MAKING SENSE OF
CULTURE
Upholding the importance of
Reason, Beauty, Faith, Heritage & Humanity.
The Problem with Following Jesus Christ
Epigraph
'Jesus Never Got Laid'
- Your Truly
If you were raised in a Christian environment, which is generally a product of birth, the importance of following Christ is likely to have been a key facet of the religious converse. To follow in His footsteps, to follow His example, to follow Him (i.e. His teachings) is central to the Christian message and by extension to the Christian way of life.
Since Christianity is a belief system that was founded by, and based on the life and works of the person we call Jesus Christ, it is natural that people who call themselves ‘Christian’ come to view the founder of the faith, who also happens to be the Son of God, and considered to be the embodiment of human perfection-as an ideal. So to believe in Christ naturally comes to entail the idea of following Christ: Think here of the Church hymn ‘To be like Jesus’ which contains the lyrics: “All I Ask To Be Like Him”. In sum to believe in Jesus entails the idealization of the person of Christ, which requires us to be like him, by following his example.
The problem with, what is arguably one of the central facets of the faith, is that it is not entirely clear what is actually meant by the idea of “following” Christ. For it is taken as a given that to call oneself a Christian (i.e. a believer in the divinity of the second member of the Trinity and the Redemption of man through Him) is to also be his “follower”.
This means the need to mimic or mirror the thought processes, beliefs, and actions of the founder are considered good or necessary if one is to call oneself a Christian. This for me (paradoxically) does not follow. Upon deeper inspection, it shouldn’t. To believe in Jesus Christ does not necessarily entail the idea of being His follower, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. And to be a follower of Christ does not necessarily entail wanting to be like Him: to emulate His actions and way of life. In fact, to do so, as we shall learn, is quite problematic.
Who is Jesus?
Any debate involving the idea of Christian life must involve questions on the nature and function of the founder of the belief system. The question: of who is Jesus Christ is one that must be considered, analyzed, and contemplated persistently. Since this involves the subject of the Creator of the Universe, it is bound to be a complex one, with no response ever being truly adequate or complete.
The answer to the question of who Jesus is (besides the Obvious) depending on the circumstances can be relatively simple or immensely complex.
As a start let’s take the ‘easy’ or conventional approach to the question of who Jesus Christ is. Our understanding of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world is fundamentally a biblical one. This is understandable, because that’s all we have to work with, in terms of authoritative sources that relate to the belief in the person, with followers numbering upward of 2.3 billion. Whilst many if not most people who fall into this category are not likely to be serious about their faith; still it is worth considering that when it comes to what constitutes the idea of being a Christian, the belief in the divinity of Christ and the moral example of His Earthly life, and His mission, forms the core of the faith.
Whilst it is impossible to break down what belief in Jesus Christ means at the level of the individual person; for Christianity, as it is rightly understood comes down to a personal relationship between the believer and his Maker. From a literary standpoint, the considerable work that revolves around Christ is worth keeping in mind. Jesus Christ, who as a divine being, a spiritual teacher, a moral example, and a mere human, all at the same time, has been the subject of immense scrutiny and it is easy to get lost it, without some delineation of the subject area.
Hence I will limit my focus to the dominant views that revolve around the person of Christ, which have become essentially tautological. The sort of things we have come to accept about who Jesus Christ is, and the example he’s supposed to have set for those who have chosen to ‘follow’ Him.
Answer: We Don’t Know
Let’s start by getting the obvious part out of the way: when it comes to the actual person of Jesus Christ very little is known about him.
For the only credible sources, we have on the Son of God are derived from Scripture, notably the four gospels, and the New Testament at large. Much of which are commentaries about the life and works of Christ as presented in the four gospels. When it comes to learning about the personhood of Christ, the major hurdle theologians face is that Jesus never wrote anything down. Everything that we know of Jesus is based on what has been written about him. The accounts of his life that were taken down by those who lived during his time. Further, what has been written about Christ is limited to various stages of his life.
