by Ethan Johnson
July 13, 2007

During our road trip that Ate My Brain, we had a stretch where Marlena's sister Cathy joined us for the Indianapolis to Memphis route. The conversation turned to religion, and Marlena identified herself as an atheist, while simultaneously identifying as Catholic. In her view, not to completely speak for her, being raised Catholic is a lifelong association, lapsed or not. Sort of like being an alumnus of a given school. Whether you loved or hated the place, you'll always have that connection. After she spoke her piece, I commented that the upshot is that I am increasingly identifying with Christianity. But, me being me, differently.

Now: I do not claim to be a "Christian". In my experience, I am not sure that the association that this word inspires is one that I want to identify with. As with any "ism", I prefer that it be laid bare for all to examine, and accept or reject as one will. Religion is a tricky subject where that's not always possible (or in the interest of its adherents). Unlike some, I do not take sport in badgering people as to why any choice of religion or spirituality is a bad one, and a sign of a feeble mind or dangerous credulity where logic and rationality ought to reign supreme. I don't deign to tell people that their back does not in fact, hurt, so I equally cannot deign to speak with certainty that God (or equivalent) did not, in fact, speak to someone or give them some sort of sign.

Hence it was with with great interest that I read a commentary by Roland S Martin where he offers up his brief definition of Christianity, in the wake of the Pope's edict regarding the primacy of the Catholic Church:

It doesn't matter what Pope Benedict XVI has to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say.

(Aside: I thought God outranked Jesus...? This always confuses me.)

While I appreciate this succinct definition, I believe that semantics have driven a thick wedge between understanding and practice, and excellently illustrates why I am hesitant to identify as "Christian".

During a concert some years ago, Carlos Santana paused between songs and said, "there's a big difference between being a 'Christian' and being Christ-like." I relayed this to a deeply pious man I worked with and he took supreme offense. In his view, there is no distinction. To be a Christian is to be Christ-like, or as close as is humanly possible. Of course, just like Roland S Martin and a host of others, he was a far cry from the Christ made manifest in flesh. The tell-tale signs are evident even to the casual observer: For one, both men owned personal property.

I have read the Bible a few times, and occasionally thumb through one of the many online versions to refresh my memory about a particular passage or just read it from a given spot and marvel at how much of our popular culture borrows from that book. Even atheists and agnostics might share this amazement without feeling the need to convert to anything. Here's what I know about Jesus, as told in the Bible (pick a version, any version):

• Jesus owned nothing.
• Jesus lived nowhere. He didn't have a castle or even a mud hut that he'd retire to after a long day of Messiahship. Basically, wherever he stood was home, and then he moved on.
• Jesus devoted his life to the service of everyone else. At no time (unless I missed that part) does he make things all about him, meaning his comfort, his wants, his lack of personal possessions and money. From time to time people minister to him, such as offering water or food here and there.
• Jesus repeatedly advises people that nothing he has done is special, and that we all can do as he does, if we opt to follow his lead. This includes divesting ourselves of all possessions, desires, and concern for one's self. Hence the "eye of the needle" line, which people annoy me by trying to get cute with their interpretations, such as postulating that there may have been some rock formation that was hard to slip through, but possible. No, he might as well have said "rich people will willingly give all of their wealth away when Hell freezes over." Then they could postulate that there was an actual hell that could possibly freeze over someday. Sigh.

So with all due respect to Mr. Martin, et al, I view their deeds against the backdrop of their stated beliefs, and I do not see a slavish devotion to the Christ, at least not as I understand the Christ to be. And I don't mean Jesus.

The Christ, as I understand it, is for lack of a better term, universal love. It is possible to be an atheist and still tap into the Christ. Or Islamic. Or Zoroastrian. Or whatever. This has nothing to do with converting, or saying vows, or taking sacraments, or reading special books or going to special schools. The Christ is, and to my understanding, it is within all of us, regardless of any artificial barriers that we invoke or perceive.

It is problematic to me that the Bible was written by men, and therefore (gasp) may be read as an elegant work of religious fiction. I once noted that I wondered why people dispute the fact that men wrote the Bible, because after all, they signed their work. Without ego, indeed.

