Six Thoughts About Jesus
Mar 30, 2011
Joe Carter
Over the years some have asked me why, as an evangelical writer, I so infrequently invoke the name of Jesus. My usual glib response is that I prefer not to name-drop just because I'm on a first-name basis with the Creator of the universe. But the truth is, I’ve never felt that being an evangelical required me to stuff my essays with scripture references or end my articles with an altar call. I hope that my work is, like Flannery O’Connor’s South, “Christ-haunted” and would consider my labor to be a failure if his influence cannot be detected in my writing. 
Nevertheless, there is a time to talk about Jesus more directly. Since I think about him constantly, I frequently have questions and concerns, and, on rarer occasions, reverie-inducing contemplation about my Redeemer. Admittedly, I rarely have fresh insights about Jesus (those are best left to theologians and heretics) but I had six thoughts that, however banal or obvious, might be worth sharing.
1. Christians believe, as the Nicene Creed states, that Jesus was both man and true God. We consider it axiomatic that Jesus is the only human who can claim to be the “true God.” But I think it can also be argued that Jesus is the only human who can claim to know what it is to be truly human.
It has been said that theology became anthropology when God became man. But I think we fail to appreciate what a significant insight into anthropology was given to us by the Incarnation. Not only did Jesus provide us an image of God, he provided us with an image of man before the Fall (and still more amazingly, did so in a post-Fall context). While it may be difficult to determine exactly which aspects are attributable to his humanity or to his divinity, he gives us a clear vision of what being a human should look like. He gives us a view of what was meant to be and what those who put their trust in him will become in the future.
2. “Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat,” said my friend John Mark Reynolds, “He’s probably a monarchist.” When I first heard that claim I thought it was clever; now I find it to be a profound insight. Jesus constantly talked about the Kingdom of Heaven. So why do so few Christians talk about it? One reason, I believe, is that we are now all republicans and democrats (small-R, small-D) and simply don’t understand what Jesus is talking about. We may use the term “Lord” and “King of Kings” but—unlike the vast majority of people throughout history—we do not comprehend what it means to live under the reign of a king. We need some remedial training on how to live as subjects in a kingdom. We may be justified in rejecting the divine right of kings to rule but we cannot justify rejecting the rule of our divine king.
3. Whenever I hear non-Christians say that they don’t like the “Old Testament God” but that they admire Jesus I always wonder, “Have they ever read the gospels?” Even if you set aside the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” trilemma you’re still left with the fact that Jesus considered everything he did to be consonant with his “Father”—the Old Testament God. His every action, as he claims, was done in submission to God’s will.
It is true that he healed people and hung out with sinners. But he also called them to repentance. As the old cliché goes, Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin. In fact, Jesus hates sin more than [Fill in the name of your favorite intolerant Fundamentalist preacher]. And you think Old Testament God was a bloodthirsty warmonger? Jesus goes even further by promising not only to pit nations but families against each other. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth,” says Jesus. “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” In other words, he ain’t no Jewish Ghandi. If you don’t like Yahweh, then you shouldn’t be too fond of Yeshua either.
4. In 1896 a Christian socialist named Charles Sheldon wrote a book called In His Steps which popularized the slogan “What Would Jesus Do” and inspired two of the most well-intentioned but misguided fads of the twentieth century: the Social Gospel movement and the marketing of WWJD paraphernalia. The problem with both is that they are based on WWJD and that is the wrong question.
The gospels provide us with a clear record of what Jesus did—healed the sick, preached, traveled, made disciples. While we may also be expected to do these types of things, they were essential to Christ’s earthly mission. If he were walking the streets of America he would likely still be doing the same thing. But is this what we should be doing? Not necessarily. We are not Jesus; we are his disciples. Our mission is not his mission but the mission he assigns us. The question we should keep constantly before us is “What Would Jesus Want Me To Do?” But then WWJWMTD isn’t as easy to embroider on a bracelet or fit on a bumper sticker.
5. Some people assume that Jesus was a carpenter while others (on better evidence I believe) think he was a rabbi. Whether he worked with wood or with words, I think it is indisputable that Jesus was also a philosopher. As Dallas Willard wrote in his essay, “Jesus the Logician”:
There is in our culture an uneasy relation between Jesus and intelligence, and I have actually heard Christians respond to my statement that Jesus is the most intelligent man who ever lived by saying that it is an oxymoron. Today we automatically position him away from (or even in opposition to) the intellect and intellectual life. Almost no one would consider him to be a thinker, addressing the same issues as, say, Aristotle, Kant, Heidegger or Wittgenstein, and with the same logical method.
It truly is, then, as Mark Noll once wrote, a “scandal” that evangelicals have failed so miserably in their commanded task of “putting on the mind of Christ.” As a group we should be fertile ground for producing intellectuals. After all, we are disciples of the greatest thinker in history.
6. One of the most poignant and profound theological lessons about Jesus remains the one I first learned as a four-year-old:
Jesus loves me
This I know
For the Bible tells me so
If I think about Jesus for the rest of my life, I doubt would be able to produce an insight so beautiful, concise, and true.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Dallas Willard, Jesus the Logician
Comments:
3.30.2011 | 2:38am
John says:
Joe,
Very nice, especially points 5 and 6. I grew up and am Catholic. There is much in the RC tradition to recommend living in the mind of Christ, that is taking his teaching as the fulfillment of all revelation, and as the key to all intellectual mysteries, as well as loving him personally, knowing that you are loved by him. I suppose one can argue that at different times either 5 or 6 have been emphasized to the neglect of the other. Interestingly, I find, "modern, liberal" Catholicism with its need to be intellectually relevant (reasonable in itself if adhering to truth, that is not parroting the latest media or politically correct fad) doesn't take the mind of Christ seriously, and with it emphasis on authentic, personal experience and feeling good, doesn't take the personal love of Christ seriously. There are reasons for this that would take room to unpack. Fortunately we have had leaders (JP II, B XVI) who remind us of the mind of Christ acting through creation and of our need to conform ourselves to his mind, as well as of his great love for each of us. Thanks for your essay. Good points.
Very nice, especially points 5 and 6. I grew up and am Catholic. There is much in the RC tradition to recommend living in the mind of Christ, that is taking his teaching as the fulfillment of all revelation, and as the key to all intellectual mysteries, as well as loving him personally, knowing that you are loved by him. I suppose one can argue that at different times either 5 or 6 have been emphasized to the neglect of the other. Interestingly, I find, "modern, liberal" Catholicism with its need to be intellectually relevant (reasonable in itself if adhering to truth, that is not parroting the latest media or politically correct fad) doesn't take the mind of Christ seriously, and with it emphasis on authentic, personal experience and feeling good, doesn't take the personal love of Christ seriously. There are reasons for this that would take room to unpack. Fortunately we have had leaders (JP II, B XVI) who remind us of the mind of Christ acting through creation and of our need to conform ourselves to his mind, as well as of his great love for each of us. Thanks for your essay. Good points.
