I'm trying to decide whether I can be a disciple of Jesus (that is to say, a Christian). I don't think I agree with him about everything. Can I be a real disciple and think he got a few things wrong? (I don't like the idea of Jesus being fallible, but if I'm honest with myself, I guess that's what I believe.)
Which things do I think he got wrong, you say? I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. But I plan to look through the all the red text in my Bible this week and see if there's anything I really can't agree with. If I can pry myself away from Harry Potter.
I've been reading The Cost Of Discipleship. Bonhoeffer says that you can't have faith without obedience, nor obedience without faith. There's a brand of Christianity, which seems particularly popular in camp ministries, that emphasizes "faith" at the expense of obedience (this is what James denounces). Conversely, I'd rather practice obedience without faith. I would be content just to be obedient to Jesus (or just to try to be) but maybe obedience sans faith isn't true obedience. (Because faith makes obedience possible, or because believing is part of obeying?) So I'm trying to figure out whether I agree with Bonhoeffer, and if so, whether I'm capable of true obedience, or just a faithless facsimile.
Bonhoeffer complicates things by saying that we cannot choose to be disciples out of the blue; we must be called. I don't know what he means by "called" (it sounds very Kierkegaardian*) but it seems that (as with all spiritual experiences I'm supposed to have had) either I've failed to recognize God's call to me (how? and what do I do to correct this?) or I've not been called at all. Or maybe my conviction that I ought to pursue a life of servanthood and selflessness constitutes the call, but then why would Bonhoeffer make a big deal about the impossibility of obedience without a calling? Who tries to be a disciple without this conviction? I don't know. Anyone understand Bonhoeffer?
*Kierkegaard says that we each choose one of three life-governing principles: desire, reason, or faith. But the last is only open to those who have been called by God to do something crazy, like Abraham sacrificing Isaac. If you want to choose faith but you haven't been called, you're basically hooped. Similarly, Bonhoeffer seems to be saying that you can't possibly be a disciple of Christ if he hasn't called you (because of our sinfulness and inadequacy) although what the call looks like and how prevalent it is is unclear.
Post a Comment
13 comments:
Can I be a real disciple and think he got a few things wrong?
Personally, I think Jesus got this wrong: "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," (Matthew 16:28) assuming he is referring to his second coming. But maybe he wasn't. Elsewhere he says, "But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," (Mark 13:32) which argues against his making predictions about the day or hour. But then, if he didn't know, is is any less fallible?
That should be, is he any less fallible?
Perhaps that's being intellectually dishonest? I dunno.
Any time that we think we see some discrepency in the character of God or the integrity of His statements it is a much better idea to calculate on the basis of our not fully understanding than to fault God. We have been promised that we will give account to Him for every thought word and action when all is said and done!
I am convinced that we have a view of God that is far too small. We have humanized God, thus in our minds lowered Him to our level or raised ourselves to be His equals.
Lucifer got thrown out of heaven for such thinking!
Dr. DEE
Of course it had some flaw that made it suck. You go into things thinking they'll suck Joel, so you can blog about it. Lol.
Whatever, dumb. Laters.
Anyway, I guess it would be more accurate to say I'm debating the fallibility of Jesus as understood by me, through the representations of him in the Bible. I'm not all that interested in the real Jesus that lived 2000 years ago. I can't know anything about him, and hence I cannot be his disciple. I have no interest in the infallibility of the real God - about whom I know nothing - only the infallibility of the Gods (that is, the concepts of God) to which I have access.
But that's a bit misleading... what I'm really talking about here is determining whether I agree with Jesus (the Jesus I know). As you rightly note, I am not infallible, thus if Jesus (tJIk) disagrees with me, it doesn't necessarily mean he's fallible. What it does mean, I think, is that I believe he's fallible. But I think I can believe he's fallible without believing that I'm necessarily right. If that makes sense.
To brucea, I suppose one could argue that the Apostle John saw the 2nd coming (albeit in a vision).
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images."
Interesting idea about the second coming thing. That's just the kind of thing He'd do.
In regards to your creationism comment, I agree completely. Had I gotten a job with a Christian school, I would have had to deal with this. I'm kind of glad I didn't get it.
What I think Matthew was trying to show with all his references to prophecy was that Jesus' life paralleled the entire Old Testament. The same idea is developed a bit further in Hebrews 8-9: The Jerusalem temple is a "sketch and shadow" (Heb 8:5) of the heavenly one from which Jesus reigns.
If "prophecy" is understood as "parallel" or "foreshadowing," it makes sense to apply any verse to Jesus, regardless of its original context. I think that's what Matthew was doing.
Post a Comment