Common Lectionary Texts For Christmas Day
Hebrew Bible: Isaiah 52:7-10
Psalter: Psalm 98
Epistle Lesson: Hebrews 1:1-4 (5-12)
Gospel Lesson: John 1:1-14

Who Is Jesus? A Quest for The Christ We Encounter and the Christ of Faith

As we celebrate the birth of Jesus today, many of us do not realize that we are in the very heart of an ancient conflict, which has surfaced again, now, in what many people are calling the “post modern” era. If we define the heart of the “modern era” as a world view shaped by the scientific method, i.e., setting a hypothesis and testing it and determining if there is validation to our hypothesis, and if we characterize the past two centuries or so as a time when we measured and cataloged creation and its vast complexity, all of these methodologies growing out the “the Enlightenment” or “Age of Reason,” perhaps one way of talking about out current time would be to say that people are looking once again to be drawn out of themselves into what the Church has called “the Holy.”

Words like “mystery,” “spirituality,” “mysticism,” and other phrases like “alternate realities” are seizing people’s imaginations again. Some label these as “New Age,” meaning, philosophies which do not find their roots in Christian Orthodoxy. Some, afraid that we will abandon the blessings of science, such as vaccines, antibiotics, magnetic resonance imaging, and a world view which has relegated the “demonic” to “superstition,” are afraid that we will return to a “pre-scientific” world view, where the majority of people thought that evil spirits surrounded everyone, from cradle to grave. To those who have embraced the blessings borne of the scientific method, talking of “spirituality,” and “spirit(s)” can be like someone from another world speaking a language which just isn’t understood, Deepak Chopra withstanding, and other writers in the area of “spirituality” such as Eckhart Tolle, whose writings are based in Buddhism and Jungian psychology. And yes, I read them, too.

Please understand that as a thinking Christian, I know that my faith is evolving. It is not static. Nor do I believe that my understanding of God is static. But, I do have questions about how we understand God and Christ in a way which allows for growth, and yet does not abandon the “essence” or “substance” of our faith. So this writing is not complete and won’t ever be because my journey isn’t over yet.

Christmas or (Christ’s mass) is the festival of Christ’s birth. Many know that Christianity “plundered the Egyptians” by building its European churches on former pagan (indigenous) places of worship, and we adapted former pagan (indigenous) festivals to our own viewpoint. For instance, Christmas occurs very closely to the celebration of the Winter Solstice. There are those writing in the area of religion, history, philosophy, and mythology, who have drawn connections between the birth of Jesus and other fabled historical or mythological figures, and in so doing, have tried to simply “debunk” Christian orthodoxy’s belief that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son of God and Savior of the world. It has also become common place in much of academia today to say that since the age of the Roman Emperor Constantine (4th century C.E. (common era for some) or A.D. (Anno Domini, or in the year of our Lord, for those who see Jesus as the center of history), beliefs accepted by the mainstream of the Church, which flourished because it co-existed with the Roman Empire and its benevolence, were actually “enforced” by Roman might, i.e., that of the Emperor. And so, the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) convened by Constantine to address the Arian controversy, and which was a fairly early step in the Church’s on going defining of what “true” or “orthodox” faith about the person of Jesus was, has been seen by many scholars in the past 100 years or so, as a manipulation of this debate, and a heavy handed one. We need to also remember, that in the Church catholic, ecumenical councils were convened as doctrinal issues were discerned through prayer, and also in a response later (Council of Trent 1545-1563) to Protestant expressions of the Christian faith. The first council was the Council of Jerusalem, mentioned in the New Testament. Trent was the 19th Council. Vatican II was not primarily a doctrinal council, but a council which focused on how to live out catholic faith pastorally in the world at large and with other faith systems, whether Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, not mainstream, or not Christian. So, in some senses, our faith has continued to evolve and to become more clearly discerned and discernable.

Those who do not read the Early Church Fathers or give them credence, because they were part of a male dominant culture and influenced by Constantinianism, or, whose bias toward the history of the Early Church can be led into a non-orthodox viewpoint about Jesus if one listens to many current authors, who struggle with their own faith (genuinely, I might add), and who come out at a different place from orthodoxy. As an example of orthodox Christian beliefs, let’s lift up the accepted major creeds of the Church, the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. Some would add the Creed of Athanasius. More obvious would be the New Testament itself as a witness to who Jesus was and is. But, some scholars, primarily coming out of the German schools of Marburg, Tubingen, and other academies on the European continent, and having introduced methods of scriptural interpretation based on the tools of literary criticism of the 19th century, have questioned the authority or “canon” of the New Testament and the “historicity” of the New Testament as a whole, carving the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke into verses which are: 1. unquestionably rooted or traced to the historical Jesus, 2. Traced to those who followed him, and whose historicity may be questionable, and 3. Outright rejected scripture which, in their viewpoint, due to these tools from 19th century Europe, convinced them that some parts of the New Testament are not historical at all, i.e., they may be merely “stories” written to advance the “official” faith of the young Church, and also of the Empire. Albert Schweitzer’s “Quest for the Historical Jesus” is an iconic example of this methodology. Current scholars who depart from orthodoxy would include those of the Jesus Seminar, and others who embrace their viewpoints. Weststar Institute is home to the work of these scholars. Their internet address is: http://www.westarinstitute.org. And many of these scholars have impeccable academic credentials. Karen Armstrong, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Elaine Pagels are luminaries of the viewpoints expressed at Weststar. And if one has read any of their works, such as A History of God, or Jerusalem, by Karen Armstrong, who is, by the way, a brilliant historian, or The Gnostic Gospels or Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels, whose own faith journey spoken about in Beyond Belief, expresses a very personal journey and an encounter with Christianity anew, or Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, by John Dominic Crossan, or the work of Marcus Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, or The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’ Final Week in Jerusalem one cannot help but be impressed by their scholarship, and in their own way, they are seeking their own understanding of “faith.” Those who call themselves conservative Christians may and often do not agree with much of their work doctrinally. But, if those of us who call ourselves orthodox, are going to address their work, and also the current worldview to which they are appealing, and perhaps even shaping, we’d better be able to speak to their viewpoints in ways that make sense to the average person not just in the pew, but those who won’t set foot in a church, for whatever the reason.

