Currents of Faith: Open and Unfolding Reflections

My theology guides me to seek experience to understand events. I began with searching the books between the bookends of Jesus’ life, the actual history of what Jesus said and did. I now turn to my search for the experiences of the church expressed in the bookends of Christmas and Easter. I move from what Jesus said to what was said about Jesus, from proclaimer to proclaimed.

I think that the earliest experiences of Jesus’ followers after his death were confusion, distress, loss, and disorientation. Their beloved leader had been executed by the Empire. This is not the way the story was supposed to unfold. In this midst of this quandary, I think that the followers experienced the presence of Jesus. Intertwined with their distress and loss they felt empowered, enriched, and alive. If they had only felt lost, I think they would have simply returned home and resumed their earlier way of life. They did not!

The followers were Jewish and considered Jesus the Messiah, the long expected one who would free and save their people. But the Messiah was not to end up executed. This simply was not in the story they had been told. The Messiah was either to come on the clouds as a divine figure with great power who would make everything right or he was to be the great warrior who would gather an army and handily defeat the oppressors. Neither of these came to pass. This meant that the task of the followers was to make sense of this terrible turn of events.

The first experiences were of loss and distress. The next set of experiences was the search to understand a Messiah who dies at the hands of the oppressors, not one who single handily removes the oppressors or who commands an army which does so. If we had our video camera with us, I believe we would see those few followers who could read desperately searching their scriptures, the Hebrew Bible, for answers. And they found them, not just one but several
  
The primary finding was the image of the sacrificial animal: the lamb who was sacrificed to take away sin of an individual or the scapegoat who removed the sin of a community. One of their first discoveries, then, was, “He died for us.” In their own scripture they knew that only through the shedding of blood were sinners saved. Purifying required  blood.
 
Another image was that of the suffering servant portrayed by the prophet Isaiah: “He was bruised for our iniquities. By his stripes are we healed.” Thus, the death of Jesus had meaning; they were healed by his suffering and death. They located the importance of his birthplace, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel…”[Micah5.2]

Within the Psalms they found words which would speak of Jesus’ dying. “My God, my God, why have your forsaken me? All who see me mock at me, let him deliver him. I am poured out like water. They divide my clothes among themselves and for my clothing they cast lots.”

Through these images, understanding began to emerge for them. They began to see why the one they thought to be the Messiah was destined to die. I am certain that these insights brought great relief. However, I would raise the question of the adequacy of the image of Messiah to describe Jesus. Perhaps the problem was in their initial placing of this title on Jesus. Did the template really fit who Jesus was, what he said and what he did?

It is important to me that there were limited images in their culture to understand and find meaning in Jesus, their beloved leader who was not supposed to die yet did. The image of sacrifice was probably one of the two most central images of their day. They were accustomed to taking their pigeon or lamb to the priest as a sacrifice for an individual sin and had participated in the transfer of the sins of the community through the priest to the goat in their midst. Even more, they observed the Romans offering animal sacrifices to their panoply of gods. Those images were alive and vivid in their experiences. They knew that only through the shedding of blood was sin removed, just as we moderns know that antibiotics curtail infections and analgesics moderate pain. They knew what healed.

A second image in their experience, indeed, vividly imprinted on them daily was that of the Empire of Rome. In so many ways in daily life they were constantly reminded of this presence. Inscriptions carved on stone described Augustus Caesar as Lord and Savior who had brought peace to the earth.

“The eternal and immortal nature of everything has bestowed upon mankind the greatest good with extraordinary benefactions by bringing Caesar Augustus in our blessed time the father of his own country, divine Rome, and ancestral Zeus, Savior of the common race of men, whose providence has not only fulfilled but actually exceeded the prayers of all. For land and sea are at Peace and the cities flourish with good order, concord, and prosperity.” [ John Dominic Crossan, God and  Empire, p 108]

In the Kingdom of Caesar there was a divine savior of mankind. The early followers who had heard Jesus speak of the Kingdom of God found in him their own image of a divine savior who had saved the people. I do believe that in their experience, they were saying, “we have one too.” We have one born by a virgin, as Caesar was. We have one who is therefore divine, as was Caesar. We have one who has saved us, as Caesar did.

This image of a divine savior of the Roman Empire and of all humanity was known and available to the early followers of Jesus. I think they employed this image to help understand Jesus. They wove it into the writings which would become the New Testament. The stories which we celebrate at Christmas speak of the virgin and the birth of Jesus. Thus, I think the image of Caesar helped to form the first bookend in the life of Jesus.

