Integral Christianity is a fairly new thing… at least the name is. (It is not a lot like traditional or even “modern/liberal” Christianity.) The worldview or theology it operates within actually is a relatively new perspective, on any sizable scale. I will admit the Christian form of Integral theory is fairly new to me — maybe a couple years, and I’ve been pretty attentive to the many varying forms of Christian faith for decades now.
Titlepage of the New Testament section of a German Luther Bible, printed in 1769. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The focus of this article will be Integral Christianity’s take on and use of the Bible. I’m writing this on the way to soon finishing the definitive book to date on this understanding and expression of Christianity, Integral Christianity: The Spirit’s Call to Evolve, by Paul R. Smith. I will then be reviewing the book on the Naturalspirituality blog.
So I thought it would be helpful to first give a mini introduction to Integral theory as it applies to Christian faith and practice; and particularly to how it interfaces with a Bible which means so many different (and often conflicting) things to people. Integral theory is very closely identified with the overall work and many books by Ken Wilber. His work has essentially formed (initially) and guided this way of understanding both personal and societal development, a perspective that is “integrated” or “integral”.
One might call it a meta-theory in the sense of being a system drawing from but also standing “above” or beyond most theories trying to explain human experience in relation to broader reality. Scientists (theoretical physicists particularly) speak in terms of a “theory of everything”. Wilber and his Integral colleagues do so also, with the key difference that they deliberately include and seek to understand the non-material, often very subtle forces and factors in the universe, which people most often speak of by the term “God” or “spiritual reality”. And the focus is more on human experience and consciousness relative to the matter-energy focus of the hard sciences.
So when we take the kind of structure (a quite elaborate one I can’t get into describing here) that Integral Theory provides and lay it over the Bible and the Christian faith, some very perplexing things begin to make better sense. We might also envision that process as viewing the Bible and Christian traditions through the lens of an integral perspective. We all are forced to use whatever lens (or lenses) we’ve gained anyway. The deliberate acquiring of a more expansive Integral view and applying it to the Bible merely enhances the views of biblical stories, insights and truths we all, at some level, have taken in. This is the case for anyone conversant with the Bible, whether or not they are a “believer” or take the Bible as any kind of personal guide. In other words, familiarity with Integral Christianity can benefit anyone, Christian or not. This is particularly true for people of Jewish faith, given their use of well over half of the Christian Bible.
One of the key aspects of Integral theory is its understanding of stages of development seen both in individuals and, often almost as clearly, in groups or institutions. Central to its stage theory, like many stage theories it draws from, is that levels must be attained and then gone through, or fulfilled, in order. You can’t skip a stage. Similarly, that which is of value gained in prior stages is not lost although the limiting points or distortions of the stage drop off.
Let me apply this to just one aspect of the Bible from an Integral Christian perspective. The Bible is loaded with stories of power (miracles, ecstatic states, etc.), both in the Hebrew (“Old Testament”) and Greek sections. What to make of this?
Traditionally, Christians accepted all the miracles at face value. They were seen as God breaking into the normal order of things or even over-riding the laws of nature. Most also believed their valid expression ended with the Apostolic age or completion of the New Testament.
During and after the Age of Enlightenment and the rise of science, liberal Christianity took the miracles as either symbolic or mere stories for persuasion… all or almost all of them, indiscriminately. As good “reason-able” and rational beings, such Christians had (and many still today have) no interest in mystical spiritual experiences. Their lack of openness to or interest in special “peak experiences” or ecstatic (altered) states during prayer, meditation or worship lead to an increasingly “flat” religious life and reading of the Bible. Jesus became mainly a moral teacher and example, despite that the Gospels and Acts are filled with examples of healings, exorcisms, and various ecstatic states and miracles. They are probably not all historical or strictly factual, but is it “reasonable” (or rational) to think none of it happened; that those things weren’t common “in the day” even though they are in many settings yet today?
Well, Integral Christianity and its kin in certain kinds of Progressive Christianity are the first systems to wisely and carefully return to seeing the mystical, “wonder working” side of Jesus and his earliest followers as legitimate and important… something we can emulate and reproduce, just as Jesus said we could. I say “return” to indicate reincorporating in this stage what much of Christianity threw out too readily — the spiritual baby with the supernatural bathwater. The earlier stage, from pre-modernity on through to now for many, that of “traditional” faith, doesn’t seriously question the idea of valid biblical miracles. In it there is no major problem with a disjuncture — part of a two-tiered universe — between supernatural miracles, trances, healing, etc. and the “ordinary world”. Pentecostals and Charismatics at this level of understanding accept (and seek to practice!) these things as continuing to the present, but only expressed through Christians. Having been a traditional-level Charismatic myself, I see it as a healthy balancing and broadening from an overly rationalistic faith, yet a standpoint that benefits greatly from a move onto further stages, one of which is Integral.
In Integral, various spiritual experiences and “states” are not only accepted but eagerly engaged, and concepts and experiences of unity are greater than at lower stages. My purposeful use of “lower” here reflects how Integral respects comments by both Jesus and Paul to the effect that certain truths are not able to be grasped at a given stage of growth and spiritual maturity. Integral recognizes that some things are higher or better than others, unlike the typical Postmodern perspective. There are ways of discerning this.
