THE PROBLEM WITH THE BIBLICAL JESUS
If you are here for the first time, I would advise you to read the essay The Problem with Following Jesus Christ first. As this work follows as its Part II. But if you are here for the first time and can’t be bothered to do so, then read on anyway, for I hope to make your time worthwhile.
The problem with the Biblical Jesus is what it means: there is something fundamentally wrong with the person of Christ, as he is presented in Scripture.
The focus here is solely on the Jesus of the New Testament. For the son of Man as the central figure of the Christian faith is present throughout Scripture. However, given the scope of this essay, it would impossible to unpack this (more wholesome) understanding of the Redeemer of man. And given the dominance of the, what could be understood as the New Testament centric understanding of the Messiah, one that proves to be problematic, especially in present times, this is part of the Jesus story that will tackled under the heading of ‘Scripture’.
Taking a step back, in case the reader is curious as to know what this means? Well Jesus Christ, in case the obvious is missed, is the Son of God. Or God if you like it. So there is no way to present a comprehensive, or anything verging on a comprehensive critic of ‘the author of life’.
So this critic of the founder of the Christianity, the central figure who gave rise to the faith that has shaped human history, giving rise to social movements, cultures and nation-states, and guided the destiny of billions to this day, and is believed to be God incarnate, is a measured one. I understand the limits of what can be achieved in an essay of a few thousand words when approaching a subject of this magnitude. The aim here is to hit on a number of key problems that underlie the person of Christ with respect to his Biblical presentation, and how these have come to shape our (mis) understanding of him.
Be warned this critic of Jesus Christ is not for everyone. As I will engage areas of his life that conventional critics of Christ generally don’t delve into. Theistic or atheistic. If it helps, yours truly has a Christian heritage, and views the faith, at least certain aspects of it positively. Interestingly (or perversely) it is the negative elements of Jesus life, that I will engage in the course of this essay, that for some reason get the most attention and admiration from his followers. Which annoys the hell out of me. Hence this work. Enjoy.
If you are here for the first time, I would advise you to read the essay The Problem with Following Jesus Christ first. As this work follows as Part II. If you are here for the first time and you can’t be bothered, then read on anyway, for I hope to make your time worthwhile. The problem with the Biblical Jesus is what it means: there is something fundamentally wrong when it comes to the person of Christ as he is presented in Scripture.
The focus here is solely on the Jesus of the New Testament. In case the reader is curious as to what that means? Well Jesus Christ, in case the obvious is missed, is the Son of God, or God if you like it. So there is no way to present a comprehensive or anything verging on a comprehensive critic of ‘the author of life’. This critic of the founder of the faith, the central figure who gave rise to the belief system that has shaped human history, given rise to nation-states, and guided the destiny of billions to this day, and is believed to be God incarnate is a measured one. I understand the limits of what can be achieved in an essay consisting of a few thousand words. The aim here is to hit on a number of key problems that underlie the person of Christ, and how these have come to shape our (mis) understanding of him.
Be warned this criticism of Jesus Christ is not for everyone. As I will engage areas of his life (some of them already engaged in Part I) that conventional critics of Christ generally don’t delve into. If it helps, yours truly has a Christian heritage, and views the faith, at least certain aspects of it positively. But it is these negative elements that pertain to the person of Christ, that I will engage, for some reason get the most attention and admiration from his followers. Which has annoyed the hell out of me. Hence this essay.
JESUS THE CELIBATE
Jesus is referred to as the ‘Son of God’. A title I have no problem with. The metaphysical dimension involving the third member of the Trinity is a fecund world that opens the door to rich theological explorations and philosophical insight. The problem here revolves around the masculine character of the term ‘son’, and what it implies with respect to the sexuality of the Redeemer of humanity.
In the gender-confused times that we’re in such language might be too much for some, but certainly not for the faithful. In Christianity, Jesus Christ is ‘True God and True Man’, and there is absolutely no ambiguity about Jesus’s sex and gender (i.e. his physiological character and social orientation). What this means in practice, or rather what it ought to mean, is that Jesus should be like any other regular, healthy guy.
