Ah, I see I have not made myself crystal clear; let me clear that up.
I really wasn't speaking to the ignorance that many young Christians have concerning their present citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven. I had more in mind those mature Christians who, knowing they already participate in eternal life, still are unable to live out the faith they proclaim.
I think the case has been made that everywhere Christianity has gone in the world it has taken on the patina of the new culture in which it finds itself. Clearly, looking only at the outward manifestations of the faith, there is a difference between "Western" Christianity and Christianity as practiced on the continent of Africa, or in middle China, as just two examples. We seem unable to pull our feet out of the muck of whatever corner of the world in which we find ourselves and walk the golden streets of heaven. Certainly the influences of Plato in first century Christendom are another example, but it doesn't seem to me that Plato should take the blame for the manifestations of Indio/Hispanic culture found in the faith as practiced in Central America.
I have become somewhat amused by the various attempts over the years by different sects, if you will, that have attempted to "return to the first century church", which itself was aculturized by the Mediteranean (sp) society in which it lived. I'm amused because, while I do think such attempts are valid and faithful, no one ever seems to want to go the extra step and practice the faith like the One who introduced it into the world in the first place, Jesus Christ Himself. Somehow the thought seems to be that "if we can trade our post-modern culture for the culture of first century Jerusalem and Rome, we'll be much better Christians". I doubt that's true; at best it's a trading of the culture we know for a culture we only think we know.
Perhaps it's because we are unable to practice Christianity as Christ did. Granted, it sure wouldn't be an easy task to undertake. When I read the gospels looking for Christ's manner and method of ministry, here is what I see:
He made no direct attempt to establish an institutional church anywhere or by any particular liturgy or doctrine. He made no mention of denomination, sect, cult, or derivation of faith at all. He established no dogma or doctrine, although I hasten to add that we humans immediately fashioned our own doctrines and attached them to His words just as soon as He was out of our presence. (I'm not saying there is no doctrine to be found in the gospels; I'm just saying that any there is, at best, indirectly alluded to rather than firmly established by our Lord.) So, how did Jesus "do ministry"?
Wherever He woke on any given day He set out along the Way; speaking, teaching, healing and otherwise dealing with whomever He met as He traveled. He seemingly gave no thought most of the time to what direction He traveled, nor did He often seem to have any particular destination in mind. Wherever He found Himself at night, He (presumably) found a place to sleep, from where the next morning He arose and did it all over again. He left no "house churches" in His wake, constructed no cathedrals or temples, and from all evidence gave very little thought to His earthly surroundings (we know He was very aware of the earth and all its glory, however, for it was the trappings of the earth which punctuated His parables).
The closest thing I can find to Jesus' model of ministry in history is the story of Johnny Appleseed, and I don't think that had quite the same goals in mind. I can't think of a single Christian known to history who followed His model of ministry. Perhaps some of the early Christian monks came closest, but I think it's telling that, by and large, they are unknown to history.
In short, I don't know of course, but I have to wonder if this (Jesus' ministry) isn't what Bonhoeffer was thinking about when he began talking about "religionless Christianity". And again, I hasten to add that I couldn't do it myself. I don't see how I could minister after the manner of Jesus ... and still have a wife and family. We "know" the glories of heaven, but we are unable to give up the comforts of the world. I think that is our dualism. Our heads are in the clouds, but our feet are stuck in the mud of everyday concerns.
If we are ever able to slough off the dualism which I think is a condition of our humanity, we will have to find a way to introduce our heads to our feet, so to speak, and I think that is only possible ... and barely at that ... through the avenue of our hearts. And if you must know, I see this forum as a microcosm of the problem; there are many here from practically all persuasions of Christianity who have filled their minds with the intricacies of Scripture, but who, from their manner of speaking to each other, give very little evidence that they have ever opened their hearts to Christ.
Long story short, in my view we are dualists because we are humans, and no matter how often we tell ourselves that we are citizens of heaven and only sojourners in the world we can't ever quite act like we truly and fully believe that.
Whether all that can be laid at the feet of Plato, I'll leave to bb. :)
That is true. God finds people where he finds them. They awaken, when they do, where they are, and start the journey toward God from where they were when he found them.
So at one level there is nothing surprising in the fact that Roman christians would have a Roman world view, and American christians would have an American world view. And so on.
The other side of it is that, while each culture brings a certain flavor into Christianity, it is itself transformed over time. Plant the seed of Christ into a culture and the culture itself will be transformed.
But I reject the notion that as each separate culture is undone and redone, transformed, that they will be exchanged for some kind of uniformity. There will be a common philosophical language which will unite them, but people being as they are this common philosophical language does not mean uniformity. God didn't create billions of unique individuals with the idea of making them uniform, and they won't be.