3.30.2011 | 8:42am
Sue Sims says:
Our Lord was almost certainly both a rabbi AND a carpenter: all Jewish boys were taught a trade, since before the destruction of the Temple, being a rabbi wasn't a full-time job. Look at St Paul for a good example: a rabbi, certainly (his activities pre-conversion make that clear) and a tent-maker/leather-worker/however you want to translate it.
3.30.2011 | 9:21am
Assistant Village Idiot says:
I have read the idea you express in #4 before, but never stated so clearly. Well done. I have had other ways of complaining that WWJD is the wrong question, but none as good as yours here.
3.30.2011 | 9:36am
Dennis Murphy says:
I like your mention of what it was like to live under the rule of a king, and how we've mostly lost that concept in our society. C.S. Lewis says a lot about that, too. We like to question and decide for ourselves about almost everything, and even when we have no choice but to comply with the law, we feel free to publicly complain about it.
I wonder how Jesus' examples and lessons about the "kingdom of God" may have differed if He had lived in a society like ours.
I wonder how Jesus' examples and lessons about the "kingdom of God" may have differed if He had lived in a society like ours.
3.30.2011 | 9:50am
Sam says:
Good comments. I am a former evangelical, now Catholic. I earnestly hope that your kind of Evangelicalism prevails, although I am not hopeful. On one end you have the anti-intellectuals who are at least orthodox but are unwilling to construct any kind of philosophical foundation for their orthdoxy because "reason" is automatically equated with "vain worldly wisdom". On the other hand, you have the "post-evangelicals" who fancy themselves intellectuals and pretend to engage philosophy but always end up molding the gospel into something acceptable to early 21st century upper middle class white liberals. Both movements are complete disasters. Keep fighting the good fight, Joe.
3.30.2011 | 10:01am
Henry James says:
It's clear that conservatives on First Things and elsewhere, don't quote the Bible - because the Bible does not support them.
Consider the remark above, that we are not called to "be" or directly imitate Jesus. That conflicts with Thomas a Kempis' "The Imitation of Jesus". But also the following Biblical texts (RSV):
"1Cr 4:16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me.
1Cr 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Eph 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.
1Th 1:6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit"
No doubt, many conservatives would love to do away with WWJD; since Jesus never bombed anyone or killed anyone it seems. But? The conservative theology was never Biblical. IT corresponds far more to Republicanism, and the "traditions of man."
How can you have the "mind of Christ," after all, without really, deeply, trying to be just like him?
Consider the remark above, that we are not called to "be" or directly imitate Jesus. That conflicts with Thomas a Kempis' "The Imitation of Jesus". But also the following Biblical texts (RSV):
"1Cr 4:16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me.
1Cr 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Eph 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.
1Th 1:6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit"
No doubt, many conservatives would love to do away with WWJD; since Jesus never bombed anyone or killed anyone it seems. But? The conservative theology was never Biblical. IT corresponds far more to Republicanism, and the "traditions of man."
How can you have the "mind of Christ," after all, without really, deeply, trying to be just like him?
3.30.2011 | 10:12am
kelso says:
The mind of Jesus gave us the means, if we are living His word, of becoming one with Him, in the Holy Eucharist. He is the Lamb, our Pasch, our Bread of Life. Imagine that for Wisdom!
3.30.2011 | 10:53am
Suzanne Arruda says:
I always had a problem with the "What Would Jesus Do" thingy. I'm not capable (small faith?) of miraculously healing a sick neighbor. But I can take them hot soup. So it's not what Jesus would do, but I like to think it's what his mother would do. Good thing He gave her to be our mother so we can emulate her when we feel we are falling too short of Him.
3.30.2011 | 11:04am
Michael says:
Point #3 is well taken, but Jesus is clearly adding some new revelation about the nature, personality, and plan of God. How do you describe them?
3.30.2011 | 11:04am
Ars Artium says:
Regarding point #6: I respect and understand a believer's loyalty to the form through which he first encountered Jesus - in the case of Joe Carter that being Scripture "for the Bible tells me so." That is a indeed a beautiful insight. -
Within the context of that insight, though, I would like to offer a more complete way of knowing the Lord. This way is that of the Mass.
Here Jesus is encountered in Word and in sacramental reception of His spiritual Body and Blood. Here he is actually present under the forms of bread and wine, as he taught he would be, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Here the sinner, "ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven," is, in the words of Pope Benedict, included in "the legacy of the Last Supper, to fellowship in the Lord's body - to his death and Resurrection."
Within the context of that insight, though, I would like to offer a more complete way of knowing the Lord. This way is that of the Mass.
Here Jesus is encountered in Word and in sacramental reception of His spiritual Body and Blood. Here he is actually present under the forms of bread and wine, as he taught he would be, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Here the sinner, "ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven," is, in the words of Pope Benedict, included in "the legacy of the Last Supper, to fellowship in the Lord's body - to his death and Resurrection."
3.30.2011 | 11:17am
mike says:
Of course we should always have a good word ready, and that's not hard, but talking about Jesus all the time is just weird, like a man who always talks about his wife.
I converted because of the example of all the Christians around me, steady, happy, trustworthy, all the things I wanted to be but never could be until I made the good prayer.
The Kirk Cameron approach would probably have hardened my unbelief. Christians who forcibly try to convert others act like God took the day off and left them in charge, when of course it is the Holy Spirit that converts unbelievers.
I converted because of the example of all the Christians around me, steady, happy, trustworthy, all the things I wanted to be but never could be until I made the good prayer.
The Kirk Cameron approach would probably have hardened my unbelief. Christians who forcibly try to convert others act like God took the day off and left them in charge, when of course it is the Holy Spirit that converts unbelievers.
3.30.2011 | 11:19am
Steve says:
Great list, Joe. I just saved it into Delicious so that I can reference the heck out of it--while crediting you every time, so worry not!
Henry James:
It's so nice to see someone dash over to give an immediate self-righteous and condescending response to a decidedly non-partison and apolitical post. Painting with a rather broad brush, aren't you? (Though my guess is that you probably care little about making unfair and uninformed generalisations about people with whom you disagree.)
Henry James:
It's so nice to see someone dash over to give an immediate self-righteous and condescending response to a decidedly non-partison and apolitical post. Painting with a rather broad brush, aren't you? (Though my guess is that you probably care little about making unfair and uninformed generalisations about people with whom you disagree.)
3.30.2011 | 11:30am
Henry James says:
This is one of the author's more balanced, less ideological articles.
Still, we can see some residual conservative elements in it. Regarding say, his desire to distance himself from Jesus' rather nonviolent side; and WWJD.
Many here seem to say we can know - and even become one with - Jesus, well enough, not through deliberate imitation of him; but just through the Eucharist. On the other hand though? Does receiving the Eucharist really make you one with Jesus, all that completely? If so then why and how could you have impure, un-Jesus thoughts - immediately after receiving it? How is it that you can still sin, right after?