Which is to say that Jesus, provided he was not, well you know, ought to have a had thing for the ladies. Jesus, if he was a healthy boy who grew up to be an adolescent and later a young adult, then as a mature man, he should have been a person who was driven by the urges to go out, learn, play, socialize and become and live as a fully rounded human being; then the question of his attitude towards the opposite sex ought to have been a part of that equation. But if the Bible (i.e. the four gospels) are anything to go by, that is clearly not the case.
JESUS NEVER GOT TURNED ON
What a shame. One of the things that ought to stand out from the gospels with respect to the life of Christ is the absence of any emotional or psychological conflicts in the mind of the Savior as it pertains to his physiology.
The forty days and nights spent in the desert were a test of his will in relation to hunger. But what about sex? Why wasn’t the temptation of Christ by Satan come to involve the venereal? I guess one could say that in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness when the Devil took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him “all the kingdoms of the world, and their splendor” promising that these would be his if he worshipped him. The implication of this offer is that in the wealth and power contained within these kingdoms is the promise of limitless access to the sources of pleasure.
Whilst, as Scripture says he refused and rebuked the tempter, this negation is done at an impersonal level. Christ. Throughout the gospels, Jesus is never presented in a way where he appears to be faced with the actual temptation of the flesh. Christ standing atop a mountain looking down or over and rejecting the pleasures of this world, as opposed to being faced with the heart of the matter face to face (i.e. flesh, blood, and b**bs).
Which raises questions about the psychology of Jesus. How did Jesus deal with urges that surround the need for intimacy and companionship? The want to desire and to be desired? Did Jesus, if he was a man as people say he is, actually feel anything?
Getting sexually aroused is one of the liveliest aspects of being a man, and by extension being human. The desire for sex: the pursuit and the sense of fulfillment felt upon its attainment are the things that make life worth living. A drive that operates on many levels: the want for intimacy, the urge for pleasure, and the need for security in a relationship. Which even works into higher (or lesser) wants like the yearning for control and the thirst for power. All of these ‘feelings’ that work into the broader sex equation correspond to other areas of life: career, wealth, social status, etc. Since our dear Lord was apparently devoid of, or as it is generally understood (given the overt anti-sexual character of the faith) immune to these; he not only had nothing to do with sex, he also-quite logically-had nothing to do with these other such trivial things that connect to the reality of sex.
At the physiological level, based on what Scripture has to say about the Messiah, Jesus not only never got laid, but he also, apparently never got aroused. Since erections are a product of sexual arousal-which takes place at the mental level-and arousal is invariably sparked by sexual desire; generated by various internal and/or external stimuli. Jesus as the Good Shepherd was apparently devoid of all of these as well.
For these are ‘things’ that within the puritanical worldview that underpins Christian life are the result of or byproducts of ‘temptation’, that tempts from a Fallen soul. And to act upon them is a doorway to Sin. And since Jesus Christ is ‘without Sin’ there is absolutely no room for such immoralities (or realities). So if Jesus never had sex, it means he never had a girlfriend, for he, at least based on Scriptural accounts, never got married. This means Jesus Christ was never able to relate to a woman in a meaningful way like other (actual) men do. And the absence of this vital connection with the opposite sex would have no doubt shaped his worldview, teachings, and mission for this world. The absence of a meaningful relationship with an actual woman would have invariably warped his ability to relate to humanity and its worldly or physical aspirations.
Further, since Jesus is without Sin, he was far and above the petty temptations that bedevil the creatures of this world. The sight of a woman’s cleavage, her shapely thighs, her slim legs, her lips, and for some, her ankles; all of these would not have produced the kind of reactions they would otherwise would in a, you know, perfectly normal, healthy men.
Oh but wait. That is because all of us men have been tainted by the power of Sin. Original Sin that is. One that goes all the way back to Adam, and is transmitted via intercourse, so that none can escape its enthralling effects. How curious!? So Jesus Christ, presumably owing to his Virgin birth is devoid of the effects of Sin, and temptation. This apparently makes him a non-entity in the sexual realm, which in turn puts him above and beyond the petty physiological, sensual, and if things get that far, emotional urges that bedevil the masculine soul.
