THE PROBLEM
WITH BELIEVING
IN JESUS CHRIST
If you are here for the first time you are advised to read my other two essays on the subject of humanity’s savior: The Problem with Following Jesus and The Problem with the Biblical Jesus. As this essay follows as Part III and is meant to provide a conclusion of sorts to our understanding and relationship with Christ.
Be warned this essay is not for everyone. Believer or non-believer. As I hope to enter areas that the believer and possibly even the non-believer (i.e. ones who are vaguely familiar with the foundational teachings of Christianity) will find discomforting.
Note that the questions I raise here and the conclusions drawn are NOT intended as an attack on the second member of the Trinity or on the Christian faith. As a believer: Christian, albeit a non-traditional one, my main purpose here, as it is in my other written endeavors in this subject area, is to sharpen the faith. To make it stronger, leaner, and better adapted to face the challenges posed by the modern world.
However, to reach this stage what is needed is a better, fuller, and dare I say a more evolved understanding of Christ and Christianity. And to get there we need to smash through a number of intellectual and theological roadblocks that have emerged as a result of a rather simplistic, myopic, and as I understand it, intellectually unsophisticated understanding of the person we call Jesus Christ and his Earthly mission. Hence the first step in this endeavor would be to develop a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of who the Son of God really is.
Yes, I understand that to even posit the notion of such an endeavor can be considered the height of intellectual hubris.
Maybe it is. However, as I will proceed to show, given the woefully simplistic understanding we have of the Son of Man-one that continues to dominate our conception of Him and His Redemptive mission-is actually more hubristic in its narrowness, and intellectual shallowness. To say nothing of the consequences that result from the persistence in such a, as I will proceed to show, uneducated and outdated notion of the Son of Man, and the nature of Christianity as a whole.
MY APPROACH TO CHRIST
Jesus Christ. The son of Mary the adopted son of Joseph, and the second member of the Trinity. The man from Galilee who was born in Bethlehem and is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth.
He is also the Messiah. The Savior and Redeemer of humanity who lived 2000 years ago and is the founder of the most dominant religion in the world: Christianity. The religion emerged through his ministry of miracle-working and preaching. Christ whilst the Messiah is also revered as a great moral teacher, and as God’s sacrificial lamb, and is meant to embody the Creator’s love for his greatest creation: us.
—
Given what we know of Christianity and its founder, the attempt to answer the question of ‘Who Jesus is’ seems unwarranted from the outset. The sheer magnitude of such a venture is off-putting. That is to ask the question: Who is Jesus? And then proceed to somehow answer it in the course of a few thousand words can be considered an impossible task. Or a foolhardy venture at best. Criticisms that are valid on both accounts.
With the copious amounts of writings on the Son of Man: his nature (divine), his mission (to save humanity), his character (human and divine), and his enduring significance in a world that is rapidly changing; has filled libraries and bookshelves (and today, internet databases) across the world. And it goes without saying that I don’t claim to be even vaguely familiar with even a fraction of them. However what I do have, like any ‘good’ Christian is history.
A history with the Lord. A relationship. Naturally a personal one. But also one that is intellectually grounded to a sufficient degree to warrant this endeavor. I will not say more on the subject of authority or knowledgeability when it comes to engaging this monumental subject, other than to state that I am a student of the faith. A person with a relatively deep understanding of the Redeemer, one that has grown and evolved over the years, and now has reached a point where some level of systematic introspection is warranted on my behalf (obviously) but also in relation to the present state of the faith in the context of the wider world.
Critically, though, I am not approaching this essay as a person of faith: That is to write about the Lord, with a secondary aim to proselytize. If anything, in contemplating these ideas and writing them down came as a challenge to my own set of established beliefs about the maker and my relationship with him. Thus my endeavor here is primarily an intellectual one. This is not to say that it is thoroughly an objective one. Try as I may, it is not. So with that in mind.
WHO IS JESUS?
Presuming the reader is Christian or is in some way familiar with the Scriptures, he/she would know that whenever Christ is referred to as a person, a mystical figure, as the Son of man, and of course as God, the mind invariably would refer to certain roles or functions the Savior carried out during his time here on Earth.
For example, if someone asked you to think of Jesus at a time when you were introduced to the faith, the mind’s eye would instinctively form images of Christ as this lowly son of a carpenter living in Roman-occupied Judea.
Now if the same question was asked, only this time to someone more mature in the faith, one’s mind is likely to shift to the image of this wandering rustic, dressed like every other powerless tributary living under the pagan power of Rome. A holy man who went around preaching and healing with a group of ragtag followers.
And if one were to ask the same (spiritually mature) person to ponder further on the life of Christ as a missionary: this would take one’s mind to ponder the meaning and significance works of preaching and miracles of Christ. Unless of course, the mind moves straight to the Passion narrative.
In case it doesn’t, the missionary life of Christ, where much of the ‘action’ takes place from a narrative standpoint, would be the focal point. One that has over the centuries come to form our core understanding of who Christ is: his lived humanity built on his divinity.
Continuing our thought exercise, as we near the Passion narrative-the focus would then shift to the events leading up to the Crucifixion. Where the humanity of Christ as this humble, faithful, submissive Son who is willing and ready to do his Father’s bidding rises to the fore. That is the nature of Christ as the Son of God, but not God takes center stage.
From this point onward the focus would center squarely on the suffering and death of Christ. With the events from his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane to the climatic moments on the Cross when his spirit departs His human form. Afterward, things tend to get a bit blurry. As the events of this time accelerate: moving quickly to the Resurrection. And then possibly becoming even more blurry as events converge on the Ascension.
—
Films like The Passion of Christ have exploited this (climatic) period of Jesus’s life quite well. Which is an indication of the preexisting ‘appeal’ of such portrayals of Jesus. Horrific as it is. And with good reason. From a Biblical standpoint, the closing stages of Christ’s life is one that has received the greatest scriptural emphasis. The notion that the Gospels are extended Passion narratives built upon a short intro into his early life, followed by a scattershot presentation of his ministry, is a view that holds some credence.
Given the prominence of the Passion narrative, where there is a greater focus on his (powerless) human condition, has given rise to a natural (strong) association between the personhood of Jesus with the Crucified man on the Cross. The one who suffers and eventually dies for the sake of all humanity.
This view is unavoidable.
The image of the Crucified Christ has naturally become a great symbol of the Christian faith. As it captures the essence of Christian life: the total surrender of the Son’s will to the Father. The very quality that is expected of us: the rebellious, unfaithful children of God.
Here the Crucifix’s elevation and veneration, and its apparent centrality (particularly in the Catholic world) are noteworthy. Where the person of Christ, and indeed the very reality of Christ: his mission, function, and glory are subsumed within the mystery of his Death on the Cross. This is understandable, but ultimately, as I would argue problematic.
—
The veneration of the Christ on the Cross, a tradition that has mostly disappeared in the Protestant world, remains strong in the Latin one. The ‘Glorious Cross’ of Christ is upheld as a symbol of divine deliverance and as an object of worship. With even days in the liturgical calendar dedicated to it (the Feast of Cross).
The Catholic world’s problematic focus (or should I say ‘obsession’) with the Crucified Christ is a subject that I have engaged here: The Anti-Humanism of Roman Catholicism.
In the context of our present study on ‘The Problem with Believing in Jesus’, the overt and rather one-dimensional focus on the suffering, humiliated, powerless, helpless conception of Christ on the Cross has, in unison with the more expansive character of his early missionary life, has taken attention away from the development of a more sophisticated, liberating or as I would characterize it, ‘positive’ understanding of who Jesus Christ is and his mission for the world.
As I will argue, the failure to develop a fuller, more cohesive, and in terms of the character of the modern world, a relevant or positive understanding of the Son of Man and his mission is a logical one. Considering the rather simplistic reading of Scripture upon which our currently dominant views of Christ have been predicated. One that is defined via the singular focus on certain, what I would describe as ‘archetypes’ of Christ.
So what are these archetypes? And how and why are they problematic when it comes to understanding the nature of our Lord in the totality that it deserves?
The short answer to this question is that the Gospels are problematically centered on what Christ did, and what that is supposed to mean for his followers. As opposed to focusing on who Christ really is (God and Man), and what His coming means for humanity: Christ’s divine ontology and his evolution through Spirit, in relation to the Salvation history of man.
THE DOMINANT ARCHETYPES OF CHRIST
My approach to answering the question of ‘Who is Jesus?’, is to start with the core written dogma concerning the nature of the Son of Man: That of Christ as ‘True man and True God’.
What this statement or profession of faith actually means goes beyond the ability of mortal minds to fully apprehend. For it concerns a reality that lies effectively beyond the remits of human understanding. If anything, what is written and said about Christ and by extension God, when viewed from the standpoint of the created in relation to the Creator, are nothing more than attempts at understanding the impossible. This is a fact that all of us need to be cognizant of.
Effort-making trials at making sense of what is essentially incomprehensible to the human mind is most evident in the language that is used to describe/explain the nature of the divine. Much of which is fundamentally, and unsurprisingly anthropomorphic. This begs the question: what exactly have people, now for almost 2000 years, been saying and writing about the most important person in human history? A question that I will attempt to answer in various ways in the course of this essay. As a starting point, however, one must begin by deconstructing extant views that dominate our conception of who the Messiah is.
To understand the problems associated with ‘Believing in Jesus Christ’, which for the average observer would seem like the foundational belief of Christianity (it is), we need to breakdown the dominant views, or better, the various interpretive lens through which the founder of the Faith, who also happens to God, is understood.
This brings us to the subject of archetypes.
The archetypes of Christ continue to dominate, inform, influence, and guide our understanding of the Son of Man; our relationship to him, and critically of ourselves in relation to the world we live in today and the God who made it.
The dominant archetypes of Christ that I have identified are:
Christ the Servant.
Christ the Forgiver.
Christ the Teacher.
Christ the Obedient (Crucified) Son.
Let’s look at each of these in turn.
CHRIST THE SERVANT
Christ the servant archetype can be understood as the servant–follower dynamic that characterized the ministry and the life of Christ. One that arguably stands out the most in the minds of his believers. Particularly the faithful church-going kind, especially the sort who are happy to depart with a tenth of their earnings, in addition to whatever that is given away as an offering every Sunday, or however many times such religious gatherings take place. The sort of faithful who live for the sake of going to heaven, and conduct their lives with little to no ambition or aspiration as far as material and existential questions are concerned.