I do wonder if Jesus had been born, had spoken, acted and died in our generation which images in our culture we would use to understand him. Which beloved persons would we find to make sense of Jesus? What honored acts in our history would be brought out to explain Jesus? The earliest followers of Jesus worked with what they had, using the pictures, images, concepts, and traditions of their day to find meaning in Jesus. They imagined, spoke of, lived by, and recorded their discoveries in what we today call the New Testament.

They were faced with a dilemma. They felt a new Presence and sensed a new peace within their lives, yet they had their original expectations blown away. This was their problem to solve. They searched and found their answers in the years between 30 CE and about 100 CE.

If we leave the first century and fast forward three hundred years, the followers of Jesus faced a different problem. Their answers led to a Creed rather than the New Testament.

Again, my search is for the experiences of those involved in creating the Nicene Creed, fully aware of the limitations of knowing those experiences. In the number of times I have taught the history of the development of the creed in the church, I think that I have found some of the experiences which were energizing the conflict. The setting is 325 CE. The location is Nicaea, a small community in northern Asia Minor. The circumstances are that in 312 CE the church had been pronounced the official religion of the Roman Empire. The primary characters are the Emperor Constantine and the 318 Christian Bishops, and the two protagonists were Arius and Athanasius, both from Alexandria in northern Africa.

Several years before, Constantine had seen a vision in the sky, the Greek symbols “X-R, Chi-Rho” signifying Christ, and heard the words, “By this sign you will conquer.” Constantine did vanquish his opponent at the Milvian Bridge and formed a united Roman Empire. Out of devotion to his vision, he became a follower of Chi-Rho, Christ.

As I take my video camera into that setting in 325 CE I find some interesting words and actions. There arose a conflict between two groups of Christians in Alexandria, the spokesman of one was Arius, a presbyter in the church, the other, Athanasius, a priest who served as assistant to the Bishop in that great city. Serious division arose about Jesus Christ. The reasons are usually incredulous to moderns. Today students would be likely to join Shakespeare in saying, “Surely you jest!” or roll their eyes, saying “Give me a break!” I say, “Yes, believe it or not these were the reasons.” The antagonists were both concerned about the Christ who existed before the world was created, Arius proclaiming that Christ was the first creature, an angel, created by God and Athanasius equally adamant that Christ had existed forever with God, thus was “co-eternal” with the Father.

The Emperor called a conference of all the Bishops of churches in the empire. The numbers vary from 180 to 318 Bishops depending on who is telling the story. After all, the church now enjoyed a favored position in the empire, priests were salaried, buildings constructed and loyalty to Christianity required of all Roman citizens. This position was a far cry from the persecutions the church had recently suffered.

Constantine chaired the conference, both sponsored and paid for by the empire. One could easily wonder why he devoted his time and money to such a venture. Would not an emperor of a vast empire have more important things to do? When I attempt to probe the experience of Constantine, I think that after such major efforts to unite the empire any sign of division was a threat. I assume, then, that a major interest in a hands-on effort of chairing the proceedings was protecting the unity of the empire.

If we were news reporters interviewing the contesting parties, we could gain some understanding of their experiences, vastly different than those of the emperor. Arius and those aligned with him sought to preserve the unity and oneness of God. God alone is the creator; there is no co-eternal co-creator with God.

It appears that Athanasius had at least two interests. Only the divine was worthy to pay the price to take away the sins of humanity; a mere creature could not do so. Creatures cannot save creatures. Again, only the divine can incarnate and infuse the flesh of those receiving the blood and body of Christ in Holy Communion. A creature, regardless of whether created before or after the world, was unable to make flesh holy.

Eusebius, Bishop in Caesarea, brought with him a Creed developed in his congregation. This affirmation was adopted later with some revisions by the gathered council. It is remarkable how much it sounds like our present day Nicene Creed. He made a great contribution to the conference, possibly gaining a favored position with the emperor and esteem in his own community that the empire had chosen their affirmation.

A section of the original Nicene Creed describing the Son of God follows:

“We believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the father; only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father: by Whom all things were made both in heaven and earth: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate, and was made man: He suffered, and rose again the third day; He ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge both the quick and dead.

And we believe in the Holy Ghost.” [Robert L. Ferm, Readings in the History of Christian Thought, 1964, p138].

Following these affirmations a strong warning is written:

“The holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes all who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; that before He was begotten He was not; that He was made out of the non-existent; or that He is of a different essence and of a different substance from the Father; and that He is susceptible of variation or change.” [Robert Ferm, p138]

This portion of the original creed, especially the anathema, may not sound like the Nicene creed recited today in many worship services. In fact it is not the same, for the contemporary version is called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, a revision formulated by a later ecumenical council in 381 CE, and named for the two cities where it was created.