The reason why this is problematic is that we don't have a clear record of Jesus' every utterance and deed, any more than we have a faithful transcript of the deeds and words of Socrates. Thanks to Plato's use of Socrates as something of a fictional character in his works, it is difficult but not impossible to distinguish where Plato ends and the true Socrates begins. In my view, to argue and cite the deeds and words of Jesus as we may read them in the Bible is to debate and cite the deeds and words of Darth Vader. Yes, we can empirically see Darth Vader in the Star Wars milieu, but at root he is a fictional character. No, he didn't really kill Obi-Wan Kenobi. (Spoiler alert!) Alec Guinness appeared in other unrelated films after 1977.

In light of the not entirely reliable screed found in the Bible, we might form opinions about the Jesus that is chronicled there, but this may bear only a passing resemblance to the man who was. This must be kept in mind when I speak of, well, anything written in the Bible. I will note here that despite my occasional musings concerning a book titled The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, I am at no time referencing it in the course of this article. Just so that's clear.

Because Jesus comes to identify himself as the Christ made manifest, it is important to draw distinctions as to where he, the man ends and the Christ, the eternal, begins. When Jesus says "no one comes to the Father except through me", he doesn't mean that he, Jesus, must be accepted as one's personal saviour to achieve some state of Godliness. He meant, to my understanding, that the Christ itself is one layer removed from God, and if one seeks to achieve a state of Godliness, that's not going to happen without first embracing and embodying the Christ, which is to say, universal love. Universal, and unconditional. At no time does Jesus refuse to heal the sick on the grounds that the person was [pick one: gay, a democrat, liberal, a coffee drinker, all about the bling, etc]. From time to time he admonishes people to re-think their life and perhaps try to be more like himself, but that choice is left to the recipient, not ordained as a condition for his intervention.

Thus, I am hard pressed to find anyone either in the present day or any time after 33AD that a single person lived a life that could objectively be termed as Christ made manifest. To my thinking, "Christian" means a life of absolute service to others. Is there anyone who we might objectively say lived such a life? I thought Mother Teresa might qualify, but there seem to be cracks in the foundation, so to speak. Speaking for myself, I hardly view myself as "Christian" when viewed through this lens, but then again, I don't believe anyone to be "Christian" in this manner either.

Essentially, I think my definition and understanding of Christianity versus its adherents (by and large) boils down to this:

• Their interpretation: To be a Christian means believing in Jesus and accepting him as Lord.
• Mine: To be a Christian means to do one's level best to embody the Christ in flesh, by living a life of total and complete service without regard for one's personal well-being.

Such is the way of semantic arguments.

I read a line recently that said, "saying 'I'm sorry, I suck' is not the same as not sucking." So it goes with a multitude of people who identify as Christian, attend church, participate in various sacraments, perform charitable acts, and read the Bible, and yet fail to embody the Christ. I am not condemning the Christians of the world as hypocrites and failures. I am saying that this lays bare the simplicity and the complexity of the message delivered by the Jesus of the Bible: All one has to do is live a life of absolute service. Many people like to foster a sense of "other" and assume that it is only the rich person who cannot "see the kingdom", while enjoying personal possessions, working a steady job, and worrying about retirement.

Don't get me wrong, I do all of these things too, which is why I am reluctant to hop on the Christian bandwagon, when my life is so removed from that of a person who is ready and willing to devote his or her life to the absolute service required by the Christ.

I just wish that other self-described Christians would examine their own lives a bit more closely before engaging in pissing matches about the supremacy of one's religious and spiritual ideals. I'm afraid I'm not holding my breath for that day to come about in the near term. <EM>

PS: I wasn't able to work it in to the larger article above, but Fred Clark is my go-to guy for throughtful writings about the Christian experience, and while he too owns personal property and does not devote his life 24/7 to the service of everyone else (grin), I find his commentary interesting and engaging. If you're not plugged in to his blog, I highly recommend it.

PSS: This absolutely kills me, from the Martin commentary linked in the above article:

This is nothing but a naked attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Catholic Church considering the apostle Peter as its leader. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a church to be most important. What was? The Great Commission.

Wait for it...

John 14:6 says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does it say that Peter, Pope Benedict XVI or anyone else can supplant Jesus as the leader of the church.

Sigh.