Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts

Friday, November 8, 2013

The Misunderstood Jew: A Pastoral Engagement



The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, by Amy-Jill Levine.

This blog post is intended to help my church navigate this popular book, and assist in an honest reading and wrestling with Levine’s points and criticism. So first, let’s do a chapter by chapter review:

1. Jesus and Judaism: Levine opens with a problem, the Church recognizes the Jewishness of Jesus, and there are plenty of books and references that teach what kind of meaning might be had from this context. But when it actually comes to applying the life of Jesus to our lives, we often vilify and misunderstand the very context that ought to inform our understanding of Jesus. Namely, Jesus was not against the law. Levine argues that Jesus kept kosher, loved the Torah, and taught His followers to do the same. She posits that references found in the New Testament account to the contrary are later additions by those who are trying to make Christianity appeal to a Gentile culture.

2. From Jewish Sect to Gentile Church: Levine continues the argument, showing that Jesus had a very Jewish understanding of the messianic age to come. It was His followers, namely Peter and Paul, who had to deal with the problems that a Jewish understanding of the messianic age. Since they are primary writers of the New Testament, it is easy to see that their mission to the Gentiles necessitated a departure from Jesus’s  true identity as a Jewish messiah. His followers then created a false dichotomy between Jesus and the very people that He understood Himself to be the messiah of.

3. The New Testament and Anti-Judaism: Levine holds Christian feet to the proverbial fire, insisting that if the New Testament is to be read honestly, there is no way that we cannot interpret some anti-Jewish messages. The Jews killed Jesus. Their father is the Devil. They oppress Paul and Christians. Levine again insists that these messages were not from Jesus, but His followers.

4. Stereotyping Judaism: Viewing Judaism as a whole, united effort is a fallacy. Levine instructs the reader about a plurality of Judaisms, even in the first century, and especially now. The Jewish people have almost never acted as a complete whole, but the New Testament seems complicit in that false understanding. Furthermore, the Christian Church seems complicit in such an understanding too. Levine slams liberation and feminist readings of the New Testament, because it makes Jesus the Savior of an oppressive, racist, misogynistic, ritualistic faith that cares more for a temple than people: Judaism.

5. With Friends Like These…: Levine completes what she sets up in chapter four. She shows how many traditions and “academic” readings of the New Testament text use the Jewish faith as their whipping boy. She decries this use, and calls for an admission and repentance from the practice.

6. Distinct Cannons, Distinct Practices: Levine insists that one cannot understand who Jesus was without understanding Him as a first century Jew. Interpreting the Old Testament as a Christian is a faulty thing to do; not even Jesus did. Furthermore, interpreting Jewish practices (such as seder) through a Christian lens is to misunderstand it completely. She finishes the chapter with a generous view of recognizing differences in the faiths, and seeing that they are heading in the same direction.

7. Quo Vadis (where are you going?): Levine finishes her book by giving a list of practical tips for Jews to be able to read the New Testament with Christian ears, and for Christians to be able to read the entire Bible with Jewish ears. Mainly, she recommends that we not fall onto one side or the other, but find ways to be in community with the other.

My humble and pastoral guide:

I first want to recommend this book to you. It is probably going to be helpful in your life of faith, and your ability to love God, and love the people around you. That said, I do want to let you know a couple of assumptions that Levine runs on, which I believe you should be aware of. Once identified, you can pray and consult, and see if the Spirit confirms such beliefs.

First, Levine is primarily concerned with anti-Jewish tendencies. The whole book is more about being honest about those tendencies, and proposing ways in which we (as Christians) might embrace our Jewish neighbors. Please keep in mind that each of her arguments should be read in that context.

Second, Levine is a scholar. Scholarly work is perhaps the best tool that I know of which allows us to discover tension, paradox, and apparent contradictions in the Biblical text. Such things ought to be treasured by Christians. Most people will try to find ways to make those apparent contradictions disappear, or do great work to show how there is no actual tension there. I would caution that approach.