So regards the more specific question here: is it really true that after receiving the Eucharist, you are now sufficiently one and the same as Jesus? So that anything you do next, will not be ... a deviation? What if you sin right after?
Or again: what if right after receiving the Eucharist, you decide to bomb your neighbor, instead of loving and healing him.
Are you REALLY "in Christ"?
Who would Jesus bomb?
Clearly the real experts on Jesus are the priests; not George Weigel and fellow conservative ideologues. And yet note most of priests are very nonviolent folks.
Maybe the Neo-Cons are not really following Jesus after all. It really looks liek they are secretly following some ... other god.
Still, we can see some residual conservative elements in it. Regarding say, his desire to distance himself from Jesus' rather nonviolent side; and WWJD.
Many here seem to say we can know - and even become one with - Jesus, well enough, not through deliberate imitation of him; but just through the Eucharist. On the other hand though? Does receiving the Eucharist really make you one with Jesus, all that completely? If so then why and how could you have impure, un-Jesus thoughts - immediately after receiving it? How is it that you can still sin, right after?
So regards the more specific question here: is it really true that after receiving the Eucharist, you are now sufficiently one and the same as Jesus? So that anything you do next, will not be ... a deviation? What if you sin right after?
Or again: what if right after receiving the Eucharist, you decide to bomb your neighbor, instead of loving and healing him.
Are you REALLY "in Christ"?
Who would Jesus bomb?
Clearly the real experts on Jesus are the priests; not George Weigel and fellow conservative ideologues. And yet note most of priests are very nonviolent folks.
Maybe the Neo-Cons are not really following Jesus after all. It really looks liek they are secretly following some ... other god.
3.30.2011 | 11:49am
Carson Chittom says:
Mr. Carter, from your posts I know that you (as an evangelical) and I (as someone who will soon be formally received into the Orthodox Church) more than likely disagree on many issues. But I also know from your posts your honesty and forthrightness in approaching the Christian faith. Which is why it gives me so much pleasure to find myself nodding and concurring wholeheartedly as I read this article, particularly your numbers two and three--both of which I've been thinking a lot about this Lenten season.
3.30.2011 | 12:33pm
Justin R says:
Joe,
Thank you for your thoughts. I always enjoy your insight and it's obvious that you have tremendous faith as well as tremendous intellectual curiosity.
As far as being truly human, a good friend of mine has a ministry in Southern California, that uses the phrase, "Rehumanizing today's youth.", as its mission statement.
Secondly, I think the reason many evangelicals do not open themselves up to the mind of Christ, is that the evangelical church, in some significant ways, grew out of the fundamentalist movement. Now, it's transcended that movement and casts a much greater net, but it does cling somewhat to the anti-intellectualism inherent in fundamentalism. I've often seen this when discussing Biblical dates/authorship with other evangelicals.
For example, in bible study, once, I brought up how the Book of John, was possibly written by a disciple of John's, also named John to whom, the disciple had related his personal experiences, along with his reflections on their meaning. My bible study companions denied such a thing could be true. Hackles were raised and though I felt no ill-will, it was evident that, unlike believing and knowledgeable Catholics, they were not willing/able to think their way through.
Thank you for your thoughts. I always enjoy your insight and it's obvious that you have tremendous faith as well as tremendous intellectual curiosity.
As far as being truly human, a good friend of mine has a ministry in Southern California, that uses the phrase, "Rehumanizing today's youth.", as its mission statement.
Secondly, I think the reason many evangelicals do not open themselves up to the mind of Christ, is that the evangelical church, in some significant ways, grew out of the fundamentalist movement. Now, it's transcended that movement and casts a much greater net, but it does cling somewhat to the anti-intellectualism inherent in fundamentalism. I've often seen this when discussing Biblical dates/authorship with other evangelicals.
For example, in bible study, once, I brought up how the Book of John, was possibly written by a disciple of John's, also named John to whom, the disciple had related his personal experiences, along with his reflections on their meaning. My bible study companions denied such a thing could be true. Hackles were raised and though I felt no ill-will, it was evident that, unlike believing and knowledgeable Catholics, they were not willing/able to think their way through.
3.30.2011 | 12:42pm
JustinR says:
Henry James -
It's apparent from your posts that you are offended by his concerns about the Social Gospel/WWJD movement.
Thank you for your concern. It's obvious you have very different beliefs from Mr. Carter regarding a particular aspect of our Christian life/experience. Though, if I may be so bold, I imagine given most situations of need, the two of you would act in identical fashion with probably similar intention.
However, even if I disagreed with you, I wouldn't make non-violence the ideology upon which I dare insinuate that you might follow a god than Our God.
That would be truly unchristian.
It's apparent from your posts that you are offended by his concerns about the Social Gospel/WWJD movement.
Thank you for your concern. It's obvious you have very different beliefs from Mr. Carter regarding a particular aspect of our Christian life/experience. Though, if I may be so bold, I imagine given most situations of need, the two of you would act in identical fashion with probably similar intention.
However, even if I disagreed with you, I wouldn't make non-violence the ideology upon which I dare insinuate that you might follow a god than Our God.
That would be truly unchristian.
3.30.2011 | 1:07pm
Fred says:
Mike,
My advice FWIW, ignore Henry James. He is a silly man (and it's never a good idea to feed the trolls).
My advice FWIW, ignore Henry James. He is a silly man (and it's never a good idea to feed the trolls).
3.30.2011 | 2:24pm
Douglas says:
Henry James,
Thank you for your comments instructing us to distrust people who disagree with your politics.
P.s. To other readers I apologize for not taking the opportunity to ignore Mr James.
Thank you for your comments instructing us to distrust people who disagree with your politics.
P.s. To other readers I apologize for not taking the opportunity to ignore Mr James.
3.30.2011 | 3:15pm
arty says:
While I didn't really appreciate the tone of H James' remarks, I notice that none of the criticizers above bother to mention/refute his quotation of relevant scripture passages.
What matters is who is right, not who you can reject by rhetorical mentions of political labels.
What matters is who is right, not who you can reject by rhetorical mentions of political labels.
3.30.2011 | 3:29pm
Joe Carter says:
@arty ***I notice that none of the criticizers above bother to mention/refute his quotation of relevant scripture passages. ***
That's because Henry James offered a non sequitur. No one (certainly not me) said that we should not imitate Christ. But the WWJD? question is usually applied in a way that makes it nonsensical.
For example, did Jesus get married? No. So we should not marry either? Did Jesus have children? No. Should we not have children either?
The WWJD? folks will, of course, say that is not what they mean by it. What they mean is either (a) imitate Jesus in the ways that they choose or (b) imitate Jesus in the ways that he expects us to (in other words, WWJWMTD).
It's interesting that the first scripture verse that HJ cited was by St. Paul. I wonder how closely he imitates the Apostle. For instance, Paul did not permit women to speak in church. Would HJ be in favor of such a restriction?
That's because Henry James offered a non sequitur. No one (certainly not me) said that we should not imitate Christ. But the WWJD? question is usually applied in a way that makes it nonsensical.