Other authors who hold more orthodox beliefs, such as N.T. Wright, Jaroslav Pelikan, Billy Abraham, Ben Witherington, III, have addressed Weststar’s scholars. And one can find links on this website’s “links” page to N.T. Wright’s homepage, and also information about Jaroslav Pelikan. Billy Abraham teaches at Southern Methodist University, Perkins School of Theology, and Ben Witherington teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary. And one doesn’t necessarily need a Ph.D. to read their works. I have greatly appreciated the dialogue between N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg in their book: Jesus: Two Visions. There is a genuine dialogue which took place in that writing, and respect was expressed between these two scholars. In this time in history, such respect is absolutely necessary because when those who do not know Jesus first meet his followers, doctrine will not be the first characteristic noted. Our attitude, the expressions of our “soul,” i.e., love, justice, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, will be the first things noted.

Let me propose, if you will, it is very difficult to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have come before us, i,e., in the apostolic age and subsequent Early Church. We are so conditioned by our own worldview, that stepping back that far is difficult. Many youth to whom I relate today, are not even sure who Franklin Roosevelt was. So, how in the world will the average person know anything about the founding of Rome or the Aeneid, much less Tertullian or Irenaeus. A vast majority of people cannot name the four gospels. Years ago, a parishioner in a church in northern Indiana heard a young person say, when he was asked if he was going to “Good Friday” worship services said, “What’s Good Friday?” He didn’t know that Jesus was crucified on that dark day. This is the climate in which the Church must carry out its mission. And many church goers lack knowledge about the Bible and are very uncomfortable with sharing their faith.

We live in times when everyone is supposed to be “tolerant” of others’ beliefs. Americans generally take a “live and let live” viewpoint. Since our Constitution did not appoint an “official” religion of the United States of America, many believe that a climate that is religiously “neutral” should be the way of life in the United States, especially in government related agencies or public schools. But, how can one simply ignore the huge impact that the Law of Moses has had on Western Society or that of the Gospel? How can one ignore the Sermon on the Mount and its enduring influence on our society. In this tense time between Church, Synagogue and Mosque, the one common ground which we hold together is that we are “people of the book,” meaning the Bible, even though Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not see “eye to eye” on who Jesus was, and Christians would say, “is.” But, the Vatican II Council called Catholics to treat non-Roman Catholic Christians with respect. We were considered “separated brethren.” And those who did not stand in the Christian tradition were to be treated with respect as well. We are now many years past Vatican II, and John the 23rd’s influence seems to have waned.

The Christian influence has lost ground not only due to some of the shortcomings of the academic methods which were listed earlier, though these should be considered “tools” for understanding biblical literature and cannot be considered the only valid tools for the study of the bible, but also because many Christians have a very difficult time understanding the Bible and expressing their faith. My own college and seminary were places where I learned “the historical critical” approach to scripture study. I cut my “eye teeth” on these disciplines at Kentucky Wesleyan and Garrett-Evangelical Seminary. Many persons have turned away from Christianity not so much because of our beliefs, but because of integrity issues related to religious leaders who obviously have failed to “live” their faith. It’s not necessary to name names. Scams in the name of Jesus have been around a long time. Poison Kool Aid sends shivers down the spines of those who remember Jonestown, and its disaster. Pastors and other religious leaders who have abused children, broken marriage vows, been dishonest financially and embezzled funds, or whose lifestyles do not “walk the talk” of our faith, have all contributed to Christianity’s more enfeebled grip on American and Western culture.

But, what of Jesus? Can we trust the witness of the earliest Christians? Do we carve up the gospels like Weststar’s scholars into 1. Real sayings of Jesus, 2. Purported sayings of Jesus, and 3. Discredited sayings of Jesus? Is it important to know how many angels were at the tomb on that first Easter? Or is the witness that Christ was raised from the dead our Great Hope? We can focus on academic methodologies for academia’s sake and perpetuate a scholarly class out of touch with every day people, or those in academia can lace up their boots with the rest of us, because they’re mortal too, and seeking truth and a relationship with God as we are.

