Skip to main content

Me and Jesus: Episode 3

This morning in bed I read Matthew chapter 22.

First there is a parable about a king inviting people to a feast, the respectable people won't come so the servant invites any old person who happens to be in the street. I sort of get that, the last will be first, the priority of outcasts and stuff. Then one of them gets thrown out because he's not wearing the right clothes. And there's 'weeping and gnashing of teeth.' I don't like it when there's weeping and gnashing of teeth. Jesus seems to be scaring people to do stuff, which I don't like. Plus I don't really understand what not wearing the right clothes at the feast is supposed to mean. I don't get it.

Pay to the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give to God what belongs to God. I think I get that.

Some theological argument about resurrection. Who cares?

The greatest commandments are love to God and neighbour. I agree with that.

An argument about whether the Messiah is David's descendant. Jesus says he isn't. I think that comes from Mark who insists Jesus is the Messiah but doesn't say that he's a descendant of David. This is carried across to Matthew, even though Matthew says Jesus is a descendant of David. But it brings up the question of whether Jesus thought he was the Messiah, and what does that mean?

So from five distinct teachings in one chapter: two seem irrelevant, one I don't really understand, one I think I understand and agree with and one I definitely agree with.

Now does this make me a Christian or not? I find it difficult to claim with integrity that I'm a Christian just because I believe in the love to God and neighbour bit. That's only a minority of this one chapter. The tax question I think I'm OK with. I find questions about resurrection and Messiah-ship entirely irrelevant. And then there's confusing nasty bits.

Now, I could claim that some of the bits I don't like are added by other authors and didn't come from the lips of Jesus. But then that feels a bit like wishful thinking, how do you know you're not just shaping Jesus in your own image if you do that?

Let me say again: I'm happy to be a theistic biblical Abrahamic Unitarian who gets a great deal from the teaching of Jesus. But if I neither believe in the orthodox doctrines of 'Christianity' nor agree with central teachings of Jesus, then how can I be a Christian?

That's the issue I suppose: what is central to Jesus and what is peripheral? What is permanent and what is transient? What is the heart of the Gospel? Even Jesus himself didn't get all of the periphery of the Gospel worked out, but did he get the heart of the Gospel?

Let's say there's this thing called 'the Gospel'. The Gospel is what is religiously good and true. No one has a perfect sense of what the Gospel is. Some people have a better sense than others. The question then is: is my sense of what the Gospel is centrally about the same as Jesus' sense of what the Gospel is centrally about? If it is then perhaps I could be said to be a Christian in the sense of following the same path as Jesus.


Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with