So does this means that Jesus Christ is better than the rest of us? All on the virtue of not wanting to have sex, desiring intimacy, seeking passion, or the comfort of a physically satisfying relationship? And all of this is simply because Jesus had the luxury of coming into this world without intercourse. Now that sure is a person I can relate to!
Alright. I guess I am being a bit irreverent, but the point remains. The Biblical Jesus is not a real person in the sense that he is someone who can be viewed as comparable to the psychophysiology of an actual man. The person of Christ, as he is presented in Scripture (gospels alone) seems more like an idealized ascetic, whose worldview was one that was totally untethered from the Earthly realm. One that was (partly) a function of his disconnect from the sexual. One that is, in turn, a function of his unique ontology (Him being divine). One that none of us can attain, at least in this lifetime, or successfully emulate. Or, as I have come to learn, given what is at stake, nor should we.
Whilst it is easy to think of Jesus as a great person simply because of his lifelong celibacy, moral purity, lack of material wealth, and holiness of his character. But paradoxically those are the very things that work against him. Jesus was not like any man. Heck, he was not like any God. Christ as God and Man present something novel. Something radical. Something which (in his defense) we don’t yet fully understand. (But should strive to). The point remains that his manhood (i.e. being a man in a sexually wholesome way) is fundamentally flawed, or better absent. The non-existence of the sexual dimension, and the logical connection it has with the detachment from the material world. (Any surprise why Catholic priests, who are celibate, are also required to eschew the many comforts that characterize material well-being)
If Christ is asexual, as he is presented in Scripture then he is not a man in a conventional sense. If he is not a man in a conventional sense: that is someone who is driven by urges that make us want, seek after and pursue the things that make us human, then it follows logically that Christ is not man. At least not a complete one. He is not a man in the sense that, someone who for many men in the world, is worth emulating or even following.
The desire for sex is a key variable in the human psyche that transcends the mere physicality of the act. The urge and later the experience of physical intimacy with a woman affects the persona of the person, contributing to his personal and social character. This takes us to the next problem point.
JESUS THE COMMONER
One of the things that makes Jesus’s story so identifiable to many people is his humble origins. From the story of Christ’s birth (a child born in a lowly manger or cave) to being the adopted son of a carpenter to being raised in an unremarkable Jewish family in Roman-occupied Judea to his ministry which placed great emphasis on humility and service: where the idea of helping the poor and caring for the needy (rather than aspiring for great things) are factors that no doubt helped countless souls over the ages connect with this person and his message.
If one thinks of Christ as a human being: his humble beginnings and life of service make up the dominant mental image the global followership has of him. A particular perception of the Messiah, that the masses have found captivating with good reason. One of the reasons why Christianity was so appealing to many following its inception, during the harsh days of the Roman Empire was its founder’s lowly character and message.
This is a subject that will be explored in detail another time, but for now, the fact that Christ was not a hero, warrior, champion, merchant, ruler, or king (even though he was the latter, in a spiritual sense) in a conventional sense, along with the importance that is attached to his message on charity, mercy, humility, forgiveness, and surrender made him and his worldview, in a paradoxical sense more appealing to the masses. This point was explored by Friedrich Nietzsche, who observed that the ‘The Christian faith from the beginning, is sacrifice the sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit, it is at the same time subjection, self-derision, and self-mutilation.
Crude but powerful, the German philosopher’s words are for the most part true. As many people living in the empire at the time, outside the proud Roman citizenry, and the Greek cultural elite, were for the most part beggars and slaves. Whose lives, and underlying it, the will to live, and to live fully had been severely curtailed. Whose lives had been trodden under the heel of Roman power, the entry of Christ’s message of love and humility, with the hope of deliverance from the ‘slavery of sin’ captured the imagination of many. The reality of slavery was closely connected to the Roman occupation of Judea, with the power of pagan civilization that underpinned it, was naturally abhorred. So the path of liberation that Christ pronounced, one that critiqued and belittled the worldly powers of the time, and elevated that of charity, service, and communal life was embraced by the powerless, wealthless, the loveless. Going back to Nietzsche, this was one of the key reasons for the early rise of Christianity, as the religion of materially disempowered masses.
But fast forward to the modern-day, and Christ’s position as a leader, cultural symbol, role model, and heck even as a ‘teacher’ in relation to the things he was renowned for much of Christianity’s history is less appealing to people (especially for in the developed West). As these are values or better ‘rules for life’ that people no longer hold as significant. And with good reason.