For example, did Jesus get married? No. So we should not marry either? Did Jesus have children? No. Should we not have children either?
The WWJD? folks will, of course, say that is not what they mean by it. What they mean is either (a) imitate Jesus in the ways that they choose or (b) imitate Jesus in the ways that he expects us to (in other words, WWJWMTD).
It's interesting that the first scripture verse that HJ cited was by St. Paul. I wonder how closely he imitates the Apostle. For instance, Paul did not permit women to speak in church. Would HJ be in favor of such a restriction?
3.30.2011 | 3:33pm
Steve M says:
Thanks Joe. Another thought-provoking article with decidedly less darkness than prison rape or ultrasound mediated abortion. My brief comment is that you are well represented by preachers of the distant past when refraining from using the Holy Name of Jesus too frequently. To this day, in orthodox catholic traditions, the head is nodded/bowed whenever Jesus' Holy Name is mentioned. Therefore, the practice of referring to Jesus as Our Lord, Our Redeemer, etc. was adopted during preaching to keep pastors from developing cervical strain! This practice, though not as strict, mirrors the Jewish tradition of not speaking Jehovah's Name. I have had evangelical Christians chasten me for using the term "God" instead of Jesus(for good reason to distinguish between a generic monotheism popular today). I find that imprecise though, when I want to refer more generally to the Holy Trinity ("God") rather than attributes of the second person thereof. Whew!
3.30.2011 | 3:54pm
arty says:
Joe:
I don't disagree with you at all. My point is that invoking the specter of "politics" in order to ignore someone's point of view is to let the tail wag the dog. For instance, there are some churches where I live, who do not let women teach, precisely on the basis of the example of the Apostle Paul, as in your example. I disagree with them, but I do so, not because it offends some set of neatly prepackaged political sensibilities, but because, well, I don't think it squares with the overall message Jesus promoted in the gospels. If I thought that disallowing female participation in church was an integral and universal part of the message Jesus and Paul preached, I'd be forced to agree with it. This is no big leap though, since there are plenty "bushels" I'd like to hide my light under (for example), but I'm not permitted to do that so I try not to.
In short, one of the things I've always liked about FT, in my 7-plus years of subscribing, is that it generally takes the position that labels shouldn't become the flags that we end up mistaking for the goods. Some of the comments above do just that. For example: we ought to be arguing about whether or not Christ would want us to go to war, rather than letting ambiguous labels (neo-cons" etc...) stand for the content of the position the labels are supposed to describe. Put another way, I get irritated when, contrary to the tone of the FT magazine, the comment boards on the website end up taken over with comments from people who can't seem to grasp the point of your point #2, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
I don't disagree with you at all. My point is that invoking the specter of "politics" in order to ignore someone's point of view is to let the tail wag the dog. For instance, there are some churches where I live, who do not let women teach, precisely on the basis of the example of the Apostle Paul, as in your example. I disagree with them, but I do so, not because it offends some set of neatly prepackaged political sensibilities, but because, well, I don't think it squares with the overall message Jesus promoted in the gospels. If I thought that disallowing female participation in church was an integral and universal part of the message Jesus and Paul preached, I'd be forced to agree with it. This is no big leap though, since there are plenty "bushels" I'd like to hide my light under (for example), but I'm not permitted to do that so I try not to.
In short, one of the things I've always liked about FT, in my 7-plus years of subscribing, is that it generally takes the position that labels shouldn't become the flags that we end up mistaking for the goods. Some of the comments above do just that. For example: we ought to be arguing about whether or not Christ would want us to go to war, rather than letting ambiguous labels (neo-cons" etc...) stand for the content of the position the labels are supposed to describe. Put another way, I get irritated when, contrary to the tone of the FT magazine, the comment boards on the website end up taken over with comments from people who can't seem to grasp the point of your point #2, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
3.30.2011 | 4:01pm
Donald James says:
Good stuff, except for # 4. I haven't raised the dead recently but I still think that Jesus calls us to do it, and to heal the sick. Let's not give up on it.
3.30.2011 | 4:56pm
harry says:
Hello, Mr. Carter,
You wrote:
“Not only did Jesus provide us an image of God, he provided us with an image of man before the Fall (and still more amazingly, did so in a post-Fall context). While it may be difficult to determine exactly which aspects are attributable to his humanity or to his divinity, he gives us a clear vision of what being a human should look like. He gives us a view of what was meant to be and what those who put their trust in him will become in the future.”
As you know, Catholics believe the Mother of Jesus was preserved from the inclination to sin that the rest of us are subject to due to the Fall. Not that she couldn't have sinned – Mary had a free will, like Eve did before (and after) the Fall. So Mary could have fallen just as Eve did. Catholics believe she never did.
Having a free will, She could have refused to accept the plan the angel Gabriel announced to her. Such a refusal on her part would have been quite understandable. After all, upon hearing this, how could she have expected Joseph, or any of her friends or relatives for that matter, to believe her story about how she got pregnant? (And where would we be in terms of our salvation if she had refused? ) Thank goodness her response to Gabriel was “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word,” instead of “That is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. Forget it. Please leave.” She was free to refuse. God didn't take on human nature by forcing a pregnancy on a robotic woman without a free will. She really could have declined.
Her response, and the rest of what we learn of her in the scriptures, revealed a complete submission to the will of God on her part. As you put it regarding Jesus, “provided us with an image of man before the Fall (and still more amazingly, did so in a post-Fall context).” The image provided by Mary may be clearer than the one provided by Jesus because we don't have the difficulty of determining which qualities are attributable to her humanity, as you pointed out we do with the human and divine attributes of Jesus. Mary's attributes are entirely human (as humanity was before the fall).
We have some accounts of the vision provided by Mary to Christians who knew her. These descriptions of her are among the spurious writings we have from the early church. They are spurious in terms of their authorship being dubious. It is undisputed, as far as I know, that they are very ancient and can be considered representative of the thinking of early Christians regarding the Mother of Jesus.
The excerpt below is from the Early Church Fathers, Edinburgh Edition, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I.
"Salome also, [the daughter of Anna, ] whom thou lovest, who stayed with her five months at Jerusalem, and some other well-known persons, relate that she is full of all graces and all virtues, after the manner of a virgin, fruitful in virtue and grace. And, as they report, she is cheerful in persecutions and afflictions, free from murmuring in the midst of penury and want, grateful to those that injure her, and rejoices when exposed to troubles: she sympathizes with the wretched and the afflicted as sharing in their afflictions, and is not slow to come to their assistance. Moreover, she shines forth gloriously as contending in the fight of faith against the pernicious conflicts of vicious principles or conduct. She is the lady of our new religion and repentance, and the handmaid among the faithful of all works of piety. She is indeed devoted to the humble, and she humbles herself more devotedly than the devoted, and is wonderfully magnified by all, while at the same time she suffers detraction from the Scribes and Pharisees. Besides these points, many relate to us numerous other things regarding her. We do not, however, go so far as to believe all in every particular; nor do we mention such to thee. But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity. And such reports as these have greatly excited our emotions, and urge us eagerly to desire a sight of this (if it be lawful so to speak) heavenly prodigy and most sacred marvel. But do thou in haste comply with this our desire; and fare thou well. Amen."