When one speaks of Jesus, for the average mind, he is characterlogically viewed as meek, calm, and humble. Attributes that are held together by a benevolent persona. The one who is always ready to help, give, render, and serve. Well, almost always.
Christ, however, despite his generous character (and limitless power) wasn’t always down with the idea of helping those around him. Such as settling personal (financial) disputes, or helping a fellow man of God. His refusal to aid John the Baptist during his imprisonment is a case in point.
So Christ, contrary to what one may think, wasn’t exactly a hardcore altruist. An argument can be made that there was a certain mystery to his spirit of mercy. One that was limited or constrained by certain factors. In that weird encounter with the Canaanite woman, where the reference to dogs and breadcrumbs is made, Christ almost turns the desperate woman away rather than helping her. His disinterest is apparently owing to her ethnic heritage (Matthew 15: 21 – 28).
This point is not intended as a criticism of the great teacher. Christ being God, obviously knew what he was doing (God’s Will) even as we were growing on the job. That is to say, Christ, lived his missionary life with increasing levels of self-certainty: the idea that he was God and the nature and magnitude of his great mission only dawns upon him over time in a progressing manner (A subject for another time).
The psycho-metaphysical complexities of being man and God at the same time aside, what is beyond dispute is that the life of Christ was one that was dedicated to the service of his fellow brothers and sisters. One that has remained the most powerful symbol of his humanity.
Jesus’s spirit of service, to aid the souls who needed the use of his seemingly limitless power is evident throughout in New Testament. From the miracle at Cana, to the feeding of the five thousand, to the healing of the sick, and to bringing the dead to life. The Christ who came into this world not to be glorified as God and King but to serve humanity via his glorious power. This example is understood to elevate his greatness further. But it also presents a paradoxical problem. For despite his rejection of Earthly glory, thanks to his divine nature-and the great power and responsibility that comes with it-the glory so to speak, naturally came to him!
—
It is beyond dispute that Christ’s inner being was always animated by a spirit of service, however unreliable. From the washing of the feet of his apostles-that best symbolizes the master–servant (or slave) relationship. In which Christ effectively overturns the convention by positioning himself (the master) as the servant of all. Whilst at the same time affirming the position, the paradoxical position that ‘no servant is greater than his master’.
When it comes to Christian life, the idea that Christians must ‘love one another’ is often captured by the idea of service: The act of giving, sharing, forgoing, surrendering sacrificing, etc. All fall under the practical ethic of loving ‘like Christ’, which also comes with a social function: that is to serve. The self-sacrificial character of Jesus’s love is captured in the social dimension of Christian life. The act, or preceding that, the will to give that characterizes the spirit of the believer.
The idea of giving (possibly everything we have) for another: family, a friend in need, or the local church pastor or priest is one of the defining traits of an authentic Christian. The concept of agapē love that is naturally emphasized in discussions that pertain to ‘love’ in the Christian world, and is often posited as the central facet of the faith – that is to will the good of the other, as other – is noteworthy in this context. But this (one-dimensional) understanding of love is often posited to the exclusion of the erotic and sensual dimensions, which is worth bearing in mind.
In Christian circles whenever the topic of ‘love’ comes up what is naturally emphasized is the importance of giving (money, time, effort, creativity) – often without reward or hope of compensation for the benefit or advancement of the other. A thought process that is apparently derived from a section of the beatitudes that Christ embodied throughout his life: (Matthew 5: 40 – 41):
‘And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles’.
This teaching, if read a certain way, is presenting something negative in a positive light (i.e. permitting someone who is exploiting you, to take more). One that can be (and often is) exploited by religious powers. Intentionally or otherwise.
An example of the parish priest who keeps pestering the parishioners for more money to renovate the aisles or the roof; when the worship leader petitions his flock for more contributions to upgrade the sound system. In such instances, the congregation feels spiritually compelled to do so, since it is viewed as an act of charity in line with Christ’s example.
The problem with this view/belief: is to give without expecting anything in return, in the hope of receiving blessings (material or otherwise) in the future (in this world or the next), that may or may not materialize, depending on an array of factors, is that it is not reliable.
The practice of giving ‘as Christ did’ whilst commendable, the payoffs for doing so, in an immediate and tangible sense is not a given. This makes it impossible for a person to order his/her life in accordance with this view. A conundrum not too alien to the one faced by the followers of Christ. Who too were hoping/expecting specific rewards. Such as the liberation from Roman power. The reestablishment of David’s Kingdom etc.
—
Yet the core Christian ethic of giving without expecting anything in return remains one of the cornerstones of Western culture. One that has acted as a foundational principle and moral mesh underpinning the spiritual brotherhood of the Western man in a historical sense. Engendering the ‘advanced’ trust and respect that is rendered towards fellow human beings (rather than having to be earned by merit and power). This facet of life, historically at least, has been a key factor in enabling the development of European/Western culture.
On an ethical level today, the server, giver, helper moral system has become so integral to the Christian way of life that it is fair to say it has taken hold as a governing mindset in the Christian world. To be a Christian one’s instincts ought to be aimed towards the idea of service.
This is all good and fine, but what is missing in this equation, as it does with all other dominant archetypes of Christ is the lack of focus on Christ’s divine nature in relation to the human. For the idea of giving what you have, however little or immense to start with, might seem like a big deal for the average believer. But not for God. For God (Christ) has everything!
CHRIST THE FORGIVER
Forgiveness is a central dogma of Christianity. To be a Christian is to learn and practice the art of forgiving. As one confesses every Sunday at Church the sins he/she has committed and asks the good Lord for forgiveness, we too are expected to forgive others.
Forgiveness forms the core of Christian life, being enshrined in the Lord’s Prayer: ‘Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us’ connects with the famous passage in Luke (6:37):
‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven’.
Teachings that assert the centrality of forgiveness in Christian life build on the fact that all men are Fallen. Implying the propensity of all men to injure others emotionally or physically. Hence the integral significance of forgiveness. Critically, this teaching carries the underlying threat that failure on the part of the faithful to forgive others will bring forth divine judgment.
—
The significance of forgiveness is well understood in the Christian world. A teaching that is strongly stated, but also often (problematically) overstated in an evangelical context. The moral demand it entails is often asserted to the exclusion of other, one could say, more hopeful and empowering aspects of the faith.
Whilst the centrality of forgiveness to Christian life is not in dispute; the capacity of men to forgive: everything from major harms to minor faults and errors of judgment that stem from the human mind is another matter. Despite forgiveness being a foundational principle in fostering Christian brotherhood, the inability on the part of God’s creation to forgive their fellow brothers and sisters remains.
The superhuman character of forgiveness that Christ teaches, notably, the commandment to love your enemies, underpins the conception of Christ the great forgiver and paves the way for the centrality of this archetype.
AN UNWARRANTED MORAL CHALLENGE
In terms of the evangelical application of this teaching, however, its importance is often applied problematically in an overtly moralizing manner: where calls to forgive your brothers, friends, and even enemies, are employed almost as a tactic: as a way to reinforce the moral unworthiness of the listener or the congregation as a whole. Thus strengthening the need for ‘conversion’, which the religious congregation promises to facilitate.
To drive home the message that the followers of Christ (in question) are morally unworthy in their character to forgive (their enemies), and hence need the transformative power that stems from the conversion path that ‘God’ makes possible via the framework of the religious congregation in question.
—
I have personally encountered Christians (Catholics) who have been implored by religious leaders to learn to love their enemies. Like, people you actually hate and hate you in return! The impossibility of this task compels serious faithful to embed themselves deeper and deeper into the workings of the religious order/congregation in question. All in the hope that God will someday give them the grace, or that they would find the spiritual strength within, to go out and love their enemies.
Essentially the moral demand to love your enemies, and preceding that forgiving them, can potentially (but not necessarily) become a hook to entrench the followership into the workings of the religious order/community. Having said that the potential room for spiritual (and in time, economic) exploitation of this Christian doctrine by religious institutions vis a vie the faithful, should not take away from the core spiritual importance of forgiving one another. For its opposite, the embrace of a spirit of vengeance, no matter how tempting, is the sure path to destruction.
CHRIST THE TEACHER
Arguably the most relatable archetype of Christ is his role as a moral and spiritual educator. Much of what accounts for the practice of Christianity in the modern world comes down to the followers of Christ teaching (telling) people about the various aspects of the faith. With believers, adherents, and listeners of all kinds absorbing it from the receiving end, with varying degrees of interest, faith, and enthusiasm.
The social dimension of the faith: the evangelical, the communal, the academic, and the congregational comes down to people ordering themselves within a teacher–student, or master–follower framework: One where an authoritative figure or governing body takes up the role of enlightening and illuminating the (supposedly) less knowledgeable, in moral and spiritual ways.
In other words, the idea and later the act of doing God’s will: at least one interpretation of it, can be understood in terms of following or mimicking the example that Christ the Savior set. Which is to teach. The many instances in the Gospels where Christ is referred to as ‘Rabbi’, meaning teacher of the (Jewish) law, are indicative of this central function.
This is probably why people who see themselves as ‘men of God’ often position themselves as teachers or preachers. As these are technically the same roles, with the main difference being that the preacher is advancing his message from the pulpit, and claims divine revelation, spiritual wisdom, and religious education as the basis of his (intellectual and moral) authority.
With those at the receiving end indirectly validating the authority (and credibility) of the pastor, priest, or… Teacher. Technically all pastors, priests, evangelists, and worship leaders can be considered ‘teachers’ of some sort. They are positioned or made to be perceived as such, owing to their knowledge of the Word, as persons who are (apparently) closer to God.
THE PROBLEM WITH TEACHING THE FAITH
But is this approach of ‘teaching’ the fruit of the gospels, in light of the challenges posed by the modern and ever-changing world, enough?
If one looks at the health of the Church today: the size of followership at local Churches and congregations, the growth in Church membership, and the spiritual seriousness of the believers when it comes to the teachings of the Church/Christ in parts of the world like the United States, Europe and elsewhere in the West, it is a fair assessment that the Church of Jesus Christ (irrespective of the denomination) is experiencing a secular decline.
The steady decline in followership at the major Churches, now taking place over the course of decades, does not appear to be reversing in the Western world. If anything it is only accelerating with the younger generation of believers (Generation Y and Z). The decline in number of practicing Christians including those who choose Not to be identified with certain denominations, increasing: The case in point is the phenomenon of the NONES – or Religious Unaffiliated.