Levine uses her scholarly sharpness to also help alleviate such tension and paradox. For instance, there are many places in the New Testament (and Old, for that matter) which casts the “Jews” in a very negative light. Levine does much work establishing how Jesus never intended that. The result is to place Jesus on one side, and his Apostles on the other. I reject that. I will, however, do what Levine asks; and be honest about those passages. Rather than doing what many a bad theologian has done before me, and insisted that these passages allow us to hate Jews; I take it as an invitation to look at our community, and myself, and discover how Scripture is rebuking me; rebuking us. What are we being invited in to? Certainly, we cannot conclude that we are being invited to hate Jews.

On that note, let’s move to number three. It's a big one.

Understanding the Scriptural text, particularly the New Testament through the lens of first century Judaism is only one lens in through which we interpret Scripture. A metaphor may be helpful here: the actual text is a beautiful mountain scene. It is actual mountains and glaciers, rivers, trees and plains. But we can only see the scene through various windows.

Understanding the text through a “first century Jewish” window will allow us to block out certain parts of the scenery, and focus on certain parts. Certainly, this is valuable. But we can also see the text through the window which understands the scene as a response to what was happening in the Church by the end of the century, almost three generations after the death of Christ, when most of the Apostles were dead or old. Their recounting of the stories of Jesus are meant to be exegeted in a far different context then what a 30 year old Jesus lived in. This enables us to block out certain aspects of the scene, and enhance others.

Furthermore, we can also view the scene through the window which sees the stories of Jesus as meant for you and me today. It is speaking directly at us, by power of the Holy Spirit. Again, certain aspects of the scenery are ignored, while others jump out. This is valuable.

And now, naturally, I need to respond to those in my congregation who would say that such a view of Scripture is a very low view, and that I am probably a postmodern relativist. Well, if the shoe fits, I’ll wear it. I’ll own my heresy. But first, I would like to give you some food for thought.

I am not proposing that the mountain scene doesn’t exist. I’m not saying that all windows to view the scenery are equal, or equally valuable. The value depends on who is in the congregation, and how it is being applied. I am proposing that the mountain scene is absolute, but we have to admit that we are looking at it through a window. This requires more work, not less. It obligates us to dive deeper into our Text, and wrestle with it harder. It also allows us to move from window to window and find the places that the Spirit is calling to us. It means that we find more personal invitations in the text.

Finally, I would like to commend Levine in her rejection of pitting the Old Testament against the New, the Jews versus Jesus. Instead, we find our reading of the Bible pitted against the real Bible, and our Jesus pitted against the real one. In my humble, pastoral opinion, we ought to do the hard work to find out where those differences are, and let the real Bible, the real Jesus, win (whatever that might look like).

Monday, September 9, 2013

Sacraments as a Charismatic Experience



Sacraments as a Charismatic Experience

Through the course of my life, I have become totally convinced that the Holy Spirit is alive and well, moving about where He will, and doing what He wants. Healings, tongues, prophecies, spiritual warfare, etc., etc., etc.. I think they all live.  The problem is, of course, that sometimes people get addicted to the manifestations of the Spirit because of its incredibility; and forget all about falling in love with the Person.

One of my problems with the modern evangelical church is it’s loathe of the sacraments. We deny all but two, and then tame those two until they are not sacred, nor mysterious. We in the evangelical church prefer things to be simple and easy to understand. I can’t tell you how many explanations that I had from well-meaning pastors and teachers who began their descriptions of very holy things with: “It’s nothing more than….”

Nothing More

Prayer is nothing more than talking to God. A sermon is nothing more than talking to people. Baptism is nothing more than a public declaration of your faith. Communion is nothing more than remembering Christ’s sacrifice. A church is nothing more than Christians gathering. Christianity is nothing more than a relationship with Jesus. I think you get my point.

We have haunted ourselves with incredible reductions in our faith, stressing what may be primarily important, but is not totally important. As the body of Christ; we have, in the interest of drawing attention to the head, hacked off the arms and legs. We claim that the arms and legs should not be confused with the head (which is true), but make our mistake and say that the arms and the legs are old popish inventions that ought to be thrown out.