For example, the idea of helping the poor might give people some kind of satisfaction, but it does come close to fulfilling the more powerful urges for status and recognition that emanate from the human psyche. The fact that Jesus, until his death and Resurrection, led an unremarkable life, in a worldly sense-besides the recognition he gained as a teacher and miracle worker, which only appealed to the poor and lowly-is one that is neither inspiring nor, considered ‘virtuous’ in relation to the ideals that govern the aspirational character of men. Particularly the modern man.
AN EPITOME OF MEDIOCRITY
There is reason why Jesus chose to make his entry into Jerusalem on a lowly donkey, rather than riding heroically on a horse.
The problem with Jesus (i.e. his life) is that he did not achieve or attain anything of significance. If one cuts out Jesus’s death and Resurrection, and his short ministry of preaching and miracle-working, which is supposed to have taken place in the course of three years, Jesus was for the most part a virtual nobody. And apparently was quite content to be so.
The fact that words such as fighter, liberator, landowner, lord, viceroy, general, magnate, and statesman are not associated with the son of Mary and Joseph, implies that he did not ‘make it’ in life. Not in a conventional sense anyway. Outside of his rag-tag followership, which by Scriptural accounts consisted of the poor and lowly; Jesus until his death was a nobody, outside the work of his ministry. Jesus was not wealthy. Jesus was not powerful. Jesus was not desired (by women). Jesus was not respected (His followers abandoned him at the crucial moment). Jesus in sum was a failure.
But… one may argue that he did do great things: such as healing the sick, feeding the hungry, helping the needy, and rising from the dead, and thus via the Spirit establishing the Church that will last to this day. These are a typical set of arguments one is likely to hear advanced to strengthen the ‘character profile’ of the 1st century Messiah. A narrative that is usually advanced by apologists who try to build up the greatness and goodness of Christ: one that is supposed to make him an exemplar for the rest of us, especially men to follow.
But that is the point, these great things that Jesus did-and they are great-however their greatness (in terms of their impact and enduring significance) are a function of his divinity, and divinely ordained mission. They were not a function of his will, talent, skill, and industry. Minus out the divine elements and preordained events of his life, and Christ the man was just a nobody.
I’D RATHER BE A GREAT WARRIOR THAN A GOOD SHEPHERD
Look at it this way, as a young man growing up with adulthood on the horizon, who would you rather be? What would be your ideal role model or your career choice? A predictable set of answers are likely to include those with high status and/or high income. As these two invariably go together. For this, we have the musician, the actor, the sportsman, or in recent times the tech entrepreneur, etc. Going down a few levels with less fame, but with a lot of money would be the investment banker, IT entrepreneur. And for certain outliers, soldiers or politicians, that whilst coming with less pay (well for non-corrupt ones), come with the promise of glory and honor.
If one applies this thinking backward in time, to two thousand years in the past, the question of who would you rather be or become remains fundamentally the same in terms of criterion. It is about becoming great.
Realistically most young men today (or even then) would not desire the life of a shepherd, sower, carpenter, or fisherman as their ideal career choice. And with good reason. For besides the poor economic payoff, at the time in history these were the work of persons with low social standing and those of slaves. In the case of Judea, it pertained to the plight of people who have been enslaved by the might of Rome.
With key administrative positions held by their pagan overlords, the pathway towards becoming a fighter, a champion, a hero-the sort of the thing which the Hellenistic empire glorified as virtues-was reserved for those who were Roman, or for those who embraced the Hellenistic sprint (e.g. Sadducees). The idea of the Good shepherd who would lay down his life for his sheep might sound good on paper, but in reality, it was the pathway of the coward, the weakling, the fool, and the slave.
And if one proceeds to counter this point by citing the risks involved in being a shepherd: that of having to fight off wolves and the threat of thieves. Well, in that case, the argument is that this way of life is a masochistic one. The shepherd, unless you talking about a warrio like the young King David, is not the sort who involves combat training, and weapons use. Whatever ‘heroism’ the shepherd is expected to show in the face of such challenges is a suicidal one. Which by the way has Christological significance: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away”. Well, that sure is inspiring. I cannot wait to grow up and become the selfless shepherd who would lay down his life for everyone else and have nothing to gain in return.