As anyone familiar with the gospels would know (or ought to know) the Bible actually has very little to say about the life of Jesus. However despite the sparsity of information on the person of Christ-which, we shall get to-there has been no shortage of people going around ‘talking about Jesus’; ‘telling other people about Jesus’, and why they should ‘follow Jesus’. In sum, the idea of preaching the ‘Good News’ practically entails advancing the message about the life and works of the person of Christ, despite the utter lack of information on the subject.
One which has resulted in the development of an idea or ‘archetype’ of who ‘Jesus’ is. Which in turn has come to affect how people have come to refer to the Son of God in their converse and thought processes. An image or narrative surrounding a person that, to reiterate, is based on very little information.
For example, if you were to ask a Christian to tell us who Jesus is, that person, provided he is in the mood, would waste no time in telling us about who Jesus is, by telling us, what he thinks the person of Jesus is or meant to be, based on what the Bible has to say. The practice of engaging the topic of Christ in conversation usually starts with a character outline of the person of Christ, based on events taken from Scripture. One that would predictably focus on Christ’s humility, compassion, charity, and faith; before moving onto, if things get that far, the subject of his divinity. Within Christian circles, the understanding of Jesus as a person, or better, the image that we constructed of Him, has remained rather static and predictably formulaic.
For Christ as a person, speaking solely of his human side, despite remaining a mystery, for the most part, is approached in a manner akin to how someone would a well acquainted, but distant friend. With whom one is maintaining a meaningful relationship. Though the fact remains that this ‘relationship’ only exists in the mind of the person in question.
The often cited ‘personal relationship’ with God, is a significant one and remains a central facet of the Trinitarian faith. And it often operates within a (mental) framework where the idea of ‘God’ or the divine is understood through the prism of Christ: that is what we understand, or think we understand about who Christ is as a person and God operates through a predefined conceptual framework. A spiritual heuristic if you like.
But this is where problems arise. You see, when it comes to Christ as God and man, the information that is available is limited, or worse, whatever ideas and inferences people may have about the person of Christ is one that is riddled with a variety of shortfalls and inadequacies. Most of these are born of ignorance and/or a selective understanding of who the Son of Man is and His mission for the world. In sum, our understanding of Jesus Christ, and by extension, God is a myopic one, one that is self-underminingly embraced by His followers.
Problems with Our Conception of Jesus Christ
The lack of information regarding the Son of God, His function, and the adverse effects it has had on people’s beliefs in relation to their understanding of the divine is a considerable one. The lack of understanding the followers of Christ have of God proper, and the moral and spiritual implications it has on the faithful, stems from the following issues:
The Bible doesn’t tell us much about Jesus Christ.
What the Bible does say about Jesus Christ is purposefully selective.
The information the Bible presents on Christ is reflective of the world around Him than of Him as a person.
Before I proceed, I must make mention the groundbreaking contributions made to the critical study of Scripture by Rudolf Bultmann, the great German theologian, and arguably the most important contributor when it comes to the study of Christ in the 20th century. Whilst I have not fully read his works, I am acquainted with his criticism of Scripture, via secondary sources, and commentaries on his writings. Notably his opposition to the more conventional (i.e. literal) reading of the New Testament, the surface-level opinions that people have formed of Christ as a person based on an unsophisticated study of Scripture, and the broader secondary mystical conclusions that have developed as a result. My criticism of the person of Christ, whilst indebted to Bultmann, is not meant as a reprisal or a homage to the prominent thinker. And if it helps, I have my own set of problems with Bultmann’s work, which go beyond the limits of this essay.
Note that the word ‘Bible’ here refers to the New Testament or the New Covenant, and notably the four gospels that revolve around the life of Christ.
(01) The Bible Doesn’t tell much about Jesus Christ
If one looks at the New Testament, specifically the four gospels, which are about the life and works of Christ, it becomes apparent that it has very little to say about who Jesus is as a person. If one takes the synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke very little information is provided on the formative years of Jesus’s life.