Changes that have begun to affect (a bit late in the day) the converse and thinking of leaders of the major Christian Churches. Catholics and Evangelical Christians in recent times have sought to stem this decline, whilst at the same time, trying to understand it.
Whatever extraneous factors may have contributed to this decline, this negative shift- where the followership starts to move away from a traditional religious way of life- indicates the weakening of the power of the pulpit.
Specifically the waning ability of the religious leadership via its representatives and others responsible for spiritual outreach: pastors, priests, bishops, evangelists, itinerants, preachers, etc. To manifest the power of the (Holy) Spirit in their catechismal efforts. The lack of spirit to captivate and bring new followers into the Church, and the ability to appeal to the minds of those already present, ought to be clear.
As a counter to the decline in faith (at an institutional level at least), Christian movements that operate under the heading of the ‘new evangelization’ have sought to confront this problem in a number of ways. Many which have taken their (teaching) efforts at countering the rise in secularization to the digital realm. The likes of Bishop Barron, Fr. Schmitz, and others in the Protestant world like William Lane Craig with his apologetics, have built successful ministries online.
Positive as these developments might seem, notably in terms of the vast following they command online. However, these have done little to stem the actual decline in the Christian character of the United States and by extension the West (Europe and European imports across the world), which was once known as Christendom.
The question is: Why has this strategy of teaching people the faith, or in more simple terms ‘telling people about Jesus Christ’ failed?
Well because almost all of their efforts at confronting the tide of secularism, with the countless forces that underpin its advance, essentially boils down to one thing: teaching!
Teaching people about who God is as a way to counter the effects of people feeling alienated from God’s message is not a great plan.
A problem that the supposedly all-seeing Apostolic cannot understand. Pope Francis in his address to the Pontifical Mission Societies in May 2014 noted:
‘For a world in transformation, there is a need for a Church that is renewed and transformed by contemplation and personal contact with Christ, by the power of the Spirit. …It is He Who gives us the strength to undertake the missionary path and the joy of proclamation, so that the light of Christ may illuminate those who still do not know Him or have denied Him (1).
‘Illuminate’ generally equals educate. Which is what the Church (encompassing all denominations) has been doing since time immemorial. A strategy that no longer appears to be working in modern times, no matter how different or innovative the mode of delivery or the character and contents of the message.
—
What I am getting at here is that the power of spiritual tutelage that Christ and his apostles manifested in the early years of the Church now appears lost. There is no longer one, or a few, or many Christian leaders who are able to command that power and authority with the evangelical zeal of the Son of Man or his followers during the early Church that enabled its rapid expansion.
However, the fact that Christianity, as a characteristically evangelical religion, is failing not only to win new converts but is also steadily losing existing believers, and hence losing (cultural) ground in historically Christian parts of the world, points to a deeper problem within the faith itself.
Where the idea of teaching/preaching Christianity, in relation to the Christic archetype of Christ the teacher, whilst important, its liberative and captivating power is ultimately limited.
CHRIST THE OBEDIENT (CRUCIFIED) SON
Arguably a more complex facet of the life of Christ is also the one that stands out in the most profound way. Especially in a ‘visual’ sense: His sonship. What is often missed in discussions surrounding the person of Christ, is that not only he is the Son of God, but he is also God himself.
This point is difficult to distinguish since the Gospels, contrary to what is often asserted, overplay the humanity of Christ as opposed to his divinity. Now this is a vast subject area. I will only touch on this matter lightly as it pertains to the nature of the Trinity and the function of each of its three members in relation to the other. So what I will do here is to approach the question of Christ’s divine sonship from the perspective that is most commonly understood: Christ as the humble, obedient son of the Father during his time on Earth.
—
The character of the sonship of Christ is best realized in his total submission to the Father’s will via the Passion. Christ, despite being divine and having the power to do anything chose to fulfill his mission in accordance with his Father’s plan to Redeem humanity through him (his death and Resurrection). This is the traditional teaching and emergent archetype of the obedient sonship of Christ.
A notion (or characterization) of the Savior’s mission to save mankind is captured in St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians. In 2: 5 – 8):
‘In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!’.
As Christians, we too are called to imitate the life and works of Christ. Which were (i.e. with respect to the parts of his life that are acknowledged and emphasized in Scripture) fall in line with the image of a humble, faithful servant or, better, an obedient son. One who does the will of the Father without question.
This characterization of the Savior’s mission is the dominant Pauline take on who Jesus is, and what his followers must emulate. St. Paul’s letters which were written in the time of the early Church, but still many years after the actual events, contain a certain narrative tilt. One that is born of St. Paul’s rather selective view of Christian redemption (which I have written about here). And it is a problematically simplistic one.
St. Paul’s interpretation of the Savior’s mission, despite its simplicity, is not lacking in emotive power. This particular conception of Christ’s example enduring in the minds of the faithful is a testament to its potency.
Despite the dominance of this view (that followers of Christ must mimic the archetype of the submissive son, always and everywhere) when measured against the grander metaphysics that underpins the mystery of Salvation, is incomprehensive. As a deeper reading of Scripture, and notably the mystical character of Christ’s mission, this view, as we shall see, is a woefully inadequate one.
When viewed in relation to the grand mission of Christ to save humanity and Creation as a whole, the archetype of the obedient son who accomplished this task by surrendering himself to his father’s will by dying on the Cross, whilst straightforward in terms of its apparent centrality in the gospels, with the textual prominence of the Passion narrative, along with the subsequent emphasis placed on it in later writings-notably by St. Paul; and most significantly in the Nicene Creed.
Nonetheless, these central facets of the Christian faith that revolve around his sonship, do NOT present a coherent picture of the nature and mission of Christ to the world.
However, despite this incompleteness, the image and reality of Christ as the obedient son who followed his Father’s wishes even unto death on the Cross is what remains with us. And the deliberate emphasis on this specific event in Christ’s life, to the apparent exclusion of other more uplifting elements, has become, in many ways the defining feature of Christian, and particularly Catholic life. This has been to the detriment of the growth and evolution of the faith.
THE CURSE OF CARRYING YOUR CROSS
The idea of ‘Carrying your Cross’ is aligned with the view of accepting whatever fate that befalls you without protest.
That is to be the humble server, to act without complaining in the face of trials and tribulations, and to be willing to endure whatever ordeals may come your way without question. All the while trusting in God’s goodness, hoping and waiting (for however long) that he will take away your pain, cure your ailments, solve your problems, and give you joy effectively stem from the dominance of this archetype of Christ the Obedient Son.
What is problematic, however, is that its dominance practically dwarfs and sidelines all of the others. Or at best, it subsumes the power and meaning of other (more positive, yet unmentioned) archetypes into itself: with the obedient son (or slave) mindset becoming the governing one.
This is understandable at some level, considering that the archetypes of Christ the Servant; Christ the Forgiver; and to a great extent even Christ Teacher share certain features with the archetype of Christ the Obedient Son. But they are not the same.
—
The main consequence of the Christ Obedient Son archetype is that it disempowers the mind of the faithful by, over time, reducing them to that of an obedient sheep who quietly follows the will of God to exclusion or weakening of their own agency and the capacity to uplift themselves.
In practice, often the idea of surrendering your will to the Father takes the form of moral and intellectual submission to the dictates of the pastor, priest, or church leader. And with it, 101 rules and doctrines that are promulgated in various ways at varying degrees, in shaping/directing the lives of the congregation.
This, in my assessment, robs the faithful of any spiritual agency. For it keeps the believer (who has internalized the slave/servant-son mindset) in a state of perpetual of hope or more specifically need. The need, and hence reliance on an external power or source to help fix or solve their personal problems. Which may or may not happened.
This in turn produces the the secondary effect of further disempowering their initiative, via the weakening of the will of the faithful as they are driven to further submit to the will of ‘God’ or is it the church or congregation?
Leaving the (slavish/submissive) faithful in a perpetual state of hope and helplessness (a messed combination). As they are left to rely on God to do things for them, whilst being stultified in the lack of trust in their own ability to help resolve whatever problems (such as the oppressive character of external or internal circumstances). So faith in God rather than working in unison with human action is viewed as a competitive force: To think, envisage, take control, plan, and act is viewed as a form of rebellion against God’s will. Running counter to the Obedient Son (slave) archetype. A belief that may or may not produce the desired outcomes. The main consequence is that:
This spirit of slavish reliance on an external authority, that the archetype of the obedient son paves to, engenders a sort of helpless reliance on religious communities and authorities to find answers to their problems and trials. As opposed to acting as spiritually independent agents who operate from a personal connection with God (via the Spirit), and proceed to enact His will to the best of their ability in relation to grace, and the specific set of charisms or spiritual gifts that the maker has endowed him, to the believers benefit and upliftment and to the glory of God.
The effects of this singular (slave-like) conception of Christ (in his relation to God/Father), one that his followers are supposed to emulate, works to negate other, more positive, uplifting, empowering, and liberating views of who Jesus is. And what other (more positive, uplifting archetypes) that the followers of Christ are called to live by? A problem that is most notable in relation to the next and arguably the most significant archetype.
THE MISUNDERSTOOD ARCETYPE
I half-thought of titling this ‘Christ the Healer’. But that sounded a bit simplistic considering that there were many healers and miracle workers in the ancient world. From Moses before Christ to St. Peter in the decades after.
The archetype in question, one that, whilst widely recognized, and upheld as a great example and a symbol of Christ’s power and his divine nature, is also one that is most poorly understood. An archetype of Christ that does not fit within the rather narrow and limiting categorization of a ‘healer’.
—
Whilst healing is something that Jesus did and was respected for, the power of Christ to do great things, wonderful things, and unbelievable things is something that requires us to look deeper into his nature in relation to his power.
For when one speaks of Christ’s ability to do the things he did, there is the tendency to look past or downplay them in relation to others, one could say more human (submissive) aspects of his mission. That is the tendency to see the miraculous, the unbelievable, and the mind-bending as significant, but ultimately ancillary to the greater, more mystically significant character of Christ’s mission to save humanity from the power of Sin via his death on the Cross. Christ’s victory over Sin…
Sin is the mystical force that works against the saving Grace of God, and is an instrument of Evil. With the ultimate consequence of Sin being death. Thus the cosmic nature of Christ’s mission in defeating its power through the Resurrection becomes the centerpiece of his coming. One that is problematically positioned in a way that virtually sidelines, negates or even downplays the importance of his Earthly mission to uplift man in the here and now.