One of the first questions of a modern reader is usually, “What does ‘begotten’ mean?” I asked my mentor, Dr. John Cobb, this very question one day. He replied that it means not created. No further description is known. It is defined only and simply by what it is not. Nothing more is known of this fourth century concept. The meaning is not that of the genealogies written in King James language  appearing in the Old Testament,. “Seth begat Enosh, Enosh begat Kenan, Kenan begat Mahalalei….” as well as in the gospel of Matthew in the New Testament. “and Abraham begat Issac, Isaac begat Jacob, Jacob begat Judah….” There it is simply a word for father of an offspring.

As I read the creed I ask other questions. What has happened to the sayings, parables, and actions of Jesus? Where is Abba and the Commonwealth of God? What has happened to the stories of Jesus found not only in the four gospels but also the 34 fragments of gospels? It is as though the life of Jesus assumed little importance and was pushed into the background. There is a wide blank space between “came down from heaven, and was incarnate, and was made man….”—the Christmas Story and “He suffered, and rose again the third day; He ascended into heaven….”—The Easter Story. The council created the bookends of Jesus’ life. The emphasis shifted from Proclaimer to Proclaimed, from the Jesus of history to Christ of faith. The problems faced by those bishops who attended the council were a far cry from those facing the early followers.

At first glance it would appear that the creed addresses the issue of theology, the nature of God, yet when one approaches it searching for the underlying experiences it appears to be a statement of soteriology, how we are saved. The clue in the creed is: “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate, and was made man” The concern addressed is more how we are saved than what is the nature of God. The creed describes the saving action of the pre-existent Christ. This understanding contrasts with my own which would state that Jesus’ revealing of God is saving.
           
Could the Bishops really say that Rome executed Jesus? Hardly! They were now part of that empire and its beneficiaries. The blame fell less on Pontius Pilate, portrayed as quite willing to release Jesus, and more on the Jewish priests and shouting Jewish crowds. Alas, how much suffering and death has been dealt the Jewish people because of this accommodation to the empire. But could the gathered Bishops express their true convictions when the leader held the power to expel them? I have concluded that Nicaea was not a safe place to think creatively about theology.

I am further concerned that the Emperor Constantine, though professing to follow Christ, did not choose to be baptized into the faith until his death bed. I assume that he reasoned that as he was dying he could not act in evil ways that might jeopardize his entry into heaven. Surely this was a legitimate worry. He was implicated earlier in the scalding death of his wife and the execution of a son. Not that such vile acts were unusual for emperors, but they would be for one claiming to be a follower of Christ. I say, “Oh No, not another death bed conversion!” I have come to the position that throughout his life he remained a military commander and an emperor whose highest value was a united empire and who was willing to go to any lengths to protect this value.
   
His letter to the church in Alexandria following the conclusion of the council is instructive:

“Arius alone, beguiled by the subtlety of the devil, was discovered to be the sole disseminator of this mischief, first among you, and afterwards with unhallowed purposes among others also…For that which has commended itself to the judgment of three hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God…” [Robert Ferm, p141]

I would add a P.S. to this letter. Arius was not alone. Several bishops did not agree with the creed. They were exiled by the emperor!

At this council the division of orthodoxy and heresy was crystallized. There was now an officially sanctioned statement of the true faith. Diversity, differences, and debate became dangerous, a tremendous loss to the church in my opinion.

As stated before, I am committed to seeking, understanding and affirming experience, which compels me to place greater emphasis upon the sayings, parables, and actions of Jesus, the fascinating books held between the bookends. I find those experiences to be more compelling and worthy of my devotion than the experiences of Nicaea just described. Yet, I am fully aware that there are Christian movements and denominations which hold the creed in a central position. In our diverse Christianity today there are also those who take the creed seriously but not literally, those who claim the Bible to be their only creed, and those who consider creeds the work of the devil. I find the creed valuable in that it records the solution to problems faced in 4th century Christianity. I applaud the efforts and endurance of the bishops. I deplore the unsafe conditions under which they had to deliberate.

So far I have focused upon the Creed as it emphasizes the bookends rather than the books. Yet, the basic structure of the Creed is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The primary statements in the original Creed read:

“We believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible…..

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God….

And we believe in the Holy Ghost.” [Robert Ferm, p138]

I have long thought that the Holy Spirit was short changed as an after thought.