The three gospels say very little about what Jesus did as a child, in his adolescent years, and later as a young man. There is virtually nothing about key events and periods in this time of His life, with actual examples. With the exception of the story where Jesus’s parents lose him in the Temple when he was around twelve, there is no documentation of the events of his life as he was growing up as a boy, a teenager, and then as a young adult. None. The Gospel of John is a worse offender in this regard, which limits its focus to the mystical facet of His persona.
This is important. For when we have people today, Christian evangelists and apologists notably, come out of the woodwork preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ, which in practice generally entails telling people about who and how great (they think) Jesus Christ is. But this practice tells us very little about who Jesus actually is as a man.
Who is he really?
Besides the doctrinal truths about his divinity, divine sonship, and other mystical events in his life, that tells us more about, again, his divine character, with little to nothing about His life in the real world. The Bible, speaking of the New Testament, and of the gospels specifically, is not biographical in nature. Unlike the books of Samuel, which tell us about the life of David. Whose life, by the way, Christ’s life is supposed to mirror. It’s funny when you have people telling others about why they should ‘believe’ in Jesus, ‘follow’ Jesus, and ‘give’ their life to Jesus, when what is truly known about Him are essentially snapshots of certain (key) events in His life.
So the question we need to ask is: What the hell is actually meant by the question: Who is Jesus Christ? I am reiterating this point for a reason, as the reader needs to understand the seriousness of this matter.
Given the sparsity of information on the life of Christ, we have little to nothing to go on when it comes to actually understanding His character, worldview, and attitude toward life in relation to specific areas that you and I consider important. For example, we have no information on Christ’s attitude towards key human subjects like money, power, women, and honor. Besides what He preached. Note that these are NOT the same things.
What did Jesus do when it came to these pressing questions? What did He do about them? What was His attitude towards them? Did He think about them, if yes, how often? Did He ever desire the love and affection of a woman? What exactly was going on through the mind of Jesus when confronted with realities at a human (i.e. psychophysiological) level? Did Jesus ever get aroused?
Oh, I know, since Jesus was without ‘Sin’ so none of these things really mattered. As He was able to stand apart from these shallow, vain, temporal, or sinful (as they are often characterized) matters. The reader might be getting an idea of where this is headed. For based on what is presented in Scripture, we have been presented an image of the Son of Man as utterly disconnected from, what is that expression: ‘things of this world’.
As it happens that is exactly where the gospels’ characterization of Christ become problematic. This leads us to the next major problem on the list.
(02) What the Bible Does say about Jesus Christ is Purposefully Selective
This problem follows logically from the first.
If one reads through the four gospels, or if that is too difficult, just skim the titles of chapters, it becomes apparent that Scripture, rather than presenting a comprehensive picture of the life and works of Christ, is primarily aimed at painting a particular picture of the person of Christ. Namely His mission.
The gospel of Mark is pertinent in this regard. The entire book is basically a sketch of key events that correspond to the ministry of Christ. With events of His ‘life’ ordered sequentially from oldest to the latest. But with little information on anything besides that which relates to Christ as a teacher, healer, and later Savior, the latter finally realized through the Passion.
Another feature found in all gospels, one that reinforces this mission-centric outlook in its presentation, is the apparent insularity with which Jesus engages the world around Him. Jesus throughout the gospels is hardly ever shown to be affected by the people and events around Him. In the sense that he is hardly ever presented in situations where he is just behaving like an average human being, or a man specifically.
Christ no matter how difficult things get is always in control. With the light exception of Him losing His cool at the temple, He is always shown to stand apart from the conflicts that He is faced with. This is understandable given that He is God, but this makes it all the more difficult to follow Him. Since His example is unrelatable at a human level. Whilst much has been made of the humanity of Christ, in a doctrinal sense, one that coexists with the divine. In the Bible what is presented of Christ’s humanity, and more problematically his masculinity is a woefully inadequate one.
