanding of human existence. … Mythology speaks about this power inadequately and insufficiently because it speaks about it as if it were a worldly power. … Myths give worldly objectivity to that which is unworldly.

So, myth does not mean false, untrue, naive, or a fairy tale—even though that is how we commonly think about myth in this age of science. Myth means that there is a deeper, esoteric meaning beyond the outer, exoteric meaning. It turns the words into symbols charged with inner meaning and gives them eternal life because the inner meaning is able to speak to all times and not just when the words were written. The problem is that we need to learn how to deal with myth again, recognize the mythological nature of the Bible, and “rework” the myth to fit our world. This does not, as Bultmann says, mean rewriting the Bible or rejecting the Bible. It means applying the symbols of the Bible to our day and age.

More later …

“Jesus expected”

These two words in Rudolf Bultmann’s Jesus Christ and Mythology stopped me in my tracks and got me thinking about the nature of Jesus.

Bultmann is talking about Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom of God and his thinking that it “would take place soon, in the immediate future.” The fact that “this hope of Jesus … was not fulfilled” only makes the argument stronger: Jesus was not omniscient.

Then I realized that Jesus was not omnipotent, either. He needed sleep, he needed rest, he needed fortitude, he struggled with his purpose. His temptation not only proved his human-ness but it also seems to question his God-ness. The challenge to toss himself off the nearest tall building only makes sense if he could not have saved himself or survived the fall. The challenge was predicated on God doing the rescuing.

Yet Jesus did perform super-human feats: walking on water, feeding the 5000, calming storms, casting out demons, knowing the hearts and minds of others. So, at times, he does appear omniscient and omnipotent (or, at least, more scient and more potent than your average human). But two things strike me about his miracles. First, Jesus’ God-ness seems to be absent for the most part and then appears at opportune times. Second, the miracles which Jesus performs are not very conclusive proof of his God-ness but rather more strongly demonstrate — due to their intermittency — a power working through him in a manner similar to the miracles performed by the prophets and the apostles.

Now, we also have Jesus’ verbal claim that he was the Son of God but Alan Watts, in Myth and Religion, writes:

… that each one of us is what would be called in Arabic, or Hebrew, the Son of God. The phrase “Son of” means “of the nature of,” as when you call someone a “son of a bitch,” So, “Son of God” means a divine person, a human being who is in the nature of God and realizes it.

And what makes Jesus different than the prophets and apostles is that he realized his divine nature while the others were not so sure. That is why Jesus assumed the presence of the power to perform the miracles and the prophets and apostles were less sure and asked for it.

Where does this leave us? For one thing, it brings Jesus down off the pedastal and makes him much more accessible to you and me. The exhortation to “be like Jesus” is no longer a fairy tale but a feasible possibility (it’s still not easy) since being like God is no longer the standard. Rather, we are “simply” being asked to realize our true nature; to see the divine in all of us.

I ran across Mark Burgess’ blog today and found this excellent post. Here are some excerpts:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (King James Bible, John Chapter 14, Verse 6)

This particular verse is the mainstay of the fundamentalist evangelical movement. It basically says that all you have to do is believe in Christ, establish a personal relationship with him, and accept his as your savior, and you’re saved.

This conveniently allows you to go through life ignoring everything else that Jesus taught regarding the importance of loving others.

. . .

-And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (1 Corinthians 13, Verse 13)

The Greek word “agape” is usually translated as “love” in newer translations of the Bible, whereas the King James version translates it as “charity”. Translating agape as love means that you can “love” your neighbor without doing anything… whereas “charity” clearly communicates the imperative of action.

Some excellent, well articulated thoughts, Mark. Thank you.

On Saturday, there was a New York Times article about a free-speech case dividing Bush and the Religious Right (if you can imagine that). Briefly (and quoting the NYT article):

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed. With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

Mr. Frederick later testified that he designed the banner, using a slogan he had seen on a snowboard, “to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television.” Ms. Morse found no humor but plenty of meaning in the sign, recognizing “bong hits” as a slang reference to using marijuana. She demanded that he take the banner down. When he refused, she tore it down, ordered him to her office, and gave him a 10-day suspension.

Ok, putting aside the legal ramifications and precedents and what not, let’s get to the crazy stuff. The Bush administration is siding with the principal and the school board which are being represented (sans fees) by Kenneth Star (you know, the Clinton thing).

