Jesus’ identity as the Son of
God is salient in the four canonical gospels, as well as in Paul’s letters. Hence,
christology has been an important field of theology. While the benefits to the
Christian have been touted so much in historical and contemporary theological
writings, the costs and vulnerabilities of the nearly monopolistic focus have
largely gone unnoticed. The realization of them would allow Christians (including
extant theologians) to gain a fuller (i.e., holistic) perception and
understanding of the religion, and even a better practice thereof. I will begin with the theology then provide a
practical example of the problems involved in having a willowed-down focus at
the expense of the drawbacks.
In approximately 170 CE, Irenaeus,
a bishop in Lyon in the Roman Empire’s province of Gual (in modern-day France),
selected Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John as the four canonical gospels. He wrote,
“The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But
really they don’t have any gospels that aren’t full of blasphemy. There
actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because
there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and
therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic.”[1]
To the extent that such a rationale held any sway in his day and beyond, we can
surmise just how flimsy what we literally take as gospel can be. Irenaeus
assumed that the four gospels were authentically written by the four disciples,
but slapping a prominent name on a piece of religious writing was commonly done
in ancient times. The Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Peter could also have
been said to be written by two disciples.
Irenaeus viewed the negative
stance on the material realm in the Gnostic texts as heretical (even though
Augustine would write in his later texts very negatively of the earthly realm—seven
the physicality of sex is not to be enjoyed even when done to reproduce). I contend
that Irenaeus was even in this respect motivated especially to highlight the
divinity of Christ.
Irenaeus didn’t like there
being “many gospels circulating with different accounts about Jesus, particularly
a number of these accounts [that] rather down-play the materiality and
physicality of Jesus’ body.”[2]
Ironically, dismissing the physicality of Jesus’ body goes against the christological
doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God because
as such, God is made flesh (i.e.,
corporeal). Hence the resurrected Jesus not only walks through a door of the
Upper Room, but also asks his disciples for fish, as he is hungry. By implication,
that the god-man is fully human and fully divine, which the Council of Nicaea would
make official dogma in 325 CE, must have been important to Irenaeus when he was
selecting gospels to include in the canon. That is, the identity of Jesus
Christ as a god-man must have played an important role in Irenaeus’ selection
of the four canonical gospels, within which Jesus’ christological identity is
not only the central theme, but also the basis of the salvation of souls in
transformed, resurrected bodies, which is the ultimate goal in the faith
narratives. God sent his only son to reunite the human species from its sordid
earthly condition due to original sin. Jesus’ identity is absolutely crucial to
Christ being the second Adam, vicariously undoing Adam’s mistake in having
sought divine knowledge of good and evil. I submit that the prideful
presumption of seeking divinity is the original sin.
The problem is that
presumptuous pride can flourish even though a Christian’s religious focus is on
his or her belief that Jesus is divine and that accepting Christ as such means
that the he or she is saved and will thus be reunited with God; hence Luther’s
doctrine, solo fides, or only by
faith. I submit that good works are also necessary. By good works, I don’t mean
the liturgical Eucharistic process of sanctification, which is salient in
Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox doctrine. I don’t even mean good works
generally, such as volunteering at a charity. Rather, I mean the putting Jesus’
teachings of neighbor love into practice, and especially of not violating them.
Such teachings include turning the other cheek, and even going on to help
people who are, in modern parlance, being jerks or assholes. The application of
self-emptying love goes well beyond people who are persecuting.
On Easter one year, when I
lived in an apartment complex, a resident below one of the units just next to
mine played loud, high-bass music with his front door open for hours. Passing
by with my garbage at one point, I saw the man in his doorway and asked him to
turn his music down. He stared at me for a second, then turned his back. He did
not lower his music’s volume or even close his front door. I surmised that the
man’s attitude was the underlying problem. Indeed, he even went outside to
laugh about my request with another resident who had blasted racist lyrics
containing much profanity out in the courtyard (even though kids were in the
courtyard). That other resident, who just a week earlier had told police that playing
loud racist, swearing music was part of
his culture and thus to be respected, then went to another resident and pointed
to my apartment. I knew I was being targeted (with racial overtones), which is
at two degrees of separation from being considerate. A bit later, I called the
police, who asked the man to turn down his volume. I could hear the man
shouting at the police. This is really
bad, I thought in reference to the man’s attitude.
The irony is that the very
inconsiderate man was playing the loud music in anticipation of relatives coming
over for Easter! He was like the person who goes to hell thinking all the while
that he is going to heaven. Aggressively violating Jesus’ teachings on how to
enter the Kingdom of God while having an Easter party suggests the presence of
gaping cognitive dissidence. The same sort of cognitive dissidence applies when
a person celebrates Gandhi’s birthday by being violent. The mind should be able
to be conscious of such contradictions, and yet this is not the case, at least
in the realm of religious ideas. It is precisely this disconnect that has
provoked so much of my analytical thinking on religion. Perhaps the human brain
contains a weakness or vulnerability in reasoning and being conscious of
discordances between religious ideas and practice. Even in terms of religious
ideas, such as inflame self-idolatry, the human mind may be handicapped
organically. Such a handicap could warp the use of logic. For instance, a
person might think, I’m going to annoy my
neighbors intentionally as I celebrate Easter. That such an approach not
only undoes any religious merit in celebrating Jesus’ resurrection, but also
adds sin is something obviously worth realizing, and yet it is not, and has
not, been acted on, let alone realized.
The narrow focus on Jesus’
religious identity and even his role in the history of salvation can mean that
his instructions for how to get into the Kingdom of God are eclipsed such that
they are violated even, it is presumed, in the service of Christ. Crusaders,
for example, killed their enemies in Jerusalem and Constantinople for Christ. It never dawned on the four
Medieval popes and their soldiers appropriated by Christian kings that killing
Muslims in Jerusalem and eastern Christians in Constantinople (present-day Istanbul)
violates Jesus’ important injunction against harming enemies (as they are to be
loved). In going on offence to take back one or the other city, the Crusaders
could not even resort to Christian just-war justifications. That the leaders of
the Christian Church in Western Europe were leading the charge demonstrates
just how great the cognitive dissidence can be even in proclaimed vicars—earthly
representatives of Christ. To represent Jesus by killing enemies is such an
oxymoron that the human faculties of mind are themselves implicated as they
apply themselves to religion.
I recommend, therefore, that
Christians shift their focus from the christological and soteriological beliefs
to Jesus’ teachings on how to enter the Kingdom of God. That is, rather than
focusing on a belief about Jesus’ divine, salvific identity, focus on following
and not violating Jesus’ example and teachings in the gospels. Even in
self-questioning whether an attitude or conduct violates Jesus’ admonition to
turn the other cheek and even proactively care for neighbors even if they are a
pain in the ass or an outright enemy, a Christian can rest assured that beliefs
about Jesus’s identity and role in salvation will take care of themselves, like
lilies in the field. Perhaps the human mind is not good at holding very
abstract beliefs and very concrete conduct together such that they can be
compared and contrasted. Beliefs concerning conduct may be easier to hold, and
thus a stronger focus for the believing Christian.
[1]
Elaine Pagels, “The Emergence of the Canon,” in “Emergence of the Four Gospels,”
Frontline: From Jesus to Christ,
PBS.org , April, 1998 (accessed April 12, 2020).
[2] Elizabeth
Clark, “Irenaeus and the Heretics,” in “Emergence of the Four Gospels,” Frontline: From Jesus to Christ, PBS.org
, April, 1998 (accessed April 12, 2020).