I have serious reservations about the doctrine of the Trinity and as I listen in classes that I facilitate, I find that the people of the church do also. Some simply say “if that is what I am called upon to believe to be a Christian, I will accept it.” When asked for their explanation of this doctrine most approach it in one of several ways: ignore, comply, or remain uncertain. If pushed some would use an historical approach,  “Well, you see, first there was God the Father, present at the creation, then Jesus Christ, God the Son came into the world to save us, and following Jesus’ death and resurrection, God the Holy Spirit came as the wind and flames at Pentecost to witness to the Son.” Although this is not my approach, there is a sense and logic to this portrayal.

Likewise, as I listen to people in the church, I am taken by the One to whom they pray: Lord, God, Christ, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. It appears to me that the one they address most frequently is Jesus.

Yet as a Christian, especially as an ordained minister, I had to come to terms with this classical doctrine of the church. Yes, I know that many of us who were candidates for ordination learned to cross our fingers behind our back when certain troubling questions were asked. To help me deal with the Trinity, I am indebted to a number of mentors,  Dr. John Cobb, a Whiteheadian Christology, Dr. David Griffin, A Process Christology, and Dr. Joseph Bracken and Dr. Marjorie Suchocki, editors of Trinity in Process: A Relational Theology of God. These process scholars, who express a rich variety of viewpoints, have formed the backdrop of what I will say.

I will begin by speaking briefly about the concept of the Trinity as affirmed at Nicaea, then discuss in more detail the resurrection. In the 4th century the church affirmed the presence of Jesus within the life of God with  the concepts and images available to them. The Bishops asserted that God the Son, Jesus Christ, was of the same substance as God the Father. Likewise, they affirmed that God and the Son were of the same essence. Today, we have concepts which reach beyond the limitations of substance and essence. Relationships replace substance and essence. God and Jesus share an intimate relationship, a relationship which occupies the same space. Today we have the image of centers of creativity with a new “I” in every moment, rather than an enduring substance or essence of a self. Our options for understanding the post-Easter Jesus have widely expanded. New answers today are available for solving the fundamental concerns they faced then. They created with the concepts they had.

I have already outlined my understanding of the life of Jesus. Now, I need to consider the last days of Jesus’ life and the experiences of his followers after Easter. I enter into the passion narrative of the gospels. For this understanding I reach into my theology. I affirm that Jesus died like any other human and that his body entered the soil like any other. Victims of crucifixion were left hanging on the cross to be ravaged by birds and dogs, a means of increasing the disgrace of their death and warning others of the dreaded consequences of defying the empire. But that is not all that happened.

As I have noted earlier, my theology affirms that each center of creativity is first a subject. During its process of becoming it is a subject participating in its own creation. Once fulfilled it becomes an object, a finished event. The creative process becomes a completed creation. The final moment of Jesus’ life was lived, then became an object. It, along with all of Jesus’ previous events in his life, became a gift to the world—done, completed, unchangeable, and finished— now available as an option or a model for anyone in the future. All that Jesus had said and done was projected into the universe, cast upon the waters of the world! A new mode of being was loose in the world! There was something new under the sun, available to future generations.

Now the world could offer a new creation, a life lived from the depths of a gracious God, sharing grace with and healing those who drew near, pointing to a new vision of reality and acting courageously and fearlessly in the midst of imminent life-threatening dangers. Suffering and death faced courageously accentuated the power of this life. These objects, now new circumstances in the world, were present in each of the emerging moments of the followers. The invitation was available to be offered for them to live such a life.

Jesus continues as object in the world through his words and deeds. Jesus continues as subject in the life of God.

At death, Jesus as a conscious person, a center of creativity, entered the life of God. Jesus continues as a subject having both awareness and empathy. This final occasion joined all of his previous occasions which had gradually over Jesus’ lifetime already become a part of God’s life. In God, the composite personality of Jesus was integrated from all the previous moments of his life. The later creed of 381 CE states it in this manner. Jesus…“ascended into heaven and sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father.”

The responsive nature of God is always growing and changing as each center of creativity of all creatures is welcomed into God’s life. As God receives the subjects of all events from the world, the fabric, color, and tone of God’s inner life are in constant flux. An integrating and transforming process occurs. All contribute to the expanding enriching life of God. Each subject senses its own worth in relation to all subjects present and experiences its own completion in all that is beyond itself. Each subject feels a belonging within the vast whole. Each subject has its consciousness expanded and integrated into God’s awesome inclusive vision. Jesus was and is in the midst of this expanding, transforming life of God, enriching and enhancing the divine life.