And in the opposite corner are the ACLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship — not much surprise there. But, right behind them are …

… the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson; the Christian Legal Society; the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization based in Arizona that describes its mission as “defending the right to hear and speak the Truth”; the Rutherford Institute, which has participated in many religion cases before the court; and Liberty Legal Institute, a nonprofit law firm “dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights and religious freedom.”

I don’t get this at all. What, exactly are the issues of “Truth” and “religious freedom” here? If taken seriously, the sign was condoning illegal drug use in the name of Jesus. If taken not seriously, the sign was merely a prank by a high schooler. What, exactly, are these organizations doing?

My feeling is that they are all involved because and only because the sign had “Jesus” on it. They view tearing down a sign that says “Jesus” as blasphemy or something. The marijuana reference is secondary and is not the real issue because is it about the most innocuous, harmless, non-blasphemous thing that could have been written.

Don’t believe that? Well, I wonder how many of these religious right organizations would be so involved if the sign read “Smoke Crack 4 Jesus” or “Sodomize 4 Jesus” or “Vote Democrat 4 Jesus”? These would all be “First Amendment”, “right to speak” issues as much as “Bong Hits”, would they not?

These are some “stream-of-consciousness” thoughts on what it means for the Bible to be inerrant. So please take them as that — spontaneous ideas and questions that have not been fully thought out. As always … comments are solicited.

Does inerrant mean true? Absolutely true? True absolutely?

Does inerrant mean historically accurate, precise?

Does inerrant mean that Jesus really said the words attributed to him in the gospels? Does inerrant apply to the words spoken by Jesus — i.e. Jesus really said the words and the words he said are also inerrant?

If so, then Jesus’ parables are inerrant even though the events they depict did not actually occur. The story of “The Prodigal Son” is inerrant even though said son never existed.

So, the parables are inerrant in that their symbolism is accurate, true?

But back to true. If the entire Bible is inerrant then the entire Bible is true. But is the entire Bible equally true? If we are talking absolute truth then yes, the entire Bible would be equally true because absolute is absolute, no?

If the entire Bible is absolute truth then we seem to have a slight problem. Absolute truth does not change — otherwise it’s not absolute. One absolute truth cannot alter, modify, negate, replace another absolute truth. Therefore, we are bound by every absolutely true verse and therefore by the Old Testament Law and by the New Testament teachings. Absolute truth is not applicable based on social situations or time period or any other restriction. If this verse does not apply to me today then this verse cannot be absolute truth, i.e. truth without condition.

So, is the Bible, then conditional truth? This verse is true under these conditions, for these people, at these times, under these social situations?

But if it’s conditionally true, then isn’t it conditionally inerrant?

While doing a little research for another post I’m writing I came across Antisemitism and the Crucifixion of Christ: Who Murdered Jesus? and I just have to write this quicky. (Stay tuned … this site is going to be fodder for a lot of my posts.) Now I’ll admit that I haven’t read the entire page (because it’s rather long and it’s 1:43 in the morning and I just want to get something written so I can get some sleep) but here goes anyway …

I have one good thing to say about my Fundamentalist Christian upbringing: I never thought twice about who killed Jesus. I didn’t got even the slightest hint of antisemitism from my family, church, pastor, or teachers. We thought the Jews were going to Hell because they didn’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God but we didn’t hate them.

I honestly think that the first I heard of antisemitism because the Jews “murdered” Jesus was all the hoopla from Gibson’s film (which I saw and which brought tears to me eyes; but tears of laughter because of the far-too-many so-over-the-top dramatic falls of the Jesus character while lugging his cross through the streets).

Call me sheltered or stupid but I just don’t get it. I mean, isn’t His death the whole freakin’ point of Jesus coming to earth? If He (He being Jesus) didn’t die then good ol’ Gibson (and perhaps you, dear reader) wouldn’t be a “Christian” and would be stuck trying to find two young turtle doves as atonement for this coming Saturday at the temple instead of just being able to kneel at your bedside and say a few “Hail Mary’s” or “Our Father’s” or whatever. Jesus even said that He came to die. He had to die. That was the whole plan from the get go!

So, who cares who did what to whom? The only thing of any consequence is that Jesus did die which made possible the redemption of the entire human race.

I just don’t get it.

And I sincerely apologize for the gratuitous use of the bold tag.