It must not missed that all the trials and ordeals that man faces in this world: from pain (physical and emotional), loss, hunger, sickness, and old age all in some way connect with the reality of Death. Death is the opposite of life. And anything that undermines, weakens, and lessens the quality of life on Earth is a product of Death. In some ways, death can be viewed as a mystical reality unto itself. A manifestation of the Kingdom Darkness within the realm of space and time.
The coming of Christ, at one level, was to address and in many ways alleviate the consequences of Sin/Death in the world. Which is what led to his ministry of healing and charity. The Good News of Christ was meant to be the literal good news that all of us would like to hear on a day-to-day basis. Such as liberation from financial need, curing of an aliment, finding a lost treasure, to finding liberation from sources of material and moral enslavement. And ultimate from death itself. As Christ’s ministry did involve the raising of people from the dead.
—
Unfortunately, the coming of Christ into this world to save us from the power of Sin, the metaphysical force, not just the act of ‘sinning’ is invariably overplayed in relation to his Earthly mission to uplift humanity from worldly trials and tribulations: that is the material and existential effects of Sin. Including material wants.
The tendency to assert Christ’s mystical mission to save souls for the afterlife is asserted over and above his mission to ‘save’ or rather redeem the flesh: that is Earthly condition of humanity. Filled with trials and ordeals that test us mentally and physically each day. The challenges that we face in the here and now. This is a complex (but not necessarily complicated) subject. Which we need to delve into further.
‘CHRIST THE HEALER’
This is not an archetype of Christ.
Jesus the Good Shepard who came into this world to lead his flock towards him and into Salvation, was not primarily intent on uplifting us materially, and by extension socially and politically. But along the way (of leading us in, and toward the right path) he never forgot the Earthly (material) needs and concerns of his Fallen followership.
—
One of the things that drew people to Christ was his power to heal. And critically his willingness to use this ability for the physical good of those who came to him. Whilst the core followership, consisting of the apostles and disciples, and others in the close circle of believers, followed by an even wider followership: that included women, were drawn to the Son of Man for a variety of reasons. The promise of healing and deliverance from their temporal pains and inadequacies was a key draw for the countless masses who came in search of his message of hope. Where his power to heal and provide deliverance from the trials of the day became key.
From the uplifting character of his message, one that spoke, it would seem primarily to the meek and lowly (who were many in the time of Roman Occupied Judea). Where Christ’s message of future blessing for the poor and lowly, the failure of Earthly powers to aid the needy, and the promise of the coming of the Kingdom (in whatever shape or form), in addition to the potential political liberation for Judea, that the growing movement centered on this Messiah could portend, were key features of his mission.
This is important.
The possibility that Christ was the promised deliverer, the Son of David who would liberate Israel from the yoke of Roman power was a key factor that drew people to him. In other words, what attracted people to Christ, rightly or wrongly was the promise of Earthly liberation from material limitations (water into wine); ‘spiritual’ evils driving out the demon (which can be equated to curing a mental condition); moral changes that had material implications (the conversion of Zacchaeus, who corrected his past financial misdeeds), and ultimately to the political (to liberate Judea from Roman power via his Kingship). If you look carefully, there is little talk in terms of Christ’s promise to… What exactly? Take people to heaven!?
It is important to note that pretty much all positive developments in Christ’s ministry were centered on his superhuman power to impact the material world in a positive way. Specifically, his power to perform miracles: That is his ability to manifest the unbelievable now. Not when ‘kingdom come’.
To accomplish the impossible. To do what no man can do. Except God. Which in turn, quite naturally fueled belief in his power to do greater things. The greatest of them all is bringing the dead to life. The raising of Lazarus (the latter which most profoundly asserted his divinity in the eyes of his many followers). If Christ’s divine power acting in the material world was the main catalyst for this ministry, what has become of it, in the time since?
THE HUMANISM OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY
Whilst the ministry of Christ is generally and for the part correctly understood via, within, and through the framework of his message of love: With countless teachings, parables, words of wisdom, revelations into the nature of God (the Father), and his Kingdom (of Heaven), all at some level are centered on the principle of loving your neighbor and loving God. However, what truly kept his ministry together and alive and contributed to its endurance was his power to do the impossible. This part needs further exploration.
The immense profundity of Christ’s mission, in terms of its meaning, power, relevance, and impact on humanity and the world cannot be fully understood. And a closer reading of Scripture indicates that few if any of his followers did either.
If one studies Christ’s interactions with his inner circle, consisting of Peter, James, and John, presumably the disciples closest to him in terms of trust and spirit. However they too often failed to apprehend the true nature of his teachings, and hence his mission to the world. Here are a few notable examples:
In the interactions that followed the parable of the sower, when his disciples questioned, first the reason why he employed parables to explain things, and then what those parables actually meant. Our Lord’s response was pithy and penetrating:
‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving’ (Matthew 13: 13 – 14).
Here are a few other interactions involving the Lord and his flock, that exemplify this disconnect. The disconnect between Christ’s ministry to bring, not just the Good News about the Kingdom of God to Earth, but for ‘it’ to be made manifest in the real world, and inevitable incredulity, inhibition, faithlessness, and opposition that he would encounter on the part of those he wishes to uplift.
‘You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you’ (Matthew 17: 17).
‘Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did’. (Matthew 21: 31 – 32).
What these rather savage admonishments of his followers by Christ indicate, besides the lack of discernment on their part, is that there is a considerable void between the Lord, His teachings, and humanity, that was meant to receive it. Whilst Christ’s primary mission was to aid the Salvation of man, re-establishing the broken connection between God and His Creation, the lack of receptivity, and power of discernment on the part of those he was sent to minister, at a certain point would have dawned on Christ as an intractable problem.
Hence all that could be done on his part was to minister to them and in the meantime seek to connect with them at a more human level. At the level of flesh: That is to aid man within the confines of his material, social, economic, and physical reality. Working to alleviate human shortfalls using his power over the Created order.
When one speaks of Christ, there is the tendency, once again in the functionally anti-humanistic Catholic variant, to delimit the focus of Christ’s coming to the Passion narrative. To center the entirety of the Christic mission on the suffering, Crucifixion, death, and Resurrection, to the exclusion of everything else.
Or often, to redirect the gaze of the followership solely toward the saving act of his suffering and death on the Cross. This is understandable in the Sacrament-centered character of Roman Catholicism. However, this Passion or pain-centric approach to Christ, one that dominates much of Christianity irrespective of the denomination in question, is how it conflicts with the world-centric, life-centric, and ultimately man-centric nature of Christ’s mission.
Whilst it is true that Christ’s ultimate mission was to ‘Save us’: that is to save our souls with respect to its ultimate fate (to enter paradise). But it is also true that Christ did take it upon himself as his mission to aid and uplift humanity in the here and now. His capacity and willingness to perform miracles was arguably the most impactful aspect of his ministry. As it functioned as the main draw for a desperate, downtrodden populace that was seeking a liberator. Any liberator!
A man who can provide for their basic needs. Heals their wounds and injuries. Cure their sicknesses. Provide guidance for life. Give freedom, at least the promise of freedom from oppression. Provide hope for a new kingdom where joy, peace, and love would reign. And yes, even one who could bring the dead back to life. And the act of bringing the dead back to life implied the significance of life here on Earth.
Thus it is beyond doubt that if Christ had not become the miracle worker that he was, his ministry, at any level, would not have gotten off the ground. The notion that Christ came into this world to serve as the Lamb of God, rather than the victorious lion that trounces his enemies and rules over his followership is true, but he was meant to accomplish this by giving them what they (we) want: a better life here on Earth.
Since Christ did not intend to be a political liberator as, arguably many of his apostles believed, and the rest who followed him; the strength of his ministry lay with his power to heal and uplift man at a temporal level. Which is what he did. And did so gladly. So much so that Christ actually wished to be recognized for his role as a healer and redeemer of man in the here and now.
In Luke 7: 22 – 23 Christ says:
‘Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me’.
This is quite a statement!
Think about it. Whenever we ponder the nature of Christ and his mission to the world, his ministry of miracle-working of healing the sick and raising the dead to life is generally viewed as ancillary at best to his greater mission to save our souls from the fires of hell by stressing the moral dimension of Christian life.
In practice the dominant view focuses on Christ’s coming and saving mission is viewed primarily through the framework of the Passion and its metaphysical significance: the victory over death: the ‘Second Death’. With all the prior events of healing and upliftment of the various communities viewed as unimportant relative to what would transpire in the course of Holy Week.
Whilst such a view is not invalid, the problem lies with its singular or dominant assertion to the exclusion or marginalization of his other great works. Which in practice undermines the totality of his saving grace. Notably in relation to its materialistic or existential character.
THE MECHANICS OF MIRACLE WORKING
Sometime during the mid to late 2000s a TV program named Chris Angel: Mind Freak aired on cable. The show stared the titular magician, or ‘mind freak’ as he wished to describe himself. At this point, one might wonder why the person in question went with such a weird name. Well, it was around this time that the magic debunking industry had started to take shape.
I will leave out the specifics here, but in this period a number of disgruntled former magicians started making waves by revealing the secrets of age-old magic tricks both small and vast in scope, to the public. This was done to, as the argument went, to reinvigorate magic that had grown old and stale owing to the lack of innovation in terms of new ideas and tricks. Thus we are left with this ‘mind-freak’ as opposed to old-school magicians, trying to mix things up, and possibly trying to distance himself away from the term ‘magician’.
In one of the episodes this ‘mind freak’, the rather eccentric-looking producer and star of the show proceeds to walk across a section of a swimming pool in a hotel somewhere in Los Vegas, in full view of the cameras and a pool filled with cheering people. The trick or the illusion of ‘biblical proportions’ certainly had the people who were present to witness it excited. Almost too excited.
This “trick” is what it is. A trick. No mortal is walking over water here. And the excited spectators are paid actors. However, the appeal of this show and the enduring relevance of the magic industry (e.g. David Blane) is the appeal of the fantastical. The ministry of Christ was many things but one thing it wasn’t was boring. The mystical dimension was accompanied by showmanship that drew people to him.