With my affirmations of Jesus letting go of his body, living onward in the world as word and act, and transforming in the life of God, I propose an understanding of the resurrection. I speak of the followers. As a persuasive presence in their centers of creativity, God invited the followers of Jesus to experience the objects of Jesus, his words, actions and presence, in immediate vividness. God was bringing forth Jesus as object and calling followers to remember, see, hear, feel and know him, not only as Jesus was during his lifetime, but as immediately present to them in this moment.

The invitation could be to experience Jesus through seeing, hearing, touch or presence, visual, auditory, tactile or imaginal channels. Those who knew Jesus during his lifetime could readily be invited to vividly remember. For those who did not know Jesus, the call of God was to encounter, embrace, feel and know the Jesus who had been projected into the world.

Therefore, I understand the resurrection experience as the intimate persuasive presence of God offering the possibility to living persons to be vividly aware of Jesus as immediately present to them.

Followers had earlier experienced God as Abba, the One about whom Jesus spoke. Now they experienced God as the immediate presence of Jesus. As they were open and receptive to two ever-present persuaders in each center of creativity, the world and God, they experienced Jesus. As the experiences of the followers became objects, they too offered something new in the world. An expanding presence of Jesus was loose in the world. When a follower experienced Jesus vividly and intensely, that offered the world a new event. Each event in the universe affects all persons whether or not they are aware of the event, an unconscious experience. All are affected without necessarily knowing it.

If the follower put his or her experience into words to others, new objects were projected into the world in a more direct way. If later those words were written, their influence was magnified. A geometric progression of objects projected into the world occurred. Now God could lure persons by a host of possibilities—the many and varied experiences of followers—to an intimate experience of Jesus,

Through the many centuries since Jesus lived, as God lured persons to experience the presence of Jesus, their experiences likewise became objects and available for possibilities for others. With the written words in scripture, the spoken words of past followers and the experiences of each generation, the presence of Jesus was continually expanding.

Words can never capture experience in its entirety and fullness and written words even less so because there are rules to be followed in writing. So, the progression from experience to spoken word to written word modified the initial richness and intensity, but at the same time expanded the opportunities for others to be aware of and receptive to such experiences. Speaking of words, I think a newspaper cartoonist could show better what I am describing through drawing than I am with the limits of words. Where is David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer when I need him?

I find that my theology offers a vision by which to understand and appreciate the varied experiences of resurrection in scripture. Some resurrection narratives are clearly metaphors and were never meant to be history. Others may have having a kernel of history. Whether history or metaphor, they affirm the auditory, visual and tactile; Mary seeing Jesus at the tomb, the two and the eleven seeing Jesus, Paul seeing a bright light and hearing the voice of Jesus, Thomas seeing and wishing to touch the wounds on Jesus’ hands, and Peter hearing Jesus ask, “Do you love me?”

I know that past events, whether or not I was present, can become vividly alive in my present awareness. Today, as I write I am aware that on this date in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. I can see and feel that event, as if I were there. Knowing we will soon celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Claremont School of Theology, I can see myself there over forty years ago. When we celebrate a birthday, a wedding anniversary, or memorialize the date of death of a beloved, we respond with feeling, seeing, hearing, and touch.

I recall a parishioner I was visiting at Overlake Hospital in Bellevue who told me that Jesus had stood at the foot of her bed that morning. I have heard people speak of seeing a loved one who had recently died and hearing their beloved say that she is at peace. I have worked with clients who have not just remembered but have re-lived a momentous past experience, an event occurring with such frequency that professionals have named it “abreaction.” Considering all these experiences, I am helped in understanding the resurrection experience!

In this limited space I have deliberated over complex and mysterious matters, sharing briefly how my theology has guided my reflections. Being a follower of Jesus, I have difficulty with a number of the later claims about Christ. My devotion is centered on the experiences of Jesus, sayings, parables, and actions, especially as they point toward Abba. I affirm the deep, rich personal experience of Jesus with Abba. I think that many of the later concepts and images offered to understand Jesus and Abba have not adequately captured that experience. I am especially concerned about the effect that becoming a part of the Roman Empire had upon central aspects of faith. I am affronted by the concept of Christ the King, a clear reference to the empire rather than Jesus as the “brief flickering in Galilee,” the one living within the realm of God.

I find great meaning in Dr. Albert Schweitzer’s final paragraph about Jesus in his Quest:
“He comes to us as One Unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not….” He concludes with these words: “…and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.” [Italics mine].

I prefer experience and mystery to rational and orthodox thinking!

Living in Process: My 43 Years in Process Theology is an interactive eBook by Robert Brizee, Th.M., Ph.D.