Spirituality and a Son of Man
By
Stephen S. Carver June 9, 2005
Several who have read my book The UnGospel have indicated a concern about where the implications of my work lead in terms of spiritual questions such as God’s revelation to humanity, atonement for sins, and living a life devoted to God. It is the perspective of some that the loss of Christology, as outlined in my book, deconstructs spirituality to the point of non-existence, leaving a generic religiosity inapplicable of creating a context for devotion to God. In this brief response, I will indicate my perspective that such a critique is unwarranted, not only in terms of what is left within the context of the perspective of the historical Jesus (as demarcated in my book) but also in terms of the wider biblical evidence. What follows is my perspective on how spirituality can function apart from the Christology that evolved during the church’s early years.
The Revelation of God
As is well known, theologians often divide revelation into two categories: general revelation and special revelation. General revelation involves making observations about the wonder of the material world and connected these observations to the idea that an intelligent being must have created it. Something as simple as marveling at the birth of a child or gazing at the stars in the heavens has prompted many throughout the centuries to come to the conclusion that there must be a God who created all things. Two of the four philosophical arguments for the existence of God point in this direction. The cosmological argument contends that items in motion must have been put into motion. Since the universe demonstrates motion, there must have been a first mover, a God who started all things. The teleological argument contends the universe demonstrates design; hence, some being must have designed it. On one level then, the existence of God is reflected in the created order, and therefore, reflection on the nature of creation can lead one to insights about the nature of God. Yet, such understanding is limited. While the details of creation demonstrate God’s brilliance, what conclusion can one gain from observing the brutality apparent in the cycle of life, in which animals eat each other. Does this brutality say something about God or does it indicate something about creation going awry? To come to a conclusion about such matters is difficult apart from information other than general revelation. Here is where special revelation is important. The concept of special revelation involves the belief that God chooses to reveal Himself in significant ways to chosen individuals, who in turn communicate that revelation to others. The question is: how conclusive is such knowledge? The answer to that question depends on one’s understanding of the process of gaining special revelation. If, as some contend, revelation comes in a pristine literal fashion with no alteration by the human conduit, then the case could be made that special revelation is foolproof and completely trustworthy. The problem in establishing this view is that all religious texts, regardless of their tradition of origin, reflect tensions and disagreements, as demonstrated by scholarly research. This is particularly the case when it comes to the biblical text. A reading of the Christian Bible reveals texts that promote war and others that denounce it, texts that call for animal sacrifice and those rejecting them, and texts that promote a nationalistic understanding of Israel and those calling for a spiritualized understanding of Israel. These texts exist in one and the same book. Intellectual honesty requires such acknowledgement. In order to explain these tensions, some have contended that God’s revelation is dispensational in nature. God works in different ways at different times. However, in moving in this direction, the dispensationalists have only really indicated that there is no consistency of thought, but rather drastic changes at key points in history. For conservative Christian scholars, this is not perceived of as a difficulty because they contend God’s revelation has reached a pinnacle in the sending of His son. From their perspective, while previous revelation was limited and ultimately ineffectual, this final revelation is perfect and complete, and hence unalterable. By making such a move, they are attempting to end all discussion about the nature of God and the significance of human existence. Yet, in so doing, they have chosen to downplay the fact that the final revelation they want to point to, namely that Jesus Christ is the second member of the Trinity and hence reflects God’s final revelation, is not represented in the Christian texts. The word “Trinity” is not a biblical term, but one that was used almost two hundred years after Jesus’ death. If, as the conservatives scholars contend, such revelation is final as indicated in the Christian texts, then why did it take the church several hundred more years to develop its understanding? The idea that God’s revelation reached its climax in the Christian texts is a denial of the development of the creeds, which became the basis for traditional Christianity. Moreover it is a denial of the transition within Christian texts from labeling Jesus as the son of man to labeling Jesus as the Christ. A simple concordance search reveals that son of man language virtually ends with the Gospels. Yet, this evolution is not accounted for in the final revelation arguments. While it is my perspective that special revelation does occur due to God’s desire to direct His people, it is also my perspective that God does not give humanity access to all that God is or knows. God as infinite other can hardly be summed up in a paragraph nor can His perspective about our standing before Him be controlled by a formula of our creation. The nature of special revelation, as demonstrated in the biblical texts, involves reception by a human being who spoke a specific language, lived in a specific culture, and had a specific historical context. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle of Galatians in Greek and addressed it to an audience in southern Galatia. When we read it, we are reading someone else’s mail. We don’t have ready access to all that was going on in Galatia nor to what Paul was thinking when he wrote it, other than what the text says and limited archeological evidence. To pretend that Paul wrote this letter with the intent of it being considered relevant for all time in all situations is overreaching the evidence in front of us.. Now, someone might note that my observations leave the door too wide open. How can one know anything if special revelation is so limited? To this question, I offer the following thoughts. On the one hand, the biblical text itself demonstrates divine adjustments in light of human issues. For example, God decided to destroy the world with a flood in the days of Noah in light of human sin. While Genesis 1 indicates God believed the world was “very good,” by Genesis 6 God had decided that He had made a mistake. Another example of divine adjustment is God agreeing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah should at least ten righteous people be found, after Abraham negotiated with him. Such negotiation or intervention is also apparent when Moses interceded for the Israelites, convincing God not to destroy them completely after the incident of the golden calf. A further example of God’s willingness to make adjustments involves Israel’s request for a king. While God clearly stated that their desire will not lead to a good result, God nevertheless granted them a king. These examples, and many more like them, demonstrate that special revelation is tailored to human receptivity and need. Yet, on the other hand, a close reading of biblical texts can also reveal patterns of thought, which when coupled with observations of historical patterns, can be enlightening. For example, prior to God’s judgment of the Israelites, warnings were issued by prophets concerning the lack of social concern in Israel, and how that lack was the reason why they were being judged. This observation, coupled with observations about how societies are endangered by economic inequity, can become the basis for a statement about God’s concern for the poor. Here is where general revelation and special revelation can inform each other. If there is one God who has created all things, then it seems reasonable to expect that He would want His creation cared for. Economists have demonstrated that there is enough wealth on this earth to end world poverty, demonstrating that God has provided for all of humanity, but we have selfishly not distributed that wealth. Nowhere is this idea more clearly stated then within the sayings of the historical Jesus. It was Jesus who called for radical giving to the poor, and it was Jesus who stated that proper treatment of the poor was the pathway to eternal life. It is not surprising that Jesus chose the title “son of man” for labeling the nature of work, because his focus was on improving human existence. If Jesus’ words and example were to be followed, is it not reasonable to assume that the world would be a better place for all of us? Is this not what he meant when he talked about the kingdom of God on earth? What good is revelation if it doesn’t lead to transformation? The claim to specific final revelation disconnected from care for the other has only lead to arrogance and abuse, as the history of the church has demonstrated. As creatures instead of the Creator, it would be better if we would approach the limits of our understanding with humility and attempt to apply what we know is within our reach. We have been entrusted with a stewardship of the earth and what it contains; yet we prefer to speculate on heaven. We have outsmarted ourselves with sophisticated thoughts that don’t necessarily lead to action. As the writer of 1 John notes, if we cannot love our brother whom we see, then we don’t love God whom we cannot see. Such an idea points to the need for action we take as a demonstration of our faith in God. This approach to spirituality (i.e., care for others as the pathway to God) is markedly different from a passive belief system dependent upon the death of an innocent victim.
Atonement for Sins
The idea that the Christ died for the sins of all humanity, and hence became the only way humans can be forgiven of sin, is central to traditional Christian convictions. One of the concerns about my book is that I have identified this aspect as based on secondary traditions that were part of an attempt to contextualize the Gospel message for the Gentile world. In making this identification, the charge is that I have eliminated the only way God can forgive sins. This argument is based on two Christian beliefs. First, that all humans are inherently sinful and are in need of forgiveness, and second that God can only forgive sins if something dies because God requires payment for sins. Concerning the first of these beliefs, certainly biblical texts and historical evidence confirms humans are capable of the most grievous of sins. Yet, both also confirm the opposite. Humans are capable of the most marvelous of behaviors. When God creates humans according to Genesis 1, He does so in His image. The traditional Christian view is that that image is shattered by Adam’s sin. Yet, in Genesis 9 the image of God is upheld as still being a reality. In its attempt to lump all humanity in the same category of need for salvation, traditional Christianity negates the wonder of human thought and goodness that comes from the hand of the Creator. The two-year old child who shares his or her toys isn’t really doing a good thing, because goodness cannot be done apart from acceptance of Christ. The third world tribe that lives in harmony with its environment and has its own moral code is not righteous because it hasn’t accepted the formula created by traditional Christianity. It doesn’t matter whether or not the tribe lives in peace, because whatever they have generated isn’t good enough. They are sinners from birth in need of salvation provided via Christian teaching. Anyone who knows world history, particularly African and South American history knows that the invasion of Christian Europeans into these continents did not lead to peaceful transformation but rather brutality and slavery. Forced conversions did not make the people better. It only made them bitter. The cause and effect of human behavior is not altered by a