This is most evident when Christ the preacher mode becomes active. Which is almost always the case. And most noticeable whenever Christ encounters human immorality; where He is able to fully detach Himself from the events at hand, and provide His spiritual insight and blessing. Examples such as the Samaritan woman at the well, or prior to the parable of ‘the rich fool’, where a man calls on Jesus to help receive his rightful share. In each of these instances, Christ acts like someone who is able to stand above and beyond the reality at hand and engaged it as someone who is immune to the pressing effects of the scenarios he is faced with.
For example, in the presence of the promiscuous Samaritan woman, who Jesus approaches, He does not face any human-level (male) inclinations that would go through a man’s mind when He engages a young woman sitting alone. In the other example, a man pleading to have his rightful share of the inheritance, despite being a legitimate economic request, is one that Christ swiftly dismisses on the grounds that it is not in His line of business. Whereas someone with a spirit of justice, at least one that is operative in a more Earthly sense would have felt some degree of indignation.
Now it is not my intention to pass judgment on the Son of God. However, the problem remains that Christ as a person, particularly as a man, is just far too detached from the real world, and the human condition to be able to first feel, relate, then understand, and then be able to deal with these realities in a ‘humanly meaningful’ way. One that we men can emulate.
Jesus the Son of God is just that: a divine being living among us, but devoid of the wants, desires, urges inclinations, and aspirations that characterize the human condition. In other words, there is very little about the ‘True Man’ part of Christ for us to work with, who is also ‘True God’. Again, this is a function of Scripture. As noted in Problem 01: the Bible, for whatever reason, does not provide much information on the humanity of Christ. One that could be viewed from a developmental, relational, and one could say humanistic perspective.
Such as the relationship Jesus may have had with women. Did he like them? Did he pursue them? Did he get turned on by them?
The same concerns apply in the context of money. Jesus, for all we know never had a job. Never owned property. Never made investments. Or in His words, never worried about (or planned for) tomorrow. A man who lived with His parents till He was thirty, didn’t fight in any wars, never had a family of His own, and possibly never had a girlfriend (Or an erection). And this is all somehow good? And this is the person we are supposed to idealize and follow!?
To say nothing of his attitude towards realities such as power and honor. Immensely complex matters that carry deep metaphysical implications. Whilst it is tempting to dismiss or to assume away the significance of these things (Which is what people do). These realities connect with some of the most pressing choices that affect the human, particularly the male psyche. Since Christ is a man, the question must be asked: What kind of man was He… Like really?
(03) What the Bible says about Christ is reflective of the World around Him Rather than of Him as a Person
On this point, I must again mention my debt to Bultmann. Whilst I am not certain in which particular book or collection of his writings this point features; it is to the German theologian that I attribute this point.
Here I will not delve into the complex historical criticism of Christ advanced by Bultmann, and instead, I will borrow some of the more accessible points he has made that relate to our understanding of Christ. Those which have become evident in the course of Bultmann’s demythologizing enterprise of the Christian faith.
Alright. A key problem with Scripture is that it is a product of the world from which it came. The Bible is a collection of writings that had been compiled over a thousand years. A book that involved many authors, with a multiplicity of perspectives: with writing styles, character, and content which were determined by the times in which it was set in. In this regard, Christianity, which is the kind of Christianity one finds in Scripture, particularly the New Testament is essentially a product of first-century Judaism. Which in turn was influenced by its time its history.
A religion evolving from a time where it was the belief system of a kingdom at the height of its power during the reigns of King David and Solomon, to its institutional decline under later monarchs, characterized by the steady weakening of the nation-state, culminating with the breakup and eventual destruction of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel and Judah respectively. And by Jesus’ time, Judaism had developed (or devolved) into the religion of an ethnic minority, living in occupied land, dominated by a hostile, culturally Hellenistic empire: Rome.
Given that the Bible (i.e. New Testament) doesn’t tell us much about Jesus, and of the things that it does mention, almost entirely relate to His mission: Him being the Savior and Redeemer of humanity. The ‘teaching mission’ that Christ carries out is dominated by His teachings on morality: On how to lead a good life here, in order to be rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven hereafter. In addition to the requisite belief in the Sonship of Christ as God.