--The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
If Mary was indeed immaculately conceived and remained sinless (as Catholics believe), her “angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity” indeed provided those who knew her with a view, as you put it, “of what being a human should look like … of what was meant to be.”
You wrote:
“Not only did Jesus provide us an image of God, he provided us with an image of man before the Fall (and still more amazingly, did so in a post-Fall context). While it may be difficult to determine exactly which aspects are attributable to his humanity or to his divinity, he gives us a clear vision of what being a human should look like. He gives us a view of what was meant to be and what those who put their trust in him will become in the future.”
As you know, Catholics believe the Mother of Jesus was preserved from the inclination to sin that the rest of us are subject to due to the Fall. Not that she couldn't have sinned – Mary had a free will, like Eve did before (and after) the Fall. So Mary could have fallen just as Eve did. Catholics believe she never did.
Having a free will, She could have refused to accept the plan the angel Gabriel announced to her. Such a refusal on her part would have been quite understandable. After all, upon hearing this, how could she have expected Joseph, or any of her friends or relatives for that matter, to believe her story about how she got pregnant? (And where would we be in terms of our salvation if she had refused? ) Thank goodness her response to Gabriel was “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word,” instead of “That is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. Forget it. Please leave.” She was free to refuse. God didn't take on human nature by forcing a pregnancy on a robotic woman without a free will. She really could have declined.
Her response, and the rest of what we learn of her in the scriptures, revealed a complete submission to the will of God on her part. As you put it regarding Jesus, “provided us with an image of man before the Fall (and still more amazingly, did so in a post-Fall context).” The image provided by Mary may be clearer than the one provided by Jesus because we don't have the difficulty of determining which qualities are attributable to her humanity, as you pointed out we do with the human and divine attributes of Jesus. Mary's attributes are entirely human (as humanity was before the fall).
We have some accounts of the vision provided by Mary to Christians who knew her. These descriptions of her are among the spurious writings we have from the early church. They are spurious in terms of their authorship being dubious. It is undisputed, as far as I know, that they are very ancient and can be considered representative of the thinking of early Christians regarding the Mother of Jesus.
The excerpt below is from the Early Church Fathers, Edinburgh Edition, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I.
"Salome also, [the daughter of Anna, ] whom thou lovest, who stayed with her five months at Jerusalem, and some other well-known persons, relate that she is full of all graces and all virtues, after the manner of a virgin, fruitful in virtue and grace. And, as they report, she is cheerful in persecutions and afflictions, free from murmuring in the midst of penury and want, grateful to those that injure her, and rejoices when exposed to troubles: she sympathizes with the wretched and the afflicted as sharing in their afflictions, and is not slow to come to their assistance. Moreover, she shines forth gloriously as contending in the fight of faith against the pernicious conflicts of vicious principles or conduct. She is the lady of our new religion and repentance, and the handmaid among the faithful of all works of piety. She is indeed devoted to the humble, and she humbles herself more devotedly than the devoted, and is wonderfully magnified by all, while at the same time she suffers detraction from the Scribes and Pharisees. Besides these points, many relate to us numerous other things regarding her. We do not, however, go so far as to believe all in every particular; nor do we mention such to thee. But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity. And such reports as these have greatly excited our emotions, and urge us eagerly to desire a sight of this (if it be lawful so to speak) heavenly prodigy and most sacred marvel. But do thou in haste comply with this our desire; and fare thou well. Amen."
--The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
If Mary was indeed immaculately conceived and remained sinless (as Catholics believe), her “angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity” indeed provided those who knew her with a view, as you put it, “of what being a human should look like … of what was meant to be.”
3.30.2011 | 6:45pm
Jon W. Rowe says:
Since I comment here not too infrequently (and once actually wrote a small piece for the in print First Things) I want to clarify than I am not the same "Jon Rowe" as the first commenter.
A more notable Jon Rowe who wrote for the Atlantic just died and I was confused with him on numerous occasions.
A more notable Jon Rowe who wrote for the Atlantic just died and I was confused with him on numerous occasions.
3.30.2011 | 8:51pm
CS Hart says:
Further to #6, Mr Carter, where in the Bible does it tell you that Jesus loves you?
3.30.2011 | 9:44pm
Joe Carter says:
@CS Hart ***Further to #6, Mr Carter, where in the Bible does it tell you that Jesus loves you?***
John 3:16
John 3:16
3.30.2011 | 10:44pm
CS Hart says:
Thank you Mr. Carter. I’m new at this and I don’t wish to give offense. I am aware that I might easily put my foot in it. Is John 3:16 the only place where we are told that Jesus loves you or me or anyone? In that verse, in the Gospel translation I have, it says that God so loved the world that he gave up his only begotten Son, so that those who believe in him may not perish, but have eternal life. Is not the God referred to here the Father? But because the Father loved the world (which of course includes us and everyone) we can take it that his son did too? But why did he have to give up his son? I have tried asking this question and people do not really, it seems to me, know the answer. I think they think I am being impertinent. But I am not and really I don’t know why he had to make his son suffer so. I mean it is odd, isn’t it? I know that in the garden he, Jesus, asked that it might not be so and he was really afraid of what was going to happen and I just don’t know why his father would have made him go through with it. I know there must be a good answer, because Christianity has been around for thousands of years and someone must have thought about it and given an answer but who? And what was it? In a way that someone who doesn’t understand theology would know. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
3.30.2011 | 11:44pm
TeaPot562 says:
Consider: Jesus is King (of Kings) - What is a Kingdom?
In the abstract, the territory of a kingdom is the area in which people follow the rules and laws promulgated/published by the King.
Taking the Kingdom of Jesus, then, that is the area in which people follow the rules and laws that Jesus gave.
So: If you take His rule seriously, you try as possible to fulfill the Gospel values in Matt, 25:31-46; and also, you do not ignore the poor man at your door. (Luke 15:19-31). It's possible that to the rich man in this parable (Dives, to some commentators), the poor man (Lazarus) was simply overlooked. To Dives, the poor man was merely part of the scenery. In Jesus' teaching, this lack of awareness on the part of Dives did not excuse his failure to share some food with the poor man.
Caring for others as suggested above does not excuse one from failure to observe the Ten Commandments from the O.T.; but the Gospel values do require some serious effort to understand and put into practice.
TeaPot562
In the abstract, the territory of a kingdom is the area in which people follow the rules and laws promulgated/published by the King.
Taking the Kingdom of Jesus, then, that is the area in which people follow the rules and laws that Jesus gave.
So: If you take His rule seriously, you try as possible to fulfill the Gospel values in Matt, 25:31-46; and also, you do not ignore the poor man at your door. (Luke 15:19-31). It's possible that to the rich man in this parable (Dives, to some commentators), the poor man (Lazarus) was simply overlooked. To Dives, the poor man was merely part of the scenery. In Jesus' teaching, this lack of awareness on the part of Dives did not excuse his failure to share some food with the poor man.