I particularly like your observation that Jesus imposed no dogma, no doctrine, and planted no churches. Its a pretty simple message, love God and love your neighbor. Its one that awakens humanity, it isn't one that pushes humanity into uniform boxes. People often bring their chains with them when they come into the faith, and some make a virtue of them. It takes a while to clear all that out, like cleaning out the attic every once in a while. It is poignant work as you take treasured junk to the dump but you have to do it to make room for what comes next.
What a wonderful essay, logos!
The only historical figure I can think of who actually tried to live the way Christ did -- in itinerant ministry -- was Francis of Assisi. He chose a life of total poverty, relying solely on the Lord for his daily bread, and a place to lay his head down to sleep at the end of the day. Only in this way, Francis believed, could he truly live a life in imitation of Christ. Obviously, there are few takers for this sort of thing. Very few people would choose a life like this -- with the possible exception of "street people." (I.e., the "homeless," many of whom have mental disabilities and substance abuse problems....)
I don't think we can blame Plato for the dualism of human life. His was a "cosmology of wholeness." He recognized that man was "part beast, and part divine" -- but sees the parts as complementary, and in their dynamic relations as constituting one whole -- Man. This model suggests that man actually does live both in time and in Eternity. I'm not sure, however, that Plato would see this as an instance of "duality." The material world is "in time"; but the spiritual world -- the divine -- is eternal; and man incorporates both within himself.
The symbol that comes to mind is the Christian Cross. The vertical is the timeless projection of the soul, from its ground in the cosmos -- which I also imagine to partake of the divine, since it is an expression of divine creative will -- to its search of the divine Beyond whose great symbol, for Plato, was the Agathon. (This not God Himself, but the vision of divine perfection and goodness.) For man, both "ends" stretch virtually without limit beyond man's ability to perceive them; but man's inner life is experienced as a tension between the two "pulls."
The horizontal of the Cross, running perpendicular to the vertical: This is the line of time.
In the vertical axis, time past, present, and future are simultaneous -- thus "timelessness" is the nature of the soul, psyche. This has been referred to as the Eternal Now. On the horizontal, time is linear, sequential, and unidirectional. This is the line that people spontaneously see, for its deals with past, present, and future -- and the last is of great concern to most men, both inside and outside the meaning you give, as an expectation of a "future heaven."
But actually, "heaven" is already "in us" -- along the vertical line. Few people notice this, however.
Which is why I've speculated that Hell is not necessarily a future possibility only. We can have living Hells -- which would result from the "poor order of the psyche" (which I interpret as lack of conformance with "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as a famous secularist once put it), running along the vertical line.
Of course, poor order there is inevitably played out along the horizontal time line. It is a translation of psychic disorder into the empirical realm, both personal and social.
I have to leave it there for now, logos, and get back to work!
Thank you so very much for your beautiful essay!
Jesus knew exactly where He was, and where He was going at all times during His ministry on earth. He wasn't a "wandering monk" going aimlessly about the Galilee and throughout Judea.
Just thinking about His trip through Samaria proves that. Jesus said that He "must needs go through Samaria." Why? Because He had an appointment to keep, just like on every other day of His ministry.
What would make one "unable" in your eyes? I would say that many are unwilling not unable. If they ate not willing , then perhaps they are unable because the lack the grace necessary
He made no direct attempt to establish an institutional church anywhere or by any particular liturgy or doctrine.
Scripture appears to indicate that Jesus spoke with purpose .
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mar 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard [it], and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
Jesus was after all a Rabbi , a teacher, that taught in the Temple at times.
Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
The apostles knew the import of passing on correct doctrine
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
I am afraid if we see Jesus as a wandering and aimless man that had had no doctrine , we present a flawed image of God made man .
2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If Ye have seen me YOU HAVE SEE THE FATHER that sent me.
I think we can all agree that the Father is the perfect model of organization
Wherever He woke on any given day He set out along the Way; speaking, teaching, healing and otherwise dealing with whomever He met as He traveled. He seemingly gave no thought most of the time to what direction He traveled, nor did He often seem to have any particular destination in mind.
I believe Jesus well knew His destination was Calvary and every step was ordained to bring him closer.
As shown in the Mar 11:18 quote above Jesus spoke at times and place that would lead to the crisis with the Jews and bring Him to the cross.
He could have come to heal Lazarus before he died...but He delayed coming so that He could display His power in a way that would be the catalyst that sealed His fate.
Here is something else you said in #39:
(I'm not saying there is no doctrine to be found in the gospels; I'm just saying that any there is, at best, indirectly alluded to rather than firmly established by our Lord.)
Why would you post something like that? Jesus is the most doctrinaire person in the Bible.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - Jn 14:6 (KJV)He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - Jn 3:18 (KJV)
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Mt 5:48 (KJV)
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man. - Mk 7:20-23 (KJV)
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. - Lk 10:13-16 (KJV)
Are you saying that you see no "firmly established" doctrine in those verses?