The problem with Christ’s teachings on the importance of detachment from the material world, the elevation of the nobility of poverty, meekness, purity, and peacefulness; which he emphasizes throughout his ministry; for which He is today valorized and respected; were in fact reflections of the world from which he came from. Christ the preacher in His many famous messages was essentially echoing the mindset and character of the world from which He was from. The world was characterized by a certain (slavish) spirit. Christ in His ministry was giving voice to the powerless subjects who occupied the lands oppressed by a greater alien civilization. Whose way of life was characterized by values and norms that were the antithesis of its subjects.
The Problem with the Sermon on the Mount
This is not meant to be a deep, critical dive into the great teaching of Christ advanced at the start of His ministry (because that would take a whole book at least) but to point out some issues that underpin what Christ is saying in relation to Him as a person and the world from which He came. And how this understanding would inform our interpretation of it, in relation to the problem of ‘following Jesus’.
If one wishes to get a glimpse into the worldview and personality of Christ, His great Sermon on the Mount would be the primary example. For it is here that Christ outlines the spiritual framework of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Sermon on the Mount is considered a glimpse into the new moral order that Christ proclaimed, of which He would be the head when it finally arrives at the end of days or comes into being through time.
The various ‘blessings’ that Christ mentions, correspond to certain spiritual or psychological states (being humble, being meek, being poor, being peaceful, being pure, etc.); All of this whilst sounding good and hopeful, is not very clear in terms of their timing and context, as to when and how exactly they would take effect.
The first issue is the apparent hope that underlies the sermon. Whilst the idea of the poor, the meek, the humble, and the pure being blessed sounds good on paper, it seems to, in a certain way uplift the importance or sacredness of these negative states: That to be poor, to be meek, to be humble, to be pure, or to be in mourning as somehow being a good thing.
Notable here is the subject of poverty: Does Christ mean to say that being poor is a blessed state or does He mean that those who are poor, now stand to be blessed in the future? This is a point of some confusion for there are competing interpretations of this passage, notably on what is actually meant by the word ‘poor’. Some, depending on the kind of Bible version in question, tend to view the idea of poverty in a spiritual (i.e. non-materialistic sense). To be poor means to be spiritually empty: that is not having God’s presence in one’s life. Others on the other hand, and unsurprisingly the predictably masochistic Catholic variety, affirm the former: that poverty in a material, and by extension in a physical sense, is a good or blessed state.
Whatever interpretation one may choose to adopt, the problem lies with the apparent elevation of these states as good or blessed. Or as social and psychological states, if one is subjected to or willingly adopts; and doing so will somehow bring forth future blessings.
In this case, problems now emerge in relation to that of incentive: If poverty will produce blessings in the future, should that be taken as an incentive to become poor? Or if one is already poor or in material need, should that state of material deficiency be purposefully prolonged? And is doing so spiritually justified?
The most problematic interpretation is one where a person believes that Christ confers positive value on what are essentially undesirable states, so it is (morally) right to persist in them. Poverty and prosecution aside, even the idea of a peacemaker-which might seem good at first-is likely to have been an unappealing one in the warlike times they were stated. Particularly for a populace dominated by an alien culture, the idea of pacifism is likely to have been perceived as cowardly and defeatist. But one that would have appealed to the war-weary, the prosecuted, and the powerless who were happy to carry on with their ordinary lives, without any great ambition.
The apparent incentive that is attached to these negative states, notably with the implication that poverty, etc. will bring forth blessings in the future, implies then it is probably good and right to be poor. Or worse, to even pursue the reality of poverty as an ideal. Or in turn to make the idea of pursuing wealth and luxury unappealing to the average man. Yes and I do mean men.
Poverty, peacemaking, humility, mercy, and purity whilst these may sound good, are not the elements that characterize an active, adventurous, and ultimately meaningful life of a man. The life of a hot-blooded male is a combination of chaos and order, passion and discipline; work, and play; the good and the bad. A state of mind, that is captured by the words of John the Savage in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: “But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin”.