Jesus Christ was a showman. He knew how to put on a show and did it to good effect. Even if that presumably wasn’t his main intention. From his preaching style (render unto Caesar), his activism (in the Temple), and his miracle-working (notably in bringing the dead to life) he was never too far away from controversy and attention. As the humble son of a carpenter, who despite being divine in nature did not claim equality with God, and did not do these miraculous things for his own glory; however, ‘the glory’ so to speak, did come his way.
Going further, with Christ, what was also different is that, unlike the magicians of today, he did not need to resort to tricks, illusions, and deceptions to produce the desired effect. When Jesus Christ performed miracles he was doing something that transcended the established order of the cosmos.
The miraculous things that Christ did were not ‘miracles’ in a magical sense. This is kind of the vibe one gets when you read about events like the miracle at Cana. But rather they were manifestations of his ability to affect, alter, and transcend the limits of nature’s laws. When Christ fed the five thousand by taking five loaves and two fish, in addition to the women and children, he was in effect bringing something into being out of nothing. A mini act of ‘creation’ it could be said.
Whilst the reference to the ‘broke the loves’ implies the multiplication of existing materials, it does not take away from the fact that at one point there were only five loaves and two fish and then there were enough of these going around to feed five thousand. Laws of physics be damned!
THE RAISING OF THE DEAD
Speaking of the laws of nature, the most profound manifestation of Jesus’s power came when he raised Lazarus from the dead. (Note: It is the ‘raising’, not the Resurrection of the dead. As the latter would imply that he was brought back to life only to never die again).
Now what is unique about the raising of the male sibling of Martha and Mary (of Bethany), is that unlike the raising of the widow’s son (Luke 7:11-17) or the raising of the twelve-year-old girl (Mark 5:21-43) from the dead, Lazarus was dead for four good days.
I am not an expert on thanatology but upon death, a state that is defined as the irreversible cessation of vital functions of the body; which correspond to key organs and systems in which they are set: heart (cardiovascular system); brain (central nervous system); lungs (respiratory system); pituitary gland (endocrine system). All shutting down permanently.
Now it must be mentioned that death as a subject remains a mystery even within the medical and scientific community today. For our purposes, we are looking at the breakdown of the physical systems of the (now deceased) person. Cursory research on what happens to a human body following death takes us to the subject of decay and decomposition. Which breaks down (no pun intended) into four stages or phases:
01 Hypostasis; 02: Algor Mortis; 03: Rigor Mortis; 04: Putrefaction (Disgusting! I know).
Phase 01 (hypostasis) starts a few minutes after death and extends for a few hours. It is characterized by the collapse of the blood cells which is what makes the body go white and then slightly blue. (Note: Sometimes its effects are confused with Livor Mortis, which refers to the dispersal of blood, now under the sway of gravity to the extremities).
Phase 02 (Algor mortis) takes place in the hours after the death and is the cooling stage of the body. Since humans are warm-blooded creatures, with our temperatures are controlled by the brain. Following death, this regulatory framework falls apart.
Phase 03 (Rigor mortis) is the stiffening stage as the body goes rigid due to the stoppage of signaling from the brain to the muscles to contract or relax. This begins around 8 hours after death and continues until around the 36-hour mark. The notion of corpses being unusually heavy stems from this.
Also around this stage/phase, the corpse can effectively be considered a ‘zombie’. Albeit in an inactive one. As it no longer features the main (natural) functions that characterize a living human. Well besides the fact that it has stopped breathing! Unless of course, the corpse decides to come back to “life”. Thankfully it doesn’t.
Well unless you have Jesus around.
Phase 04 (Putrification). And this means what it means: decay. The literal breakdown of the material body of the person is due to a variety of processes.
This is important.
Considering that Lazarus was dead for around 96 hours it is fair to say that the early stages of putrification had already begun: with the literal breakdown of the human tissue with various parts of it being lost to bacterial activity; which slowly eats away the tissue. Leading to organ decomposition in the course of 72 – 96 hours.
This means by the time Jesus got to Lazarus’s tomb, not only was the man physically dead (i.e. no soul), but parts of him had essentially been lost to natural processes. So when Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, he was not simply returning the soul to a dead person, as in the case of his previous two miracles. But he was effectively restoring parts of the dead man back to its original state.
Christ in raising Lazarus from the dead was, in application, overcoming the limits imposed by the law of conservation of mass. Somewhat akin to feeding of the thousand: where the five loaves and two fish literally multiplied out of thin air to feed a vast number.
—
Right. This short detour may have been a bit macabre for some (it was for me). But it is important for us to understand the nature of Christ’s power and the kind of it effect it had on the followership and continues to do so, in terms of our perception of him. This takes us to the next point in the discussion on the archetypes of Christ in relation to his power.
BELIEVING IN CHRIST Vs BELIEVING IN THE POWER OF CHRIST
When speaking of Christ’s power, what naturally comes to mind are his miracles. Notably, his ability to bring the dead back to life. Which is arguably his greatest power. The hallmark of Godhood. Acts which portend his own Resurrection. As Christ, as a mark of his divinity, following his own death, comes back to life.
Now when it comes to us, the followers of Christ, the question must be asked what exactly do we believe in with respect to Christ’s divinity, in a functional sense? That is to say, are we believing in the power of Christ to heal, nourish, rejuvenate, and even raise the dead to life? Or are we believing in the Christ who will judge the souls on the last day and ensure Salvation for those who believed in him and followed his teachings during their time?
Consider this carefully.
Considering what little we know regarding the life and works of Christ during his time here on Earth, and his even shorter ministry, Christ clearly had a very world-centered view of human Redemption, in addition to his mission to save souls. His mission to save humanity from the power of Sin, upon deeper reading has a dual meaning and implication.
Whilst the pathway for humanity’s Salvation was made possible by the coming of Christ; Jesus, based on his ministry of miracle-working, and his message of hope, clearly had the mandate to uplift the state of humanity. Interestingly this (man-uplifting) part of his mission has been forgotten, ignored, or downplayed by many Christian traditions. Critically in relation to its mystical character.
Meaning, the reality of spiritual liberation meant that moral conversion must go hand in hand with material upliftment. Which necessarily meant the healing of mental and physical ailments and the betterment of the social conditions of a person’s life.
Instead what is on offer in the Christian world today is the primacy placed on moral conversion, with material and physical needs of the faithful considered as ancillary concerns. That at best exist solely to facilitate a deeper connection with God (i.e. the religious institution) rather than facilitating
physically liberated (from illness, ravages of old age, and the fear of death) to lead a socially and culturally fulfilling life.
A problem that is most pervasive in the Catholic world. The form of Christianity that manifests a latent, and increasingly overt opposition to ‘things of this world’. Which practically is a manifestation of its historical opposition to the sensual and sexual dimension of man and its social outworking.
Now before the counterargument of: Oh but wait… Doesn’t the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations engage in charitable works to aid the poor and needy? Doesn’t that count as carrying on Christ’s missionary work to uplift the human condition?
Yes… But not quite.
You see when we are talking about believing in the power of Christ, we are not talking about simply taking inspiration from his life works (notably his charity) and then seeking to carry that mission forward with the available tools and means of the times. This is what Christian communities have been doing since the early Church.
Rather what ought to be the focus is the ability of his followership to reproduce the mystical works and in essence, to manifest the power of Christ to do the great and wonderful things that he did! Clearly, this is not the reality that characterizes the state of the modern Church.
To put this in perspective, consider that in present times there isn’t a single person who claims to be a follower or believer of Christ and is able to manifest anything remotely close to the power of Christ in the arena of the unknown: specifically miracle working. From turning water into wine, walking on water, to raising the dead to life.
Interestingly, this was not always the case. During the time of the early Church, the apostles of Christ manifested at varying degrees, what can only be characterized as superhuman abilities.
The leading followers of Christ were able to manifest abilities that were showcased by their master. From St. Peter’s miraculous healing of the lame man at the temple in Acts 3, to the other wonders carried out by the apostles referred to in Acts 5. With the notable example of St. Peter’s very shadow having the power to heal the sick. Something that even Christ didn’t manage!
Such manifestations of divine power in some ways vindicate the promise of Christ to his apostles made during the Last Supper, where he mentioned (John 14: 12):
‘Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these because I am going to the Father’
What Christ here is referring to is the coming of the Holy Spirit and that upon its arrival and sanctification of the faithful will imbue them with new power. A power that will enable them to go out and do great things. Great things that have an impact in an Earthly way. That is having a material but complementary spiritual effect. For the power they possess, that has come down from ‘above’ (i.e. outside of space-time) enables them to affect phenomena in the natural world. To alter, and critically. to improve it.
To change, heal, correct, enhance, and underlying it, control aspects of the created order. This is serious stuff.
The death of the couple Ananias and Sapphira is telling (and chilling) in this regard. Owing to certain discrepancies in their charitable contributions: and a spirit of insincerity with respect to what was promised and what was finally given, St. Peter accuses the couple of dishonesty and apparently in an act of heightened spiritual zeal, kills them. Or to put it more euphemistically, deprives them of their bodily souls.
This kind of ‘corrective power’ if one may characterize it as such, was nowhere to be seen or even hinted at during the ministry of Christ. And in some ways augured for the future manifestation of the power of the spirit empowering the faithful to do greater, wonderful,aa and if necessary, terrible things in the name of the Lord. In the process of furthering his Kingdom.
However, as the history of the Church unfolded, this power, a power that is divine in nature with the ability to affect the natural world, is given to the believers who confess Lordship in the Son of Man, to whom ‘All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to’ appears to have vanished.
The power over life and death wielded by St. Peter, to the lesser ability to affect aspects of the physical order, was not carried forward or passed onto future leaders of the Church. The power to do the unbelievable never truly became an instrument of the apostles of Christ in aiding the growth of the Church.
For the countless souls that were in need of physical, mental, material or one could say existential aid, the power to satiate it was never forthcoming. Specifically, it was the loss of a certain spiritual power with real-world capabilities.
What did come to pass, however, was the sorry reality of the persecuted Church. A broken, hurting, inherently pessimistic reality of what is functionally a sadomasochistic institution. One that is ever at the mercy of material want and tyrannical oppression of secular powers. The very antithesis of a Church imbued with the divine power to shape the material world in accordance to Christ’s uplifting vision.
PARADISE LOST… AGAIN
So what went wrong?