Caring for others as suggested above does not excuse one from failure to observe the Ten Commandments from the O.T.; but the Gospel values do require some serious effort to understand and put into practice.
TeaPot562
3.31.2011 | 1:19am
Donna says:
I believe it may have been Abraham Heschel, Jewish theologian and philosopher, whose writings made the “anthropology app” available to me during seminary study. Reading the OT as God’s anthropology provides a less than flattering portrait of humankind to say the least. So if Jesus is the image of the human ideal, then everyone else on the stage of redemptive history is the image of the not-ideal; the anti-ideal. Heschel’s perspective delivers the remainder of the biblical message that so many readers miss. It is a reading lens that has far more transformative power because humans are put under the glass of the text. It is I then, not God, who is being examined. Alright then! Now that you understand that, who’d like to start the reading?
3.31.2011 | 3:14am
Don Roberto says:
Mr. Carter,
Thanks for this essay, as always. I need to re-read Flannery O. The very name of Jesus can stand alone as a prayer: At His name, all knees shall bend.
HJ,
Not to advocate for war or violence, but Jesus is one with He who sent the flood. And we must be careful that our pacifism really is the pacifism of Jesus, and not that of the coward, who fearing for his life fails to protect the weak.
Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
1Kings 18:40
And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
†
Thanks for this essay, as always. I need to re-read Flannery O. The very name of Jesus can stand alone as a prayer: At His name, all knees shall bend.
HJ,
Not to advocate for war or violence, but Jesus is one with He who sent the flood. And we must be careful that our pacifism really is the pacifism of Jesus, and not that of the coward, who fearing for his life fails to protect the weak.
Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
1Kings 18:40
And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
†
3.31.2011 | 8:28am
Anonymous 3 says:
Thanking Mr.Carter for sharing some precious thoughts and for the many good comments .
If i may peep in too -
esp. with regard to the comment about the reasons for our lord to have come , esp. since many others too possibly ponder about same ;
now a days , with the internet , looking up some good discussions on same is an aid .
1John 3:8 - our Lord came to destroy the works of the devil ( and to give us The Spirit )
Our first parents , by listening to the evil one and taking in its spirit could no longer trust and love The Father ..or each other , as they were meant to be ..
Mercy is God's greatest attribute - theologians tell us ..yet , inorder to trust in that mercy, which is meant to help us to live to the best of our potential, of being merciful , forgiving , trusting, holy ...we would need His Spirit again ...The Spirit that we had chosen to deny ...
Our Lord , taking on human nature and through His life, esp. in the midst of sufferings , even seeming silence from The Father , is immersed and empowered in The Spirit ..Spirit of The Father Himself ....so that we may too , esp. living in the midst of a fallen world where God , in His love , has granted His children freedom , freedom , to choose to heed to God's Spirit or of the evil one ...
that at every moment , esp. when faced with the enemy , we too would know where to turn ..and overcome , without opening portals of hatred and fear of doing good ..with the Power Our Lord obtained for us , through His trusting , loving sufferings , in The Spirit ..and Rising ..
That image of the 'blood thirsty ' God from Old Testament times ...should that speak only of how sin infested we had become such that may be on those occasions when God willed or commanded destruction , it was possibly due to total enemy possession - not just of persons but even of what they possesed - may be something like a 'mad cow disease ' like scenario ..
The references to the wrath of The Father ...having read interpretations of how it refers to the evil one , even whom The Father does not disown ..and whose requests , brought to Him by those who call upon it , also can get heeded ..unless , we call on The One who came to destroy its works ..and let The Holy Spirit to help us , to turn in loving trust , into The Father's arms ...from where no one can snatch us !
A small parallel to many Old Testament events in our own times could be when Bl.Mother appeared in Fatima and warned ' unless the world repents and returns to God , a worse war shall come ' - alluding to The Second world war ..
Hope that the exhortation in John 3:16 - 'all who believed in Him ..' would take on a deeper , fuller meaning to many , to recognise how that belief in Him also could be very related to The Church that He chose to gift us with ...to guide us to discern and do what His will is ...so that The Spirit may ever be more empowered in more lives - 'Thy Kingdom come ..Thy will be done .'
May the prayers of our Mother so help us !
If i may peep in too -
esp. with regard to the comment about the reasons for our lord to have come , esp. since many others too possibly ponder about same ;
now a days , with the internet , looking up some good discussions on same is an aid .
1John 3:8 - our Lord came to destroy the works of the devil ( and to give us The Spirit )
Our first parents , by listening to the evil one and taking in its spirit could no longer trust and love The Father ..or each other , as they were meant to be ..
Mercy is God's greatest attribute - theologians tell us ..yet , inorder to trust in that mercy, which is meant to help us to live to the best of our potential, of being merciful , forgiving , trusting, holy ...we would need His Spirit again ...The Spirit that we had chosen to deny ...
Our Lord , taking on human nature and through His life, esp. in the midst of sufferings , even seeming silence from The Father , is immersed and empowered in The Spirit ..Spirit of The Father Himself ....so that we may too , esp. living in the midst of a fallen world where God , in His love , has granted His children freedom , freedom , to choose to heed to God's Spirit or of the evil one ...
that at every moment , esp. when faced with the enemy , we too would know where to turn ..and overcome , without opening portals of hatred and fear of doing good ..with the Power Our Lord obtained for us , through His trusting , loving sufferings , in The Spirit ..and Rising ..
That image of the 'blood thirsty ' God from Old Testament times ...should that speak only of how sin infested we had become such that may be on those occasions when God willed or commanded destruction , it was possibly due to total enemy possession - not just of persons but even of what they possesed - may be something like a 'mad cow disease ' like scenario ..
The references to the wrath of The Father ...having read interpretations of how it refers to the evil one , even whom The Father does not disown ..and whose requests , brought to Him by those who call upon it , also can get heeded ..unless , we call on The One who came to destroy its works ..and let The Holy Spirit to help us , to turn in loving trust , into The Father's arms ...from where no one can snatch us !
A small parallel to many Old Testament events in our own times could be when Bl.Mother appeared in Fatima and warned ' unless the world repents and returns to God , a worse war shall come ' - alluding to The Second world war ..
Hope that the exhortation in John 3:16 - 'all who believed in Him ..' would take on a deeper , fuller meaning to many , to recognise how that belief in Him also could be very related to The Church that He chose to gift us with ...to guide us to discern and do what His will is ...so that The Spirit may ever be more empowered in more lives - 'Thy Kingdom come ..Thy will be done .'
May the prayers of our Mother so help us !
3.31.2011 | 11:14am
Henry James says:
How far, how exactly, should we imitate Christ? Today many are used to thinking that we can deviate very considerably from him; we can decide to marry for example. Yet our priests - who are perhaps more expert in such things - found parts of the Bible, that seemed to suggest it is "better not to marry"; but to stay single, and thus more devoted to the model, after all, of a single Jesus.