The notable exception to this is those involved in religious life. With Holy orders, notably in the Catholic world are characterized by the values of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Thus an argument can be made that to follow Christ faithfully would logically entail entering religious life. To live by the rules and strictures of religious orders, those which idealize a very literal, a very reductive understanding of Christ’s teachings and critically of Him as a person. All of this is based on a very narrow presentation of Christ’s life, and a selection of His teachings that is found in Scripture.
The problem with Sermon on the Mount, despite its significance to the ministry of Christ, is that rather than being a moral framework outlining a new mode of living; it is in fact a reflection of the reality and mindset of the people of the time. The Sermon on the Mount, and by extension much of the moral teachings of Christ found in the gospels were products of the slavish culture from which it came. The culture in which Christ as a person was born and raised in.
Opposition to the (Humanistic) Pagan World
Note that the ministry of Christ began in the first century AD, in Roman-occupied Judea (or Palestine). The Roman occupation which was brutal at best was preceded by the conquest and occupation of Judea by the Latins, or the lands that which the people of Israel (and later Judah) called their home. One that was established on a long history of defeat and occupation, and the kind of (slavish) culture that it gave rise to, greatly affected the kind of message the Messiah, who is technically Jewish, would come to advance.
Going back further to the conquest and overlordship by the Greek successor kingdoms to Alexander Great’s empire of the regions of Judea and beyond. The era of diadochi, where the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, and Antigonid powers, which had defeated subjugated, and really had made mincemeat out of the peoples of this region. This meant that by the time the Romans took over, Judea, or the land of the Israelites or Jews came to be populated by a defeated, demoralized, economically bankrupt, geographically cut-down populace.
Whilst the religious heritage of ancient Israel, notably the Levitic religious traditions held strong, the culture at large in Roman-occupied Judea reflected a sense of powerlessness in the face of the pagan juggernaut. Judea, despite its proud religious and ethnic heritage, that was doing its best to stay independent of Roman power, and the Hellenistic culture it embraced; its people, with the exception of subgroups like the Sadducees who had embraced Greek culture, were essentially beggars and slaves, who were ruled by puppet kings, devoid political autonomy, social status, and economic well being.
In the Sermon on the Mount, when Christ proclaimed the supposedly radical message on morality and holiness, the people who were around to listen to him, to whom Christ was clearly proclaiming His message, were products of this culture: A culture that had been defeated and subjugated for centuries. A people minus the glory and prosperity that characterized the glory days of King David and Solomon. Needless to say, there weren’t any Roman Legates and Centurions listening to the message of Christ on forgiveness and humility.
Think about it, to whom does the message on the supposed goodness of poverty, the value of peace, and the importance of forgiveness appeal to? The answer is to the people who are poor, the people who don’t have the will and power to fight; the kind of people who have no choice but to forgive.
The Sermon on the Mount and its moral teachings were reflective of the mass psychology of a defeated culture from which it (i.e. the person who founded it) came. A culture that was poor, weak, hopeless, and powerless in an Earthly and existential sense. As for the moral purity part, the adage that money, power, and pleasure go together is important in this regard.
For without these, the slavish populace of Judea had no other Earthly option other than to pursue the idea of purity, poverty, and chastity. Those that were prescribed by their ethnic religion. For a populace that was devoid of wealth (e.g. Taxes to Caesar) such worldly things were far-fetched. Since Christianity grew out of this socio-spiritual Matrix, it came to adopt these very traits.
Christ, in much of His teachings (at least the documented ones) was basically giving voice to the pathetic material plight of those who listened to Him. Trying to give it some spiritual (other-worldly) justification. This is not to say that the people had no fighting spirit and Earthly ambition in them (e.g. The Jewish–Roman wars fought between 66 – 135 AD).