Why did the world enhanced by the healing, uplifting, cleansing, and liberating power of the divine manifested by Christ and later the followers of Christ not come to pass? What happened to the realization of the revelation that the Kingdom of Heaven had already come?
—
One explanation for this spiritual loss is that over time, the apostles of Christ, and their successors did not recognize the Earthly character of Christ’s mission: one that aimed towards uplifting humanity from its material concerns.
The power to heal, feed, enclothe, and empower people in the physical or material sense of the word was viewed as at best ancillary. As the task of saving souls by bringing people into the faith via conversion came to be viewed as paramount, as opposed to empowering them mentally, physically, materially, and in a curious way spiritually: that is uplifting them in a more holistic sense, so that they may go forward and lead a fulfilling life in this world.
But for some reason, the notion of material upliftment of the human condition paradoxically came to be viewed with a degree of suspicion by the early Church. A state of mind that has persisted. A viewpoint that was not without Christological merit. For Christ himself warned against having too much of a good time in the here and now. In no place than in the Beatitudes:
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets” (Luke 6: 24 – 26).
This passage is immensely complex to understand and deconstruct. An undertaking that goes beyond the scope of this essay. However, it is no doubt one of the teachings of Christ has become foundational for much constitutes the anti-materialist, ascetic, world-rejecting worldview that characterizes modern Christianity. Particularly the Catholic variant.
So what I will say for now, as a counter to this view, is that the actions of Christ in the course of his ministry, were, for the most part, contradictory to what says on the topic of material upliftment.
—
Moving on. The key point here is that at some point in the early history of the Church, the idea of material well-being came to be seen as at best a distraction and a potential source of “temptation” that could lead the minds of the faithful astray. Where material comforts and physical pleasures functionally, are necessarily antithetical to the divine relationship that man could have with God in the here and now. And thus jeopardize the chances one may have of attaining afterlife.
So in a somewhat perverse sense, physical suffering the state of living in perpetual material want, and the experience of social oppression (under pagan powers) were welcomed as a health facet of one’s faith: a potentially purifying process. Almost a necessary stage in its own (twisted) sense-would aid moral conversion.
Admittedly this view is not without merit. A number of Gospel accounts: such as Lazarus and the rich man, Jesus’s encounter with the rich young man, and in many ways, Jesus’s lifestyle according to Gospel accounts was one that was devoid of material comforts-validate this view. Jesus, almost purposefully it seems, came to structure his life in a way that was opposed to any form of wealth and joy.
However, and this is an important point, Christ, nonetheless did not shy away from his power to make things better in a materialistic/physical sense. The power to do good manifested itself in his power to heal the sick, to feed the hungry, and to aid and comfort those in need.
Christ was a giver because he was a producer. However, unlike the rest of us, his productive capacity so to speak, was predicated on his divine nature. The one who was able to bring forth something, many things out of nothing. A gift that was meant to be passed by the Spirit to his followers.
The problem is that this world of the empowered followership who affect the material reality in unbelievably uplifting ways to shape and improve it did not come to pass. A (painful) truth that is real in more ways than one. But why though? Why did this wondrous world where the faithful, empowered by God’s spirit go forth and recreate the world? One in which:
‘The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor’.
There is much to unpack in this verse. But one point that I will make, one that is worth meditating over is the reference to the phrase ‘the poor’. Note the reference is not made solely who are stricken with material want. To be ‘poor’ could mean many things. It does mean many things. Fundamentally it implies the lack of something essential. Some necessary. Something good: Family, friends, healthy relationships but also health, control over one’s mind, body, and the world around you.
The sort of things that those tasked with spreading the good news were unable to address and alleviate in a systematic way. So the question remains: Why?
—
The first major factor is that Jesus Christ, in case the obvious is missed, is no longer with us. There isn’t a person in his early thirties, with black hair, olive skin with Semitic features going around performing miracles, and telling people to love their enemies.
Furthermore, the world in which Christ lived and carried out his ministry, also no longer exists. The Roman world in which the events of the Gospels took place is a thing of the past. A distant past. In a historical sense and also in terms of the wider sensibilities, beliefs, and aspirations that characterized the people of those times in relation to those in the modern world.
Jesus Christ came into this world 2,000 years ago, lived and carried out his ministry, then died rose again, and Ascended into heaven. And with the culmination of that grand story, that particular chapter in the history of Salvation came to a close. With his Ascension, the Holy Spirit entered into human history. Altering it, one would believe, in a profound way by empowering the followers of Christ to go out into the world and not just preach the Good News, but also to shape it in accordance with God’s (original) plans.
—
Thus one could say that the era of the second member of the Trinity is over. To believe in Christ, ask things from Christ, and expect Christ to solve our problems as he did so in the Gospel accounts is to… Make a spiritual mistake?
So the problem with believing in Jesus Christ, and this is the kernel of this essay, is that it is less so about praying to him for divine blessings and healing. Whilst that can certainly help. But one must not mistake that trust in Christ with the idea of relying on the power and potential of the Messiah of 2,000 years ago. Of a living, walking person who goes from house to house, community to community solving people’s problems. Christ as a real (physical) person who can answer your prayers in a very literal (immediate) sense no longer exists. Thus it is wrong and misguided to operate under that impression, spiritually.
The problem with believing in Jesus Christ-that is his power to do good things, great things in a reliable and consistent way, the way an altruistic miracle worker would do-is to miss the point of his coming. Humanity’s moral conversion which leads to Salvation is what can be hoped for by following the teachings and example of Christ.
Expecting any kind of direct material betterment or improvement in one’s physical, mental, and social conditions via the act of prayer or belief in Christ does not follow logically or necessarily. This is self-evident for many who lead a life of prayer. Not all (or potentially any) things you ask are necessarily given. However good or justified they may see. This is not to say that prayers are not answered or miracles don’t happen. But it is just how things are.
—
In other words, to believe in Jesus Christ as a healer, provider, and miracle worker is no longer an option. Christ’s power to affect the material world in a tangible way to improve one’s physical well-being at any level is no longer a reliable proposition. At least not in a reliable, consistent way.
Thus the main hurdle for the faithful is to come to terms with the sheer unreliability of such a system of belief (in Christ). I call it a ‘system of belief’: for it is not just a confessional question of professing faith in God (Jesus). It is to believe in the Trinity for a purpose. Believing implies hoping and expecting certain outcomes to transpire by way of your beliefs.
—
But now, given what we know, the question has to be asked, is it right to continue with such a ‘belief’? That is to entertain the kind of view of God that can somehow produce desired outcomes. No matter how good, necessary, urgent, or morally liberating they may be?
Given the fact that Christ the healer, and miracle worker is no longer with us, can we expect the same kind of blessing that he was able to render the needy as he did 2000 years ago?
Since the followers of Christ do not possess the power to heal the sick and raise the dead, at least not in a scientifically credible (reproducible) way. Thus to continue believing in the person of Christ: that of the miracle-working healer of 2000 years ago is to be misdirected spiritually.
So what happens now? Christ’s mission in coming to this world contained an uplifting element with respect to our material wants and Earthly well-being, but in reality, with his Ascension, and the loss of this power to heal, empower, provide, and correct the ills in the real world among his followers, raises questions on the efficacy of our faith.
To confront this problem our focus now shifts to Christ’s deeper, and I would argue the more profound mission. One that was effectuated by making possible the entry of the second member of the Trinity into this world: To connect man with God at a more profound level. A subject that takes us to the question of the true nature of Christ’s mission in a post-Ascension world.
THE PURPOSE OF CHRIST'S COMING
The enduring problem with respect to belief in Jesus Christ is that people (i.e. his followers), quite naturally come to confuse belief in him with the belief in the supreme being known as ‘God’.
Christ alone is not God. Christ is God in relation to the other two members of the Trinity. Thus belief in Christ and ‘his saving grace’ alone is not sufficient. But since it is only human to humanize the idea and reality of God to one person, it is understandable that the appeal of Christianity lies in its ‘human’ or paradoxical humanistic character. One where the founder of this new way to God in addition to being a man (in most ways) also happens to be God himself.
This humanization of God is at the heart of the relatability that underpins the character of the Christian faith. The humanity that lies at the heart of the Christian faith, where God becomes man and then suffers the ordeals and trials that many humans endure has been a key element of the faith over the years. This humanistic view of Christ/God is increasingly challenged by the relentless rise of Islam: a religion that principally rejects the idea of God as man.
Thus the Problem with Believing in Jesus Christ can be understood better in relation to the growing influence of Islam as a global religion. A religion that is fast catching up to Christianity in terms of total believers around the world and by certain estimates is set to overtake it in the near future. This state of affairs should naturally raise questions regarding the present state of Christianity.
Christianity, unlike Islam, rejects the notion of God as a single, distant, and supreme being. The uniqueness of the faith lies in the unique character of the relationship between God and man that is enabled via the person of Christ. But this view is now being challenged by a younger, faster-growing religion that centers its faith on absolute obedience to the will of God.
LESSONS FROM ISLAM
An argument can be made that one of the key driving forces behind Islam’s rise in the modern world, lies with its impersonal character.
The growth of this monotheistic faith around the world, particularly in the geographic areas consisting of the Middle East, North Africa, parts of South Asia, and Indonesia-which are collectively known as the Islamic world-has primarily been driven via demographics. The fact that Muslim families tend to have a higher number of children than Christian ones. And Muslims tend to marry and have children in the first place, unlike many in what was once Christendom.
One explanation for this (biological) growth is that Islam is predominately a belief system of the developing world. With the exception of the wealthy Gulf States, almost all Muslim-majority countries lie in parts of the world that are yet to reach developed or industrial-nation status. It is a well-known socio-economic fact that poorer countries tend to exhibit higher birth rates.
—
However, it would be wrong to consider Islam’s growth as solely a function of reproduction. One of the discernible trends in the growth of Islam in the West, is notably among men. Specifically the once-Christian but increasingly disenchanted groups (2). For whom the appeal of this apparently more/pro-masculine faith is enchanting.
How is this so?
As a start, it is worth noting that the founders of the two great religions were characteristically polar opposites. Jesus, despite the Son of God, was a humble man, who lived a life that was not characterized by war, valor, conquest, wealth, or women. It was quite the opposite for the prophet Mohamed. Who besides being the transcriber of God’s word that would make up the Quran, was also a military leader, a man who married multiple times, fathered children, and expanded Islam through conflict or the sword.