How nonviolent was Jesus? We are invited to carry one sword; but Jesus himself never seems to have used one. Indeed, when St. Peter cut off the ear of an enemy, Jesus healed the eart. Of his enemy.
The Old Testament God to be sure, was a bit more violent; but many preachers read the New Testament, and its "new covenant," as to some extent updating the Old. While in the new? Jesus does the above; and tells us to "love your enemy."
Am I inconsistent in supporting Paul's imitation of Christ? Do I support female ministers for example, agAinst Paul and Jesus' own example? In fact I do not support female ministers actively at all.
In fact, therefore, it would be a very good, viable thing for conservatives, to look a bit more deeply at Jesus himself. This is not politics; it is what the Bible says. No doubt it sounds strange to conservatives, who think they know all about God ... just from listening to other conservatives. But? Pick up the Book, and read it.
Jesus was a single, rather nonviolent being. Dedicated to helping the sick and the poor. He was not Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck; an angry, married conservative seeking wars, and limits to health care and social security.
The gap between conservative Catholics and God is therefore ... huge.
How nonviolent was Jesus? We are invited to carry one sword; but Jesus himself never seems to have used one. Indeed, when St. Peter cut off the ear of an enemy, Jesus healed the eart. Of his enemy.
The Old Testament God to be sure, was a bit more violent; but many preachers read the New Testament, and its "new covenant," as to some extent updating the Old. While in the new? Jesus does the above; and tells us to "love your enemy."
Am I inconsistent in supporting Paul's imitation of Christ? Do I support female ministers for example, agAinst Paul and Jesus' own example? In fact I do not support female ministers actively at all.
In fact, therefore, it would be a very good, viable thing for conservatives, to look a bit more deeply at Jesus himself. This is not politics; it is what the Bible says. No doubt it sounds strange to conservatives, who think they know all about God ... just from listening to other conservatives. But? Pick up the Book, and read it.
Jesus was a single, rather nonviolent being. Dedicated to helping the sick and the poor. He was not Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck; an angry, married conservative seeking wars, and limits to health care and social security.
The gap between conservative Catholics and God is therefore ... huge.
3.31.2011 | 11:25am
Joe Carter says:
@Henry James ***Today many are used to thinking that we can deviate very considerably from him; we can decide to marry for example.***
So are Catholics who marry or have kids failing to imitate Christ?
***The gap between conservative Catholics and God is therefore ... huge. ***
I don't doubt that is true. But the gap between liberal Catholics and God is even wider.
So are Catholics who marry or have kids failing to imitate Christ?
***The gap between conservative Catholics and God is therefore ... huge. ***
I don't doubt that is true. But the gap between liberal Catholics and God is even wider.
3.31.2011 | 1:17pm
Caroline Susan Hart says:
Henry James and Joe Cater:
***The gap between conservative Catholics and God is therefore ... huge. ***
I don't doubt that is true. But the gap between liberal Catholics and God is even wider.
But in fact the gap between God and all others is equally immeasurable both in its distance and its nearness. Both of you know this, so why do you fritter so? It was one of the Adams brothers who said of Henry James that he chewed more than he bit off. This could do for both of you.
Please address my question: why did the Father give up his Son to suffering? Please tell me why I should not be repelled by this thought? Please show me how I might try to make sense of this.
***The gap between conservative Catholics and God is therefore ... huge. ***
I don't doubt that is true. But the gap between liberal Catholics and God is even wider.
But in fact the gap between God and all others is equally immeasurable both in its distance and its nearness. Both of you know this, so why do you fritter so? It was one of the Adams brothers who said of Henry James that he chewed more than he bit off. This could do for both of you.
Please address my question: why did the Father give up his Son to suffering? Please tell me why I should not be repelled by this thought? Please show me how I might try to make sense of this.
3.31.2011 | 2:14pm
Tom says:
The reason Christ promised to pit nations and families against eachother is to reveal the Truth that God was not endorsing the Pharisees but rather a covenant with all steeped in a tradition reflective of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
The Kings of the Old Test, while dedicated to Yahweh, repeatedly fumbled and became lost (as all sinners do). Christ came to set the record straight becoming the ultimate sacrifice. This has peace in God as a final aim but rocks the initial Hebrew brand of "eye for an eye" justice. That's the law's fufillment.
The Kings of the Old Test, while dedicated to Yahweh, repeatedly fumbled and became lost (as all sinners do). Christ came to set the record straight becoming the ultimate sacrifice. This has peace in God as a final aim but rocks the initial Hebrew brand of "eye for an eye" justice. That's the law's fufillment.
3.31.2011 | 2:23pm
Henry James says:
Joe:
How closely are we supposed to emulate or follow Christ? According to the Bible itself, it is much closer than just "following"; we are commanded to "imitate" him. To be as like him as possible.
Does this mean that a married Catholic cannot really be an imitator or real follower of the unmarried Christ? Traditionally in fact, yes it does. For many centuries, it was thought that the true follower of Christ had to be single; probably be a priest. Since Jesus was not married; and since only those who left brother and sister and wives behind, could concentrate on ministry. Like Jesus.
Look at the people who probably try hardest to follow Jesus: the priests. Catholic priests were not married; because they knew what real followership demanded. They knew what the Bible said, about the distractions of marriage.
Granted, the gap between all of us and God is huge; but those who want to try to bridge it as well as they can? Priests know the rules. And marriage is not allowed.
Are these strict rules? The Bible said many would try; but that the gate was extremely narrow, and few would pass through.
More than simple followership is required; the Bible, Paul, ask for "imitation" (In Greek, Mimeses?). Far more than a mere casual obedience to some of his rules.
If you want the BIble's real conservatism? There it is. No married Catholic is really conservative in the BIblical sense therefore; but is already partially liberal. And even? Irreverent.
Do you want to really follow CHrist? Jesus said to do that, give all your money to the poor, and then take up your cross and follow him.
Is it extremely hard? Yes it is.
What do you know; you often have to suffer a bit, to accomplish great things.
How closely are we supposed to emulate or follow Christ? According to the Bible itself, it is much closer than just "following"; we are commanded to "imitate" him. To be as like him as possible.
Does this mean that a married Catholic cannot really be an imitator or real follower of the unmarried Christ? Traditionally in fact, yes it does. For many centuries, it was thought that the true follower of Christ had to be single; probably be a priest. Since Jesus was not married; and since only those who left brother and sister and wives behind, could concentrate on ministry. Like Jesus.
Look at the people who probably try hardest to follow Jesus: the priests. Catholic priests were not married; because they knew what real followership demanded. They knew what the Bible said, about the distractions of marriage.
Granted, the gap between all of us and God is huge; but those who want to try to bridge it as well as they can? Priests know the rules. And marriage is not allowed.
Are these strict rules? The Bible said many would try; but that the gate was extremely narrow, and few would pass through.