To reiterate some of the points I made in Part I (essay): the fact Jesus, speaking of his human side, is not a normal human being: Not normal in an acceptable way, in that he did not lead a normal life: work, social status, family. But nor did he lead a remarkable life. Returning to the first point about the lack of a sexual component in the life of Jesus, which is generally viewed as some kind of virtue, but in practice, it works against him. Being closed off to one’s sexuality, or not having the capacity to manifest it in relationships points to deeper problems.
Even if that is not the case, what is one supposed to make of a man who does not relate to women? Who never had girlfriends? Who did not have a wife or more seriously, apparently did not have the capacity to do so? What’s so great about a man who lived in near-total obscurity till he began his ministry when he hit thirty, which become the defining and only feature of his life? And his ministry itself is a function of his divinity. Which counts for virtually nothing, since he never earned it. Virtually any person who was born into the position of the Son of God would have done what He did because He had to. This brings us to the next problem point.
JESUS THE MIRACLE WORKER
I have always found the miraculous aspect of Christ’s life interesting in an uncanny, but ultimately problematic way.
If so much has been made of Christ’s humility, the life of charity and service, culminating in his humiliating (and glorifying) death on the Cross, how does one square these with the fact that Jesus Christ wielded divine power? Meaning the Son of Man could virtually do anything. Besides his miracle-working in the healing of the sick, and feeding the hungry, which tends to get much of the attention; it is important to consider that Christ as God, had power over life and nature.
When one considers the notion of Jesus as the humble son of a carpenter, who was completely detached from the material and sensual considerations of the world: the teacher who spent his time talking about the evils of wealth and status, who shunned the powerful; who preached charity and service and even washed the feet of his disciples; the man who we are supposed to admire and follow. The problem is that this paragon of humility and brotherly virtue needs to be juxtaposed with the fact that he wielded unlimited power. Power over the very fabric of reality.
At the beginning of the Passion, when Christ is about to be arrested, Jesus tells one of his followers to stand down, as he states: ‘Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?’. How about that? Jesus the meek and mild (at least that is the impression that has been created of him) could call on heavenly powers to do his bidding if the need arises. With the kind of firepower that could have overthrown the power of Rome at that very moment. But he doesn’t of course because that would disrupt his Earthly mission, which has been divinely preordained. This is problematic for a variety of reasons.
First, how does one relate to a person like this? If we as his followers, and especially as men, who are supposed to listen to, believe, idolize, and ultimately worship this man as God, what are we supposed to make of his humanity? Considering that one of the central facets of Christianity is the apparent perfection of the Christ person. Who we are supposed to emulate in our day-to-day lives.
At this point it is worth recalling the adage ‘What would Jesus do?’. That in tough situations, we are supposed to follow the example of Christ. The problem with that view is that we men are not like Jesus. We are not God or the Sons of God (at least not at this moment in history). We don’t possess divine power or the wisdom of an omnipotent mind. We are mere mortals, governed by our restricted minds and curtailed physiology, who must operate within the limits of our human ontology and nature of reality. Not to mention the countless hurdles and imperfections that characterize the world we are made to live in. Not for Jesus though: Who as both God and man, could do anything. And guess what? He did.
To understand the problem with Jesus as an exemplar, take the example of the Wedding at Cana: where Jesus, is told to have performed his first miracle. The event where Christ, upon his mother’s request turns water into wine is significant for a number of reasons. Points that have been explored in depth in theological circles.
For the purposes of our debate there are a number of takeaways worth considering, in relation to the goodness or greatness of the Biblical Jesus and how it is problematic: First the ability of Christ to turn water into wine. This is supposed to indicate God’s power working through the Son, which calls for our veneration of him and to trust in his power: That in times of trial or uncertainty we must not rely on our own strength, knowledge, and resources, but rather come to rely on the saving power of the Lord (Boy haven’t we all heard that before).