To be clear, this is NOT intended as criticism of the prophet or of the great religion he gave rise to. But it is to state the fact that Islam, in terms of its historical character featured an expansionist orientation. One that was quite different from the admittedly slavish, submissive, servile worldview that Christians seemed to operate from.
Here it must be said that in the modern world the qualities that are desired, valued, and respected are those that are oriented towards upliftment, betterment, and victory. Not service and defeat. This is not to say that Christianity is necessarily lacking in these areas. But it is to suggest that such values are not at the forefront of its ministry.
Today Islam is gaining considerable traction in the West. One that is coming on the back of the steady decline of Christianity as an institutional faith (‘I’m not religious but spiritual’). According to PEW, research conducted in 2017 revealed that in the United States of the total American converts to Islam, 77 percent were former Christians. This research further states that America’s Islamic population has been steadily increasing by around 100,000 per year. A point needs to be explored in relation to the topic at hand (3).
THE TATE EFFECT
A popular icon of this shift of the apparent appeal of Islam as a spiritual guiding force, particularly as one that is more attuned to masculine sensibilities the Andrew Tate.
I will not say much about this controversial character here. But the one-time kickboxing champ turned businessman, turned self-help guru and thought leader (given the sheer appeal of his ideas in the West, particularly among adolescent boys to young adult men) is a point to consider.
Andrew Tate’s conversion to Islam (however serious the conversion may or may not be) is telling considering the millions of followers he has amassed online. His popularity/infamy was deemed so significant (problematic) that it even warranted schools in the U.K. to adopt measures to counter his online influence on boys (4).
The driving force of the Tate phenomenon is built on a curious combination of Stoicism, the recognition of Darwinian selection dynamics in the context of human relationships, and the indirect affirmation of the Maslowian Hierarchy of human needs and wants. Notably the importance of striving to attain them.
With respect to the relationship between Islam and Andrew Tate one of the most contentious has been on the subject of women. The complaints of misogyny that have been directed at Tate and his followers were at one time (and still is) directed towards the Islamic world. This is interesting for a number of reasons. In relation to Christ and the dominant archetypes associated with him, the core contrast (and source of appeal) of Tate (and possibly Islam) is its more male-centric, and paradoxically more sex-affirming character.
The idea of working on yourself, growing mentally and physically, developing socially, particularly in relation to women, acquiring skills to make money, in time attaining financial freedom, and then projecting that success in the social arena in becoming a self-actualized human are core messages that underpin the Tate view. A worldview that I am, given my own history and involvement in the personal development and self-help space, sympathetic towards.
Now how this system of codes and beliefs works into the relatively more puritanical character of the Islamic faith is not clear. But what is clear is that Andrew Tate and his now tens of millions of followers worldwide embrace an unapologetically masculinity or hyper-masculine worldview. A worldview that seems to fit better within an Islamic social system than an apparently (Western) Christian one.
—
If one has ever followed Tate’s (often) profanity-laden outbursts, and diatribes that lace his words of wisdom, one would notice that his way of looking at the world pays little attention to Christian principles such as service, humility, and sacrifice and one could say love. Agape love specifically.
Speaking of the latter, in relation to the personal antics of the said Tate, who openly showcases his womanizing tendencies, with his taste for the high life of fast cars, private jets, and Cuban cigars. It is clear that the man is more embracing of the (Hellenic) erotic dimension of love as opposed to its (characteristically Christian) self-sacrificial one.
As the followers of Christ would know, the erotic dimension of love is one that is conspicuously absent in the Christian world. Understandably so since Christ was never, or at least was never portrayed, as a lover. The erotic and sensual dimensions are virtually alien concepts to the practice of the faith and are generally viewed as antithetical to the core character of Christianity.
The ‘core’ character of Christianity is its mystical dimensions. From which it draws spiritual legitimacy consisting of: the Virgin birth, Mary the Virgin Mother of Jesus, and according to the Catholic view-the ever Virgin.
Contrast this with the prophet Mohammad. The man who was married 11 times. Fathered 7 children. Advocated the doctrine of the Jihad or struggle that is integral to the faith. As opposed to Christ’s brotherly self-sacrificial love of laying down one’s life for his friends.
Further, the expansion of Islam through conquest, notably in Europe. When the religion manages to become the dominant political power in a region, it invariably leads to the establishment of a caliphate or a version of it: A theocratic system of government where Islam becomes not only the official religion of the State, but in time society as a whole comes to be characterized by an Islamic way of life. Where the law of the Holy Book holds sway over virtually all aspects of life.
This contrasts significantly with the contrast with slavish character Church of Christ. A Church that was meant to be built by the meek and lowly for the service of the poor.
CORE PROBLEM: Christ to the Exclusion of the Father and THE Spirit
When it comes to the secularization of the West, at one level what we are dealing with is a decline in the social appeal of Christianity, particularly among the younger generations.
Contrary to what the faith’s main proponents would think as the factors underlying its decline of the faith in the West: the lack of knowledge of spiritual doctrines and religious history, which in turn is believed to warrant greater education and evangelization is not the real issue. Attempts to address this have generally failed. A failed strategy that the Christian leaders only seem to be doubling down on (e.g. the new evangelization).
The failure on the part of the leadership of the major Christian Churches to identify this problem needs to be directed towards the founder of the faith: Jesus Christ. Specifically, it is the result of an overly simplistic, humanizing (Christ-centric) view of the savior. One that fails to consider the complex reality of God and the ever-evolving nature of his relationship with humanity. One that is made possible via the Trinity.
The problem with the incomplete understanding of the role of Jesus Christ with respect to the broader character and mission of the Church, and what that means for man’s relationship with God vis a vie is the connective function played by the institution that represents him and his will here on Earth, can be understood via the framework of the personas or archetypes of Christ that have come to be dominant today.
What has happened is that the worldview of those who are tasked with bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world is held back by anti-humanistic archetypes that I engaged in, which in practice run counter to the masculine, idealistic, existential, evolutionary (non-Darwinian) and Maslowian character of the modern and the world and modern man.
The idea (or ‘ideal’) of Jesus as meek and mild is built upon the archetype of ‘Christ the Obedient Son’ and ‘Servant’ archetypes. And given the problems associated with them, the second-order effects that result from an evangelical strategy that is built upon them, and the worldview that results negatively affects the Church’s mission to the world.
The reasons why people, the young and the young at heart, feel: a combination of negativity, unease, suspicion, and above all, ambivalence stems from this paradoxical anti-humanism at the heart of Christianity.
Why does Christianity, which is supposed to be the ‘Good News’, or for that matter, the best news: as it pertains to God’s victory over death-and in case we miss it, and all that death represents? A glorious reality that was made possible by God becoming man. But why does whenever someone (religious) starts talking about this (i.e. as to why they should ‘believe in Jesus’, ‘follow Jesus’, ‘give their life to Jesus’) produce an inescapable sense of negativity, angst, and even hopelessness? Why? The answer to this question takes us to the final point of this essay.
THE FORGOTTEN TRINITY
Christianity, despite being a religion that is centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and the moral and ethical system developed by his followers, most notably St. Paul, is actually not about him.
Not to sound contradictory, for while whilst Christ is the way, the truth, and the life; what this statement actually means in relation to the true nature of God as it is correctly understood within the faith, is a different matter.
To understand the problem the faithful and the faith as a whole are facing today in relation to belief in Jesus Christ, and what it means when it comes to the day-to-day concerns of life and the broader question of Salvation, one must delve a bit into the nature of the Trinitarian conception of God.
This is a vast subject area and it is not possible to engage it in a meaningful way here. So what I will say here, is that the dominant view of ‘God’ is one where God is viewed purely in relation to the second member of the Trinity alone. Whereby the immense and complex nature of God and how that nature relates to the created order and most notably mankind has led to the reduction of God.
A reductionist view of God, where the Creator of the Universe is reduced to the myopic conception of the life and works of the son of a lowly Carpenter who was raised in a Jewish household, and led a pious life, characterized by asceticism and self-sacrifice with elements of the miraculous sprinkled in. Simplistic? Yes. Pervasive? Absolutely.
Christ, the man who led a merry band of unremarkable followers, preached about a future kingdom that never came (at least not in a physical/glorious manner), and performed some miraculous deeds that were not replicated by his followers at scale. A man who claimed to be God and king but was accused of being an usurper and was eventually tried and killed as a traitor.
To put it bluntly, God in the Christian worldview today, is viewed primarily, if not purely through the framework of a man in his early thirties, living in a godforsaken part of the world in the Roman empire, who taught varying versions of the golden rule, preached against material indulgence, whose basis for his authoritative claims was his self-proclaimed divinity.
—
To be clear, the above summary of the life of Christ (or at least this simplified understanding of it) is not meant as a critique. Rather it is to suggest the sheer vacuity in terms of perspective and insight that we have when it comes to the Son of Man. Notably in relation to the other two members of the Trinity. Even the great letters of St. Paul build on this framework, whilst being restricted by the archetypes of Christ.
Today when Christians speak of belief in God, what they are really talking about is their belief in Jesus Christ. A certain conception of it. The person of Christ they speak of as a human being (and think of as God) is a being whose image and function have been shaped and instilled into their minds by those who came before him, whose perspectives in turn were limited by the archetypal views. Compounding this problem (of the simplification of God in Christ) further is the fact that, and I reiterate, Jesus Christ is not with us anymore.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God is no longer with us anymore. At least not in physical form (the one that matters). Nor does the world from which he came: Roman-occupied Judea. In many respects, many of his teachings which were preached were specific to that time, and are for the most part no longer applicable in the modern world. More on this important subject here: The Problem with Following Jesus Christ.
—
For example, consider the idea of Salvation as a function of one’s propensity to be relieved of one’s wealth (and by extension, status and the various sources of power, as the way to Heaven (or specifically to have “riches in heaven”.
This apparent divine insight is brought to light in Matthew 19: 16 – 28. However, a careful reading reveals that this is a highly simplistic, situational teaching that Christ puts forward mainly as a challenge to the rich young man who came to him. Hence it must be viewed in the context of the time and place. Thus this teaching is not applicable in any practical sense to most others.
Leaving aside the curious moral question it raises on the idea of Salvation as resulting in some kind of business deal characterized by having to take on full liabilities with zero returns, it paradoxically contradicts the authentic idea of Salvation as one that proceeds from Redemption. Which is a function of man’s relationship with God that is facilitated through the person of Christ.