Nonetheless, the problem that Christ as a person is a product of a conquered nation; a state that had been subjugated in the external sphere (i.e. its political character), and in the mental (spiritual) sphere is worth considering when it comes to the teachings He advanced. The life of Christ, based on what little of it that is made known to us, reflects this powerless, hopeless and joyless state of mind: A mindset of a people who lived without Earthly ambition, expectation, and aspirations. Because they couldn’t. For the world they inhabited did not permit it, and their religious system that promised messianic deliverance did not encourage it.
With only the hope coming in the form of a savior (a political one) to liberate them (in the future), the people of that time and place just sat around waiting for good things to happen, until their kingly deliverer came. However, when Messiah did come, it became apparent that he was never meant to be a political and by extension economic and cultural liberator of the Jews. His mission was never about ‘the things of this world: Money, power, pleasure, and honor.
The awesome foursome, as I would like to call them, that is routinely demonized by Christian leaders, was never going about part of his liberating message or ministry. But rather it would be to their negation. It is in opposition to these that Christ would form His ministry. In that sense, when viewed from a worldly perspective, Christ had chosen to take the path of the defeated. For the attainment and acquisition of these, particularly in that time in history would have required a lot of work, ingenuity, creativity, and determination in an Earthly sense. Qualities that the-ultimately crucified Christ, and eventually executed followers did not manifest.
Takeaway: Be a Christian without Following Christ?
So where does this leave us? My takeaway is this: One must be able to draw the distinction between the teachings of Christ, and of Christ as a person. Meaning there is a difference between following what Christ preached vs following Christ as a person. That is some kind of role model we are supposed to look up to and seek to emulate.
Whilst I am well aware of the concluding story to the Sermon on the Mount: the man who built his house on sand, vs the man who built his house on a rock. But that is where the dilemma arises. What does it actually mean to follow the teachings of Christ, and importantly to what extent? And what would it entail in terms of reward and punishment in the here and now? To understand this better, let’s look at, what I consider to be one of the most controversial readings in Scripture. The story of the rich young man (or ruler). Where Christ famously (or infamously) says:
“Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God”.
“Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life”.
I will leave aside the theological exegesis here, but the takeaway for the reader ought to be this: To follow Christ as it is traditionally understood, would entail the negation of all your Earthly goals and aspirations. If you want to follow Jesus Christ (i.e. to live fully by His commandments and teachings) it would necessarily entail the weakening or undermining of your zeal for life. Life on this beautiful blue planet. For life here on Earth, according to tenants of this message is at best insignificant or worse a doorway to Sin.
So the desire to lead a fulfilling life characterized by the abundance of money, pleasure, power, and honor, which, as any business school (notably business psychology) student would tell you are the key determinants of human motivation and underlying it, behavior, are to be rejected in the favor of reward in the hereafter. And ‘the hereafter’, in case anyone misses the obvious, presupposes death. Which involves sickness, old age, and suffering.
In other words to follow Christ: meaning His teachings and critically His example in this world, is to lead a life devoid of material, sensual and existential joy, and meaning. In other words, to follow Christ fully is to be or become a mediocrity.
In Conclusion
This essay was never meant to have a satisfying conclusion. Whilst I hope I have provoked your mind to ponder these questions that revolve around Christian followership, it is not my aim to advance a purposefully anti-Christian or atheistic critic of Christ or his teachings.
Rather it is my aim to lay the groundwork for a more expansive discussion on the idea of what it means to be a Christian in the modern world. And this is sort of the teaser point of this essay: That there is a difference it seems to me, between being a ‘follower’ of Christ Vs being a ‘believer’. Not all that Christ said is good. Not all that Christ did or failed to do was noble.
What is important is Him. Him. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of Humanity, and His saving Grace. His Mission to Save humanity from the Power of Sin (and death). One that is not fully understood. It won’t be, possibly until the end of time.
So paradoxically, to follow His teachings, the teachings of Christ do not necessarily equal practical faithfulness to ‘the (selective) teachings’ of the Redeemer. To do so may even mean going against the will of God. Who is Jesus Christ really? After all, He is not simply Jesus the Son of God. For God understood correctly, is the doctrine of God as Father, God as the Son, and God as the Spirit.