More than simple followership is required; the Bible, Paul, ask for "imitation" (In Greek, Mimeses?). Far more than a mere casual obedience to some of his rules.
If you want the BIble's real conservatism? There it is. No married Catholic is really conservative in the BIblical sense therefore; but is already partially liberal. And even? Irreverent.
Do you want to really follow CHrist? Jesus said to do that, give all your money to the poor, and then take up your cross and follow him.
Is it extremely hard? Yes it is.
What do you know; you often have to suffer a bit, to accomplish great things.
3.31.2011 | 2:39pm
Joe Carter says:
@Henry James ***Does this mean that a married Catholic cannot really be an imitator or real follower of the unmarried Christ? Traditionally in fact, yes it does.***
If we follow your logic, then the Catholic Church would have never existed.
If to be an imitator of Christ is (a) something all Christians should strive for and (b) requires that a person be single, then the only Christians that could exist are those that were born to non-believing parents and converted sometime in their life.
The command to imitate Christ was not just given for a select few (e.g., priests) but to all his disciples. Yet if we apply your logic, this means that Jesus did not want any of his followers to every marry or have children. Since that idea is not supported anywhere in the Bible (Paul even affirmed that pastors and bishops could marry), I think we can safely assume that is not what Jesus meant by his call to "imitate" him.
If we follow your logic, then the Catholic Church would have never existed.
If to be an imitator of Christ is (a) something all Christians should strive for and (b) requires that a person be single, then the only Christians that could exist are those that were born to non-believing parents and converted sometime in their life.
The command to imitate Christ was not just given for a select few (e.g., priests) but to all his disciples. Yet if we apply your logic, this means that Jesus did not want any of his followers to every marry or have children. Since that idea is not supported anywhere in the Bible (Paul even affirmed that pastors and bishops could marry), I think we can safely assume that is not what Jesus meant by his call to "imitate" him.
3.31.2011 | 2:55pm
Anonymous 3 says:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19881130en.html
On psalm 22 - ' My God , My God , why have you abandoned me ? ' - that it was not a cry of despair ; good to read in whole the good , brief contents of the page .
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2004/Feature1.asp - this too , on same .
Praise and thanks to our Lord who foresaw our own moments of struggles , took upon Himself the results of our own alienations , to plead in The Spirit , to support us too in similar situations !
Praise and honor to The Father , who foresaw our needs for the outpouring of The Spirit and of the just offer against the claims of the enemy so that the enemy could not use us , in hatred and resentments with our own claims against each other !
On psalm 22 - ' My God , My God , why have you abandoned me ? ' - that it was not a cry of despair ; good to read in whole the good , brief contents of the page .
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2004/Feature1.asp - this too , on same .
Praise and thanks to our Lord who foresaw our own moments of struggles , took upon Himself the results of our own alienations , to plead in The Spirit , to support us too in similar situations !
Praise and honor to The Father , who foresaw our needs for the outpouring of The Spirit and of the just offer against the claims of the enemy so that the enemy could not use us , in hatred and resentments with our own claims against each other !
3.31.2011 | 5:30pm
Henry James says:
No doubt Liberals of course, seem to deviate from their Bibles and from the path of Jesus. But so do, strangely, "conservatives"; though they claim to conservatively follow traditional religion.
Consider for example: What does it take to imitate Jesus? Paul suggested - as a suggestion it seems, but as a strong one - that we "do not marry":
"To the unmarried ... it is well that they remain single as I do" (1 Corin. 7.8)..
And ...
"Do not seek marriage" (1 Corin. 7.27)
Paul and others noted that those who marry, will get bogged down in "worldly" concerns (7.28). Paul thus indicating - not as an absolute rule, but as a strong suggestion - that we do not marry. Thus confirming Jesus' instructions to leave - and even "hate" - our family; in order to devote ourselves in a single-minded way to Jesus and God (Luke 14.26?).
Oddly therefore, almost all those who think that they are being "conservative" are no such thing. In defending marriage for example ... "conservatives" are actually, going against the Bible and Jesus. The same as some liberals, they are breaking biblical rules, to make their lives better, in their own estimation.
So in fact, is anyone at all today, really following Jesus all that closely, anymore? Isn't everybody bending and breaking the rules?
"All have sinned" against Jesus; even Conservatives.
Consider for example: What does it take to imitate Jesus? Paul suggested - as a suggestion it seems, but as a strong one - that we "do not marry":
"To the unmarried ... it is well that they remain single as I do" (1 Corin. 7.8)..
And ...
"Do not seek marriage" (1 Corin. 7.27)
Paul and others noted that those who marry, will get bogged down in "worldly" concerns (7.28). Paul thus indicating - not as an absolute rule, but as a strong suggestion - that we do not marry. Thus confirming Jesus' instructions to leave - and even "hate" - our family; in order to devote ourselves in a single-minded way to Jesus and God (Luke 14.26?).
Oddly therefore, almost all those who think that they are being "conservative" are no such thing. In defending marriage for example ... "conservatives" are actually, going against the Bible and Jesus. The same as some liberals, they are breaking biblical rules, to make their lives better, in their own estimation.
So in fact, is anyone at all today, really following Jesus all that closely, anymore? Isn't everybody bending and breaking the rules?
"All have sinned" against Jesus; even Conservatives.
3.31.2011 | 7:46pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Henry James, when you make an even-handed criticism on such matters it will be worth discussing things with you. The issues you bring up are interesting and valuable. You, however, bring them up dishonestly, so we cannot have the discussion with you just yet. Don't say "even conservatives," when your choice of comments clearly means "especially conservatives." Contrary to popular belief, we are not yahoos who can't pick up subtleties.
Joe, I linked this (with approval) and commented on it at my own site. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2011/03/wwjwmtd.html
Joe, I linked this (with approval) and commented on it at my own site. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2011/03/wwjwmtd.html
4.6.2011 | 2:54am
Clorinda Sugar says:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Clearly the real experts on Jesus are the priests; not George Weigel and fellow conservative ideologues. And yet note most of priests are very nonviolent folks.
4.18.2011 | 11:22am
Tolosa Treatment says:
Many here seem to say we can know - and even become one with - Jesus, well enough, not through deliberate imitation of him; but just through the Eucharist. On the other hand though? Does receiving the Eucharist really make you one with Jesus, all that completely? If so then why and how could you have impure, un-Jesus thoughts - immediately after receiving it? How is it that you can still sin, right after? The command to imitate Christ was not just given for a select few (e.g., priests) but to all his disciples. Yet if we apply your logic, this means that Jesus did not want any of his followers to every marry or have children. Since that idea is not supported anywhere in the Bible (Paul even affirmed that pastors and bishops could marry), I think we can safely assume that is not what Jesus meant by his call to "imitate" him.
I appreciate your insights as an evangelical. I can only hope that more evangelicals follow in your footsteps and do not continue in the blunders that Mark Noll so poignantly wrote about in "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind", to which you have made reference. I especially like the remark that fresh insights to Jesus are made my theologians and heretics.