This is enabled through faith, reason, and good ethical conduct: the latter of which involves charitable activity effectuated from a position of physical health, mental clarity, and financial stability. As opposed to the embrace or mindless surrender to abject poverty as some de-facto method of attaining eternal life, a simpler reading of the text seems to indicate.
The idea of selling all of one’s possessions and giving it to the poor, in practice will render the rich man, quite logically, poor. And the poor, who are many, not necessarily rich, but well off; but only for a time. The true causes of poverty, as economics teaches us is multifaceted. And the answer is not charity alone. Rather it is increasing productivity via innovation, building human capital, inclusive of technical know-how, overseen by expert leadership at a managerial and governmental level.
Thus to serve God one need not embrace a way of life that precludes wealth, success, and well-being. If anything, to meaningfully tackle the problem of poverty and all the evils that result from it: suffering, sickness, crime, and (early) death, wealth is a precondition. And what does wealth imply in the modern world: success, honor, and power? All inherently good things unless exploited.
–
When Christ was speaking of such things negatively: namely their power to tempt man away from God’s plan, it does mean he called them to be viewed as inherently problematic or evil. But what has come to pass is the very opposite. The routine demonization of money, power, please, and honor by Church leaders. To undermine not just the reality but the yearning of the human heart to pursue what are really the only things, along with love and good health, that make life good, true, and beautiful.
The inability to look further and deeper and come to a theologically enriched conclusion has been a major problem point in the Christian world. A key shortfall that underpins its persistent decline across the West. A state of mind that afflicts modern Christianity across denominations. Who view the faith based on an uneducated reading of Scripture, mixed with a schizophrenic distaste for the material world and its joys.
Instead of grasping the complexity of God’s divine mission to reunite man with his maker, Christianity as a belief system has overtime degenerated into a cult of personality: a cult that surrounds what little is known of the (Earthly) life and written-down teachings of the second member of the Trinity.
In other words, faith in God through Christ has been effectuated by what little we know or think we know about ‘Jesus’, without encouraging a deeper exploration of the evolving union between the Creator and the Created.
The nature of God’s relationship with humanity has changed over the course of 2000 years at a metaphysical level with psychical or worldly implications. The problem is that the current state of Christianity- theologically, evangelically, and institutionally-has not kept up with it in any meaningful way, and for the most part seems opposed to any new developments in this regard.
THE (UNRECOGNIZED) EVOLUTION OF GOD’s RELATIONSHIP WITH MAN
The problem with believing in Jesus Chris is that the Church (basically all of the major denominations) has reduced the immensity of the dynamic relationship between God and man to a rather simplistic (and overtly moralistic) reading of Scripture. One that fails to understand the fullness of the metaphysical character of his coming: The divine mission to save humanity from the power of Sin through his suffering, death, and Resurrection. Which opens the door to a new, more profound relationship between man and God.
GOD. Not Jesus Christ. Not just the second member of the Trinity. Not just the carpenter’s son who preached asceticism, social justice, and anti-materialism.
Thus the purpose of Christ’s coming ought to be understood as a process. A structured outworking of God’s progressive attempt to connect or reconnect with his creation. Starting with the more paternal relationship that is presented in the Old Testament: where God is this Father figure. An all-powerful, all-knowing force that strives to nurture, educate, and guide his children through their many trials and tribulations.
The story of Israel, from Noah to Jacob to Moses to David can be seen as the various stages through which God’s relationship with man (represented by the people of Israel) passes. An evolving relationship where the character of the people and the type of social structure and political organization under and within which they choose to operate changes in accordance with their relationship with their Maker.
From God’s relationship with the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the Prophet (Moses), the Judges (Judges and Samuel), and later Kings (Notably King David and Solomon), to the Prophets again, both major and minor. The most notable being Isaiah.
Following the destruction of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, with the climatic fall of Jerusalem, the hope for the liberation of “God’s chosen people” evolved from an Earthly, military leader (i.e. like King David, or Maccabees) to a more spiritual, moral leader, whose mission was transcendental but with an existential orientation.
A leader who will bridge the spiritual divide between man and God by becoming that link that aids the conversion of our hearts. A spiritual transformation that will take place from within. The coming of Christ into this world was meant to accomplish this. A task in which Christ succeeded. And with the coming of Christ, which heralds the Messianic Age, the Old Covenant, or better, the old ways in which God dealt with his creation changed or better, evolved.
This is the critical point.
The coming Christ into this world and the fulfillment of his mission to die for our Sins, to rise from the dead, to liberate Adam the first man (and the Son of God – for Christ is the ‘New Adam’) ushers in a new age. Through the Passion of the Christ, humanity is uplifted to a new spiritual stage in its spiritual history. One that elevates man above the honor that was logically bestowed upon him when he was Created in his Maker’s image.
Through Christ, the doctrine that humans are children of God was reinforced. If one wishes one can choose to delve into what this means (the mystery of God becoming man) to humanity, and to God himself, but that is a discussion for another time. What matters here is not the event itself-the Redemption of Man through Christ as something that took place in the past, but what it means now and what it portends for the future.
—
Having seen the evolution of God’s relationship with man from the time of Creation: the antediluvian era, Noah and his descendants, the people of Israel, God’s role in the unfolding (and tragic) histories of Judea and Israel, that culminates (or so we think) with the coming Christ. But the relationship between man and his Maker did not reach its apex with the coming of Christ.
The Salvation of humanity made possible by the coming of Christ, had only entered another stage. A very important stage. One that is but a key stepping stone in the long march towards a deeper, more perfect union between man and God.
This is evident in the event of Pentecost.
The sending of the Holy Spirit is arguably more significant by virtue of the fact that it took place after the Ascension. For it symbolizes a newer stage in God’s evolving connection with man, by God chooses to become one of us, and then elevate our being through the spirit. Through Pentecost, we now become co-carriers of that divine spirit. The Holy Spirit ‘the Lord the Giver of Life’ is now a manifesting force within the hearts of the followers of Christ and indeed (I would argue) the whole of humanity.
—
The core argument of this essay is that the Redemptive mission of Christ needs to be viewed functionally, existentially, and from an evolutionary perspective: The evolution of God’s relationship with Man and possibly the evolution of God himself through the relationship he has with his creation.
Christ’s coming, his ministry of preaching and miracle-working, and even the Passion which culminated with the Resurrection followed by the Ascension were subsets in the grand Redemption arc of humanity.
In other words, Jesus Christ is not the be-all and end of Christianity or human history. The purpose of Christ the Son of God’s coming is to pave the way for the Holy Spirit, who is working through us, with us, and in us. Raising us to a newer, higher stage. One that is closer to the original creation.
Christianity, for some reason, has failed to evolve from this reductively Christ-centric view of God. It is time it moved on.
IN CONCLUSION
There is something wrong with Christianity today.
There is something particularly wrong with how the faith has/is being conceived. Primarily in relation to the founder of the faith. Whilst Jesus is the founder and the central figure in the belief system encompassing around 2.4 billion people. The faith carries with it a central flaw.
A flaw that is not of the founder or of God Himself rather it relates to how man’s relationship to God via Christ has been warped by an overtly simplistic, theologically illiterate, world-rejecting, and anti-materialistic framework.
One that has failed to evolve with the times. Christianity, like Islam, is a teleological religion, and its failure to evolve as a belief system to meet the challenges of times, not only in a social and institutional sense but at a foundational level: the changes taking place within man, with his expanding outlook on life and the world. With ever-expanding worldly and otherworldly aspirations. But most significantly it is the failure of the faith to evolve in relation to the evolutionary character of God’s own relationship with man: progressing from Father, Son to Spirit.
Christianity’s failure in the modern world, an ongoing reality with respect to the modernizing character of the world, along with the rise of Islam, and the ever-weakening temporal power and influence of its spiritual leadership, hearkens to a future where the Church of Jesus Christ will remain an ever weakened force. The strength that the faith has been able to draw from followers in the developing world, as do most major religions, will not endure.
Whatever comfort the faithful and the hierarchies that govern the major Christian churches may derive from the growth of the faith in absolute numbers should not mask the underlying structural decline that marks the faith.
Christianity today, despite being the largest belief system in the world is a declining force. Or to be a bit cynical, it is a dying one. A dying faith because there is something wrong with it.
The problem rests not with evangelization or the lack thereof. Or with the rise of secularism owing to the changing character of society and the greed and lust of modern man who has no time for things that are not of this world. The core problem lies with how the faith has been conceptualized and advanced as a belief system that is supposedly pro-life and pro-man. When functionally, for the most part (besides its pro-life outlook), it paradoxically isn’t. For things that affirm and advance life are interestingly the very things the Church opposes: Money, Power, Pleasure, and Honor.
Modern Christianity, Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, is governed by a simplistic, reductive, and ultimately misleading view of God and his function in relation to human life. Thanks to an incomplete understanding of the nature and mission of the founder of the faith: Jesus Christ. The Son of God. The Second Member of the Trinity.
REFERENCES
- National Catholic Reporter. 2014. Pope’s quotes: Evangelization is necessary. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-s-quotes-evangelization-necessary. [Accessed 16 October 2023].
CBN. 2022. Why are So Many Westerners Converting to Islam?. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www2.cbn.com/article/religion/why-are-so-many-westerners-converting-islam. [Accessed 16 October 2023].
Pew Research Center. 2018. The share of Americans who leave Islam is offset by those who become Muslim. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/01/26/the-share-of-americans-who-leave-islam-is-offset-by-those-who-become-muslim/. [Accessed 16 October 2023].
Yahoo Life. 2023. What can be done to tackle misogyny in the wake of recent events?. [ONLINE] Available at: https://shorturl.at/nMSW7. [Accessed 16 October 2023].
1) <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/full-shot-jesus-nature_64311292.htm#query=jesus%20christ&position=19&from_view=search&track=ais”>Image By freepik</a>
2) <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/close-up-jesus-taking-care-people_72619505.htm#fromView=search&term=evangelical+preacher&page=1&position=3&track=ais_ai_generated®ularType=ai”>Image By freepik</a>
6) <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/free-photo-good-friday-background-with-jesus-christ-cross_40380892.htm#fromView=search&term=paradise+lost&page=1&position=13&track=ais_ai_generated®ularType=ai”>Image By Sketchepedia</a>