doctrine. The biblical concept of sowing and reaping is not negated by belief. Christians who are abusive make things worse for others, and non-Christians who are kind make things better for others. Belief does not trump behavior. History proves this, as does personal experience. Of course, a counter response could be that behavior follows belief, and that doctrine influences action. I agree that this is true. People act according to what they believe is true. But how does the doctrine of original sin and atonement aid proper behavior? Such a teaching promotes the idea that humans are incapable of doing the right thing. There is an automatic excuse for bad behavior, and an accompanying belief that salvation is not dependent upon doing what is right. Rather than promoting care for others, such a doctrine can have the opposite effect. Original sin/atonements ideas do not requirea repentance from bad behavior but a repentance of unbelief. If humans are capable of doing the right thing because God has made it so, then not to do the right thing is a denial of God. Is this not what Jesus taught in Matthew 25 in the parable of the sheep and the goats? Those who cared for the hurting were given eternal life and those who did not were cast into Hades. When Jesus was asked by a lawyer concerning the way to eternal life in Luke 10, Jesus told him to love his neighbor. No sacrifice was mentioned in either context. This brings me to some observations about the concept of sacrifice as the only way to be forgiven of sins. First of all I want to note that this doctrine is making an ultimate claim about the nature of God that is contrary to what Christian tradition teaches about how humans are to respond to human sin. According to Christian teaching, when someone sins against another, the appropriate response is forgiveness apart from requiring a payment. This is interesting because it implies that God’s creatures are expected to and thus have the capacity to forgive apart from sacrifice, yet God is unable to do so. Not only is this an internal inconsistency within Christian thought but it does not take into account the tensions within the biblical text. For example, while animal sacrifice is upheld as the pathway to forgiveness in Leviticus, it does not cover such sins as murder and adultery. This lack of atonement is all the more striking in light of King David’s prayer in Psalm 51 in which he asks God to forgive for these same sins, not based on animal sacrifice but based on the lovingkindness of God. According to the text of 2 Samuel, God did forgive him, although there were still certain consequences for his sin. The tension between a sacrificial understanding of atonement and a non-sacrificial understanding is also evident in the context of Isaiah 1, in which God rejects the sacrifices of the Israelites because the sacrifices are not changing their hearts. In order for them to be cleansed, God requires that them to begin to treat the orphan, the widow, and the stranger appropriately. According to this passage, God will cleanse them from sin if they take care of the poor. This is very similar to what is found in Luke 3, in the ministry of John the Baptist who refuses to baptize the multitudes for the forgiveness of sins unless they produce fruits worthy repentance. Such fruits include sharing food and clothing as well as treating people respectfully. The historical Jesus also followed a non-sacrificial pathway to forgiveness of sin and in certain cases, such as in the story of Zaccheus in Luke 19, forgiveness is granted when right action is taken. In other cases, the forgiveness seems to be granted based on the faith of the person. For example in Mark 2, Jesus pronounces the forgiveness of sins of the paralytic, and does so based on authority connected to the son of man concept. In this particular instance, one could contend that Jesus is making a claim that he alone has the right to forgive sins. What is interesting is that the verb form used in the pronouncement of sins is not a present first person but rather a third person perfect passive. The man’s sins have been forgiven. If Jesus was claiming that he alone had the authority to forgive sins, then why not do it more directly? The evidence in the primary traditions in the Synoptic Gospels suggests that Jesus promoted repentance among the “sinners” by caring for them and encouraging them to approach God directly. For example, in the Lord’s Prayer, forgiveness is something that can be asked for from God, who is their Father. Yet, one would hardly ask for forgiveness unless one had faith that it would be granted. Hence, Jesus’ approach to the question of forgiveness of sins seemed to based on his belief that God was not stingy with forgiveness but willing to forgive all who had faith in Him. Of course, such a view is in tension with the sacrificial approach and leaves open the question as to why sacrifice was ever connected to forgiveness. My sense is that the sacrificial approach to atonement was an allowance for human need. The ancients were steeped in a culture of sacrifice. It is evident in all ancient societies. The Israelites needed a bridge between what they knew and where God was. If one reads closely the opening portion of the giving of the Mosaic covenant in Exodus 20-24, one does not read about sacrifice, but rather about morality and proper treatment of each other. The emphasis on sacrifice comes after the Golden Calf incident, as though it were something that God instituted to connect with the Israelites on a more primal level. That God was never interested in sacrifice is evident in texts such as Jeremiah 7:22-23 which states: “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you’” (NAS). From this passage, it is apparent that God’s desire is for relationship and not a tit for tat sacrificial legalism. When Israel went down the road of believing sacrifice meant automatic forgiveness of sins, God rebuked them (Isaiah 1). I would contend that the Christian belief in such a formulaic approach to forgiveness is equally flawed. At the point at which the ethic of loving one’s neighbor is no longer operative, forgiveness is no longer operative. And if this is the case, then why not go directly to the life style and by-pass the formula?