The miracle of Christ provides insights into his divine character: the wonderful things he performed were supposed to be signs of his heavenly glory and the pertinence of his mission. Which is meant to draw us into a mindset of reverence and worship and by extension, to reinforce the Christian principle: the call to rely on God’s strength, power, and wisdom rather than our own. But this becomes problematic for the following reasons:
TRUST IN MIRACLES, RATHER THAN IN REASON, INGENUITY AND HARD WORK
The main problem with Jesus the miracle worker is that we men don’t have that kind of power to work with. This takes us to the related problem that miracles or the reliance on the fortuitous turn of events, to get through life is not a reliable strategy for success. The reliance on miracles and other inexplicable, but importantly unpredictable phenomena, as a way of engaging the trials of life, is not an effective way to live a good life. In fact, it is a very ineffective one.
Here I am reminded of a Christian youth group I used to be a part of in my late teens. On a particular occasion, some of its members were preparing to make a pilgrimage to a neighboring country. As it happened, one of the blokes did not have the means to do so. But, as I later learned, things eventually worked out for him, as one of the girls in the youth group, just before the party was about to set sail, in responding to my question of how the ‘plans’ for the journey were coming along, mentioned that there is ‘no planning’. Everything ‘just happens’ thanks to their ‘trust in the Lord’. A point which was reinforced by a passerby, who happened to overhear her last point.
Now as a person with a Christian heritage, who respects the faith of the faithful, and believes, to varying (and vacillating) extent, the power of prayer: that is the power of God to make things right and do good for those who seek him; I have serious doubts that this idea of relying on ‘God’s power’ and in the process to surrender the power of human initiative (and cognition) as the way to lead a meaningful way to life.
I mean, isn’t the whole idea of living well, involve the process of minimizing uncertainty by trying to learn about as many things, develop or acquire capabilities familiarize oneself with as many variables, in order to be ready to contend with as various contingencies that life throws at you? So in the process, one could lay plans and act on them to take on the journey of life, one day at a time. If this process of living in the here and now is ‘surrendered’ to God’s power, so that, I don’t know, he can work his magic, then what of the human mind, will resolve, and ambition?
This mode of thinking: which is to ‘rely’ on God to solve or overcome our problems, in time becomes some kind of formula or system to live by. Even though the people in question will from time to time, often rely on their own minds and wits. Albeit less effectively. Thus the question is this strategy for life, an effective one? You see praying to God is all good and fine, but prayer alone does not solve problems. If it does: That is in a meaningful, reliable, measurable, and predictable way then why shouldn’t prayer alone, and underlying it, the reliance on God’s power to do things, suffice? Why bother doing anything else?
If one follows this (spiritual) logic through to its end, it would lead us to question the very purpose of virtually all our major social institutions: private firms, non-profits, government, and even churches. For what underlies all of these is the power of the human mind and the capacity of will to give rise to them?
What I think is most insidious about the view of ‘relying on God’ to do things for us is that it facilitates or worse encourages certain kinds of evils: evils that are not as glamorous (such as lust, masturbation, fornication, adultery), and hence don’t attract the ire of religionists, but are equally if not more deleterious owing to their pervasive and generally overlooked state. Evils such as close-mindedness, ignorance, moral and intellectual entitlement, laziness, foolishness, parasitism, entitlement, and yes failure.
It goes without saying God does not exist to solve our problems. God, whilst all-powerful, His ability, willingness, and capacity to actively engage or intervene in the affairs of the world and in the lives of men is far from clear. The burning question of Evil in relation to God’s goodness and omnipotence is most notable in this regard.
Returning to the miracle-working Christ, the idea that we should somehow come to rely on Christ
or God’s ability to perform such miracles seems to imply that people, particularly men can afford to act lazily, incompetently, and ineffectually; and when things mess up, we can look up and ask our Maker to help us out. Whilst there is nothing wrong in praying to God in a tough situation (who hasn’t). But this mode of thinking, and way of life that it encourages: one that is characterized by the perpetual need to ‘rely on God’, logically implies not relying on one’s own gifts, powers, and abilities.
This is not a meaningful way to live your life. Especially for men. For it implies the surrender of initiative, will, and one’s vision for life into the hands of an unknown or unknowable entity, whose basic character of love, seems irreconcilable in the reality of a fallen world. To say nothing of its effect to disempower man’s will to learn, grow and nurture his talents and skills with aim of growing and becoming a fuller, or perfect version of himself.
