The name of Jesus (or Christ) is
common on Christian lips. “Jesus saves” is a typical expression, whereas expressions
highlighting the Father or the kingdom of God are much less frequent, and
explicit references to the Holy Spirit (or Ghost) are essentially missing. As
the three manifestations, or “persons,” of the Trinity are consubstantial
(i.e., of the same substance), the hypertrophy (i.e., maximizing one part of a
system) is worthy of investigation. This is not to say that equal attention to
all three is optimal; Jesus himself says in the Gospels that he came to preach
the mysteries of his Father’s kingdom. This statement implies that followers of
Christ should focus most on the Father and his kingdom. That this is not the
case suggests that historical and contemporary Christianity has missed the
point. This should hardly be surprising, for throughout the Gospel of Mark,
strangers get Jesus’ point whereas the disciples tend to miss it.
This church has an explicit Christocentric focus. (Maliz Ong)
The default, or “party-line,” which
is hardly ever questioned within Christianity, goes something like this. “Concerning
Christ’s life the Creed speaks only about the mysteries of the Incarnation
(conception and birth) and Paschal mystery (passion, crucifixion, death,
burial, descent into hell, resurrection, and ascension). . . . ‘All that Jesus
did and taught, from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to
heaven,’ is to be seen in the light of the mysteries of Christmas and Easter.”[1]
Along this line, Jesus is focused on himself, which implies that he is not just
the intercessory means to the Father, but also the end-point. Unfortunately,
this assumption is one that Jesus himself does not hold in the Gospels.
Accordingly, the nearly monopolistic focus on Jesus Christ is problematic.
The Logos became man “in order to
do his Father’s will.”[2]
The incarnation is thus a means; the focus should rightly be on the Father’s
will. “Jesus came to Galilee, preaching
the gospel of the kingdom of God.”[3]
In Luke, Jesus says, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities
also, because for this purpose I have been sent.”[4]
He views himself and his life as a means to something else—I dare say,
something that he views as more important than himself. Were the kingdom of God
synonymous with Jesus, he would say he must preach about himself. I came to preach the mysteries pertaining to
myself. In saying he came to preach the kingdom of God, Jesus distinguishes
himself from his Father’s kingdom.
Lest it be construed that Jesus
is the king of the kingdom, as per the “Christ the King” feast day at the end
of the liturgical calendar, Jesus refers to the kingdom as his Father’s rather
than his own.[5] We
know from the ancient Greeks that deities cannot die; this is the main way in
which the Greek gods and goddesses differ from humans. Presumably immortality
holds in the case of Jesus’ Father (as well as Jesus Christ). So the king of
the kingdom cannot be the Son because the Father always exists. That Christians regard Jesus as a king (the
Romans do so to taunt the Jewish leaders) suggests that the focus on Jesus is
exaggerated. Reason itself should not be so offended, as if the mind goes on
holiday when it comes to religion.
A more troubling problem pertains
to the Christ-centric historical approach ensconced in the typical Christian
mindset. Both the kingdom of God and its king, Jesus’ Father, are marginalized.
That is to say, scant attention is devoted to them—the obsession on Jesus
Christ crowding them out as the go-between is treated as an end in itself. To
treat a means as an end is deeply problematic in itself, especially if the
means views itself as a means. In coming to preach on the mysteries of his
Father’s kingdom, wherein his Father’s will is done, Jesus is not focused on
himself. Ignoring this point, however, his followers have focused on him, and
thus ironically deviate from following his lead. It is reasonable, I submit, to
posit that a follower should be focused on what the leader says is his focus.
If this focus is not on the leader himself, then a follower goes against the
leader in focusing on the latter.
Lest it be argued that the
invisible kingdom and its king are too far removed from human perception and
cognition to be grasped—hence the mediator is necessary—the presumed knowledge of divine revelation
undermines the claim. In other words, that the religious, theologians, and
laity tend to assume that they cannot be wrong about revelation being
revelation (and even on how it must be interpreted!) undermines the claim that
the Father and his kingdom are too distant theologically to be petitioned and
entered, respectively, directly. Put another way, the sheer declarativeness in typical statements
pertaining to revelation belie the claim that a Christian’s focus cannot be on
the Father or his kingdom.
To be consistent with Jesus’ own
approach, a Christian is therefore rightly focused on the Father’s will and his
kingdom more than on Jesus Christ. I am assuming here that the end being served
by a means is more important that the means itself; hence the use of served by. In terms of religious
objects, the Christian imitating Jesus is most focused on the Father and his
kingdom. The latter two would be central to the Christian’s mindset and Christian
liturgy. That is to say, worship of the Father primarily, in line with, “Our
Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” In spite of this prayer taught
by Jesus, “In the name of Jesus” is much more likely to be in a petition,
prayer, and sermon or homily. In fact, the all-consuming gravity of this
obsession has left little if any space for references to the Holy Spirit.
Christians on the street are more likely to
ask, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ?” that preach on the mysteries of the
kingdom of heaven. The hackneyed question may legitimately be answered by
another, “Have you?” The declarative
certainty of the likely response undercuts the Christian’s premise that 1) humans
are not infallible, 2) belief does not constitute knowledge, and 3) the Father
(and his kingdom) are too distant theologically, or “wholly other,” for human
beings to relate to, or focus on, directly rather than through an intercessor
or mediator. This is not to say that following Jesus’ example and teachings is
not important; rather, it is to make this point.
[2] Ibid,
line 512.
[3]
Mark 1:14-15.
[4]
Luke 4:43.
[5]
Matthew 26:29.
