Stop. That's what I did at this point in the Wall Street Journal book review. I stopped and thought, Haven't I heard this before?One would imagine that two millennia would provide ample occasion for exhaustive study of Jesus of Nazareth, and yet somehow every generation seems to find some new way to think about him. Our own age is no exception. For more than a century now, believers and skeptics alike have tried to strip theology from biography, to rediscover the man, Jesus, who lived before the faith, Christianity.
At its best, this modern approach to Jesus combines nuanced interpretation with thought-provoking argument. At its worst, it pretends to discern, say, what Jesus might consider the optimal rate of taxation or how he might direct American policy in the Middle East. Happily, Tod Lindberg's "The Political Teachings of Jesus" belongs among the smart, sophisticated writings on the topic. Mr. Lindberg does not study Jesus' political teachings with an eye toward public policy or partisan advantage. His interest, in fact, inclines to social philosophy. He treats Jesus as a profound thinker, a man with great insight into the enduring question of how we may best live together.
Actually, I hear this all the time. "Jesus was a great teacher;" "he was a charismatic rabbi;" "he was a rebel." There is some truth to these descriptors, but they are ridiculous to use unless -- and this is a big unless, because most often I hear these statements from non-Christians -- you believe Jesus was who he said he was. Because, as C.S. Lewis reminds us, Jesus was either "lord, lunatic or liar."
4 comments:
Why is it ridiculous for those who do not believe he was the son of God. Do they throw out Plato, Aristotle and Socrates because they were not divine?
They merely are stating that Jesus was a influential person with interesting thoughts which we have redeveloped over the centuries.
The problem is, as far as I know, Plato and the other Greek greats never entertained the idea that they were the Son of God, the chosen redeemer of the world. They were philosophers and, in Socrates' case, martyrs. But they did not profess to be living atonements, except for possibly righting the follies of ignorance.
True - they did not say that. But, I'm still not sure why that means that non-believers can't learn from his teachings.
Jesus is not the only religious figure to receive such attention. How many people revere and respect the teachings of the Buhuda, Mohamed, the Dali Lama, etc...
Actually, Christianity does not have sole claim on Jesus. Islamic teachings and specifically the Quran go at great lengths into Jesus, his miraculous birth, a bit about his life and also very much into the mother of Jesus- Mary or Mariam, as an entire chapter of the Quran is devoted to her by the very fact that it is named after her.
Also as far as divinity, its a matter of perspective within the Christian faith. There are Christians out there that do not take the Nician Creed (I believe thats what it is called) and so do not divinify (is that a word) Jesus (Peace be upon them-all the times mentioned aboved)
I do think one can learn from the teachings and not necessarily have to belive that he is "lord, lunatic or liar". Because for those Christians out there who do not accept him, then they must believe in something "looney or untrue"?
Post a Comment