The idea of praying to God (i.e. the reliance on his ability to perform miracles and/or to do the impossible or improbable on your behalf), at a deeper level, implies the unwillingness to change and underlying it the unwillingness to listen and ultimately the unwillingness to grow.
You see most problems in life for which God’s help is sought can be addressed via human means. Most. The problem is that people who seek God’s help for their troubles often don’t have the knowledge, the will, the resources, the networks, the relationships, or the power (which also involves knowledge) to address them. So rather than seeking that knowledge, followed by the wisdom that is its endpoint, in order to use it to acquire means or power to actualize one’s wants or to overcome whatever trials; ‘God’ or whatever that people think of as God becomes the alternate recourse. And God as we all know ‘works in mysterious ways’. Meaning ‘God’ is too unreliable and unpredictable as a problem-solving mechanism or system of operation. To believe in the power of miracles is not a formula for leading a normal life, and it is not a road map for a successful one that men seek.
To face life as a man one must be prepared. One must be knowledgeable. One must be willing to listen, grow and learn from one’s mistakes. And in the process proceed to develop capabilities, acquire resources and concentrate power in the right sources in order to face the many challenges that life throws at you. Going through life hoping for miracles whilst making stupid or ill-formed decisions, then expecting Jesus the miracle worker to swoop in and solve all of your problems is the not way to live a sensible life.
Whilst Jesus sure is powerful, as he (God). But in all fairness is woefully unreliable. This is not to say that people should stop trusting in God’s power and love. Rather it is to say that we need to be realistic about the nature of reality: God, man, and everything in between when it comes to building the life that we want. The example of Jesus present in Scripture just doesn’t cut it.
IN CONCLUSION: JESUS A HERO WITHOUT A HERO'S JOURNEY
The Star Wars franchise is among the most influential forces in popular culture. The universe that George Lucas created is admired, respected, and treasured by many for its rich stories, great world-building, and beloved characters and mythos that resonate with generations of fans across the world.
If you have been following developments in the Star Wars universe, one of the controversial elements has been the story and character decisions taken for the Sequel trilogy. The subject of Star Wars is something that I have engaged rather extensively elsewhere.
Here I will like to point out one particular point which relates to this essay. That of its main character: Rey. Much of the criticism that has been directed towards the sequel trilogy has centered on her being a ‘Mary Sue’: A character/story concept prevalent in modern movies that are invariably female, for whom good things just happen: Meaning the Mary Sue does not have to work hard, struggle, endure hardship, learn, earn, strive and aspire in the face of adversities until they reach their destination.
In addition to having it easy, the ‘Mary Sue’ is also blessed with miraculous powers and gifts that put her far and ahead of all others, including her enemies. To a point where the Mary Sue is able to move mountains (at least bits and pieces of it), and is even able to heal the wounded. A ‘Space Jesus’ as some have labeled it. This is lame. For such a character becomes utterly unrelatable. For life, in reality, or fantasy does not, or rather should not work that way.
The Biblical Jesus, despite all that is made of him, including the attempts to cast him as one of us, is an utterly alien character.
A man who does not want the things that we want, seek the things that we seek, have the sort of desires that fill our heart, or the aspirations that drive our minds. None. Think about it, what exactly do we as men stand to gain by being or becoming like Jesus? What!? A man who never owned property established a business, made wealth, banged women, built a public reputation, and become a man of prominence in the world. Frankly, the only thing going for Jesus was his ministry, which was a function of his, once again, divinity!
So this raises the question: ‘If I was in the same position as Christ, tasked to do these very things that he was sent to do, by being the beneficiary of divine power, born of my special status, would I do just the same? The answer quite logically is yes.
But if that is the case, then what exactly is so remarkable about him? Jesus in this context can be compared to a video game character from a well made, but linear RPG: Where the ‘created’ character, within the limits of the story, gameplay mechanics, and scope of the abilities that have been assigned in relation to the world he is made to operate in, simply plays out his designated role. The Jesus of the New Testament is a character in a story where he does what he is supposed to, and succeeds because he has to. And there is nothing remarkable, relatable, or special about that.