How many angels sang in that multitude of angels when Jesus was born, if one can trust that story? (I trust it.) How many angels constitute a “multitude?” I’ve always wondered. Are the gospels simply stories written to “inspire” us as we face a limited, finite life on this planet, with much suffering, confusion and hopelessness? Or, is the Reality that there really was a Jesus whose witness provided by the New Testament is still not only valid, but vital in today’s world? Though there are those who make apocalypticism the be all of Christianity today, many of these pastors having huge congregations and being prolific writers and focusing on the violence found in the Book of Revelation, and getting fairly rich from their writings, there are those of us who cling to the hope found in Revelation. The book’s ending is about the restoration of Eden, and the New Jerusalem. And while the New Testament’s formative era was very much influenced by apocalyptic thought, do we not experience glimpses of the Kingdom or Reign of God in the here and now? Do we yet believe as we proclaim in our Eucharistic liturgies: “Christ has died. Christ is Risen. Christ will come Again”?

One thing which rings true, and has since the days of that earliest church is that we aren’t going to have total agreement about who Jesus was or is. Beliefs are “personal” whether we like it or not. But, and this is a huge “but,” the New Testament as a whole bears witness to the incarnation of Christ, his life and teachings, his death, and for those who believe, his resurrection. And, we need to remember that the New Testament grew out of the faith and beliefs of those first Christian communities in the Roman Empire, and those folks believed in Jesus. The canon of the New Testament was growing into its current form by the 2nd Century A.D. when the Muratorian Canon was formed. Should we simply say, due to the pain of those who have been harmed by a predominately male dominated culture, that the modern Western worldview, shaped largely by Christianity should simply be abandoned or “revised” away? Marcion picked and chose his own authoritative version of the New Testament in the Second Century A.D. I hunch, though, that many folks today, also pick and choose what they like in the Scriptures today as well, though the canon of our Bible is much different from the one used by Marcion. Is there really a “pristine” primitive Christianity? Or are we willing to admit that in many places in the Roman Empire in the first five centuries of the church’s existence that “heretical” forms of Christianity were the dominant forms in some parts of the empire? As I encounter and try to understand this entire landscape, I often think of what the letter of Jude says: “3Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 1:3 RSV. And as a boy growing up at Woodmar Methodist Church in Hammond, I certainly would have stood with Jude. A huge part of me still does.

We need to consider as we share our faith and experience of Christ as those who believe the mainstream beliefs of Christianity, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, we will not make everybody happy as we share what we believe, and there will not be 100% agreement in some areas of belief. The Cross, itself, has been a stumbling block since day one. For those who see the Cross and the God which sent his Son to die upon it as a sign of child abuse, a position taken by many feminist/womanist authors today, or who cannot utilize orthodoxy, because it does not speak to their cultural situations, (Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker’s book Proverbs of Ashes comes to mind) and those who do relate to liberation theology as practiced in South and Central America or Black Theology, as practiced by James Cone and others, perhaps a theology of solidarity will speak to their and our condition. The Christian faith has believed in the Incarnation. And Christmas is all about that! Looking at our world it’s obvious that the Powers and Principalities spoken about by Paul are real, define them as one may. Oppression has always been a part of the human condition, and the gospels bear witness to that, especially Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts. The Magnificat in Luke remains one of the most moving statements of faith in my life, because Mary, the mother of Jesus, was part of the anawim, those who had only their faith in God to take them through life. Mary was not one of the movers and shakers of her time. But, my, has her faith not made a huge impact on all of us?

My hope is on this Christmas Day, 2009, that persons will hear the Gospel afresh, and rediscover the vitality and validity of Christian orthodoxy and will meet the Risen Christ, who is Savior, and “the only begotten Son of God.” I also hope that we will come to an understanding that Jesus is like a multi-faceted gem. While the ecumenical creeds are “crystallizations” of orthodox faith, how can they completely help us understand who Jesus was and is in all of his glory? In closing, I would like to quote John’s gospel: Those who know me well will not be surprised that I quote John. I am quoting from the Revised Standard Version, not NRSV. This reflects a bias in translation from the dominant Greek manuscripts of John, which in my opinion is more consistent with John’s theology and viewpoint on the nature of Jesus/Christ as a whole:

10″He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. 11He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. 12But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” John 1:10-14 RSV.

Please pray about my reflections and your own before preaching on the lectionary lessons for today. I pray that your Christmas is merry, and that Christ is with you in all of his grace in this Holy Season of Christmas and Epiphany and that God’s love and righeousness bring you and our world peace, because that is, after all, what that “multitude” of angels sang about so long ago. I believe that this peace, which is greater than that offered by Caesar Augustus (and all government), will speak to us not only as Christ’s followers, but, also to those who do not know Jesus. I offer this writing as my Christmas gift to you, and again leave you with these words from Jude: 24”Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen.” Jude 1:24-25 RSV.

“No ear may hear his coming, but in this world of sin, where meek souls will receive him, still the dear Christ enters in.” (Phillips Brooks, 1868 A.D.)

Chris Madison, Frankfort, Indiana
Written December 13, 2009



No Comments »