The older I get, the more I realize the folly of our reactions. We are guilty of unnecessary reduction for more than just the sacraments. We threw out the hymns so that people would know that they aren’t the most important thing. We generally did away with liturgy in order to show that the Spirit is free to move in our services. Some have even insisted that the Old Testament be thrown out so that we can focus on God’s grace and mercy.

The truth is, prayer actually is more than talking to God. A sermon is more than talking to people. Baptism is more than a public declaration of our faith. Communion is more than remembering Christ’s sacrifice.

At the very least, these things are also sacred. They are a move of intimacy, discovery, and passion between us and God. Each of those practices is more than the simple description. They are at least an invitation as well. Please, for God’s sake, can’t we abandon the “nothing more” descriptions of what our most sacred practices are; substituting instead “it’s at least,” so that we might be able to teach the deepness and richness of our faith tradition?

Charismatics Should Know Better

Charismatics should know better. Everyone should know better, really, but charismatics especially. We know that the Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways, and that supernatural manifestations are all part of His power and person. But, we Charismatics (I’m calling myself a Charismatic now, among other things) still shy away from affirming the supernatural nature of the sacraments. This is insanity.

We are more prone to grant legitimacy to a claim of Divine healing, or a prophecy, than we grant legitimacy to the presence of Christ’s body and blood in our communion practice. When someone stands up and babbles incoherently, we give more credence to that as a supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit than we do to what is happening during a baptism. We fall victim to the “nothing more” explanations of the most sacred of our practices.

What? And more importantly: What are we accomplishing by doing this?

Sacrament Is Not Euphemism

Why do we not take seriously the words of Jesus Christ, Son of the Most High: “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”(John 6:54).
We mistakenly claim that Christ’s words here are euphemistic. Same as when He claimed that Lazarus was “asleep.” We say that Jesus said “asleep” but meant “dead.” He said one thing but meant another; to be nice, I suppose. He didn’t want to upset His disciples.

But Jesus wasn’t saying one thing, and meaning another; He was saying one thing which equated to another. He claimed Lazarus was asleep. He also claimed that Lazarus was dead. He wasn’t being cute, and He wasn’t lying. Both were true. To prove that Jesus had the ability to wake the dead, or raise the sleeping, He commanded Lazarus to life. Then Lazarus was both awake, and alive. Both true.

The use of euphemism surely does happen in Scripture. When Ruth lays next to Boaz’s “feet,” the reader may properly assume the text is not talking about Boaz’s feet. Sorry if that makes you squirm. Boaz and Ruth were honorable before God.

But Jesus makes two claims that would be unwise to mistake for euphemism. The first I have already mentioned. Jesus Christ takes great pains to instruct His disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Many disciples leave Him, but He does not stop them and say, “Hey, relax people. I was speaking euphemistically. Don’t worry about it. I meant something else entirely… ha ha ha… and nobody will figure it out till the Protestants in the mid 1500’s finally put it together.”

The second example is of new birth, which Jesus discusses with Nicodemus in John chapter 3. When Jesus says that a man must be born again, Nicodemus nearly chokes on his chin. How can a man be born again? How can these things be? Jesus answers:

“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. I fI have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”

Jesus therefore insists that a man actually does have to be born by water, and of Spirit. One does not substitute the other. They both must be true.

Opening Our Definition of Sacrament

We ought to then change our definition of sacrament, from “Sacrament is nothing more than an earthly sign of a heavenly truth” to “Sacrament is at least an earthly sign of a heavenly truth.”
Otherwise, what we do is make Christ’s words euphemism, rather than profound supernatural truth.

If we can believe that so-and-so from our congregation was healed miraculously from cancer, or that so-and-so is possessed by the Spirit when they make a prophecy to us, or that our prayer language is Spirit mutterings; why do we insist that our sacraments are “nothing more?”