A Life of Devotion to God
For traditional Christianity, the answer to the above question is that God must justify us before we can begin to venture into a life style that is pleasing to God. From this perspective, the argument is that God cannot pour His Spirit upon humans unless they have the perfect belief. What this seems to mean is that humans don’t have the freedom or ability to choose good unless they have first chosen the right belief. If this were so, it would mean that I cannot help someone to fix a flat tire unless I first have accepted the Christological formula. Conservative Christians get around this by indicating people can do good things, but this meaningless in terms of salvation because nothing can be done humanly to remove sin. But what is sin? Doesn’t sin involve hurting our neighbor? If we stop hurting our neighbor and start helping, haven’t we passed from one way of life into another? The conservative counter-response might be that such behavior might indeed be better but it doesn’t satisfy God who is offended by our sin and thus cannot even look upon us until a cleansing of our souls takes place via Jesus’ blood. Certainly, one can see how this view developed based on Christian texts such as the Epistle to the Hebrews; however, how does it square with the wider canon? Take for instance God’s intervention in the story of Cain and Abel. Right before Cain murders his brother, God speaks to Caan and encourages him not to do it. If God cannot look upon sin, how is it possible for Him to speak so directly to Cain after the Fall and at a time when Caan is contemplated killing his brother? Even after Cain kills Abel, God comes and speaks to him. The Bible is full of stories where God is considered to be active in the lives of people who do not have a Christological connection. From Abraham to Josiah, biblical characters make good and bad decisions that affect others in powerful ways, and God’s presence is found throughout, either encouraging those who are doing well or correcting those who don’t. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want a good life, full of meaning and significance. Many of those same people believe that such a life is only possible via the presence of God or the influence of the Spirit of God. The question is how does one gain access to the God’s presence? In some ways, this question itself is the crux of the problem. It implies that God’s presence is far away and only available under certain circumstances. Once again, the biblical evidence suggests otherwise. Creation exists by the power of God. The breath of life that we all have within us is God’s gift. If He removes our breath, then we would die. From this perspective, all humans have God’s presence. If they didn’t, they would cease to exist. Perhaps the better question then is this: how can I live in such a way as to please and/or honor the presence of God that is within me? According to my understanding of the historical Jesus, his view involved the belief that such a way was not so far away or difficult to find. Jesus says in Luke 17:20-21 that the kingdom of God is within us. This is similar to Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, which states: “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it” (NAS). If it were so that God made it hard for humans to draw closer to Him, then this would make God unjust. This is equally true if one contends that what we do doesn’t matter; only what we believe. In this paradigm, the one helping his neighbor is condemned to eternal damnation if belief is lacking while the one denying his neighbor is saved if belief exists. Under such a system God is not interested in what promotes peace on earth, but only on the capacity of a person to assent to a formula.
Concluding Comments I take my spirituality very seriously. I read Scripture every morning and pray at least two times a day. I am involved in several Bible studies and attend services regularly. I believe in the spiritual disciplines. In all of this however I am keenly aware of my dependence upon God for daily forgiveness and daily physical and spiritual sustenance. In my spiritual reflections, I have found Jesus’ words and example helpful particularly in the areas of the Fatherhood of God, the need to treat my neighbor as myself, and his interpretation of the Torah. It is that place of ethical awareness where I found the greatest sense of God’s presence. In those times where I give up what might be best for me in order to make someone else’s life better I find the greatest joy. The reverse is also true for me. When I am harsh and bitter toward others, I sense an emptiness in my soul, a lack of peace. Ultimately, my sense then is this. The extent to which I care for others who are made in the image of God I am showing reverence for God, who I believe blesses me. I realize that this is a belief that I cannot prove, but it is the witness within my soul. And such a witness occurs apart from the Christological formulation. I fully realize that is not the case for others, but it is the case for me. Hence I can say firmly that writing The UnGospel has not led me to a place of unbelief and lack of care for others, but rather the opposite has been true. I sense more fully the presence of God and my obligation to Him, because I no longer rely upon a formulaic buffer that protects me from doing the hard work of caring for others. I am accountable before God because He has given me the ability to do the right thing. I, as a son of man (i.e., a human being), am a creature dependent upon the Creator. I attempt to honor Him with the way that I live my life.