Almost any experience or “spiritual gift” can be had at any level, but it may not be properly understood or utilized until deeper understanding, at a higher stage, is developed. So Integral Christianity respects and draws from the extensive scholarly work on the Bible that many call “higher criticism”, with its many important findings and insights. Yet it takes seriously and values highly the mystical experiences, the intimacy with God, as well as the radical “otherness” of God portrayed in the Bible and lived out in the person of Jesus.
What exposure do you have to Integral theory or Integral Christianity? Does the concept of progressive stages, which have clear identifying markers, appeal to you and ring true?
Is “Interspirituality” an Enduring Trend?
The logo of the First Amalgamated Church, featuring the symbols of the contemporary religions Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Are most of the younger generation, especially those about 18-29 years old, on a truly different kind of spiritual track than older folks? Is it a genuine spiritual pursuit, although it may appear haphazard or even self-centered on the surface? That they are and it is (taking a different approach, and a genuine one) is the point of an excellent article by Rory McEntee and Adam Bucko in the Huffington Post religion section.
After discussing how younger adults (and others) today don’t necessarily need a single religious tradition for adequate grounding and guidance, nor do they necessarily need a particular “new age” practice or group, McEntee and Bucks contend, “….Rather, they need an intimacy in which life is shared deeply, where they can be mentored in a way that brings them into the depths of their own life experience and aspirations, and where they can begin to articulate a new, more universal storyline that springs from their own experience and inner contemplative unfolding, which so often exists outside of a particular wisdom tradition.”
To be clear, the authors are not dismissive or critical of a commitment to one or multiple spiritual traditions (Christianity, Buddhism, etc.). They recognize the value and power in these more historically typical approaches, through which those they name as current “interspiritual” leaders or elders have come. A couple of these are Father Thomas Keating, founder of Snowmass Interspiritual Dialogue Fellowship, and Brother Wayne Teasdale, a Catholic/Hindu (!) Monk, who coined the term “interspirituality” in 1999.
The point of the article seems to be in full harmony with the Integral vision of Ken Wilber and his many Christian and other colleagues: the concept of an interspiritual quest and process of dialog and fellowship is beyond mere “tolerance” of other beliefs and spiritual “paths”. It is beyond religious pluralism, which is, for sure, a step up from religious superiority or attempts to dominate. It is a reflection of the maturation happening by the Spirit who has originally inspired the breakthroughs of spiritual leaders and still inspires the ever-so-gradual spiritual development of humanity’s shared spirit.
New Pew Research Report on Muslims
Wow! If you didn’t already realize how diverse and in-flux are the beliefs of Muslims, you’ll see it here at the Pew Forum site. This is no brief “boil it down to a few general statements” kind of report. (Note: map below is from a 2009, earlier survey)
English: The Muslim population of the world map by percentage of each country, according to the Pew Forum 2009 report on world Muslim populations. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Rather, it is very specific to any primarily Muslim countries…. Some pretty surprising statistics on things like the application of sharia (traditional Islamic law) as the official law for different countries! There are, of course, lots of complications implied if this popular idea were widely implemented. When thought through completely, the numbers may become a lot different. The report shows that the Muslim world is in the kind of rapid transition that we would expect, given the meteoric rise of new communication “connectivity”, globalization of commerce and other powerful economic, political and social forces. No religion is an island in relation to such forces.
While the immediate future looks troubling, probably from within as well as outside Islam, one can see in the report that the world is being forced to mature and its second largest religion is right at the center of that.
Are You Purposeful about Growth?
What have you done for yourself lately? Not in the sense of something fun or indulgent (which is important, too)… but in the sense of advancing your own growth as a person?
Most of us have an area or two where we do this naturally. If we love to read, we grow our minds and perhaps our emotional or relational selves. If we love to interact, we learn (hopefully) from others directly. But what about broader growth and balance in all key areas of life, including the spiritual (which I mean as including religion but not restricted to formal religion)? Are you advancing not only within yourself but also in your understanding of others who may be either a step or two “behind” you, or maybe a bit ahead?
I wrote two posts recently on stages of growth and learning to recognize and think in terms of key developmental markers, transitions and certain stages that are broadly observed in Western societies. They are found similarly in all cultural settings. You can find those posts here and here. Today I want to point out that these stages and their characteristics — strengths and limitations — can be seen within Christian churches and other institutions. Such knowledge, and the ability to “locate” your own church or group in relation to others, can link up with your self-knowledge to help guide you… perhaps to a new religious involvement (or non-involvement) or to a place of greater understanding and effectiveness for others and your own growth.
A simplified chart of historical developments of major groups within Christianity. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Maybe an understanding of stage characteristics will help you understand a friend or relative as well as yourself. The “locating” of a group goes beyond just its set of outward beliefs, although the beliefs are usually an integral part and a strong factor in placing them in one of several stage-styles.
The catalyst for returning to this subject (as I intend to periodically since it is a key foundation in most of my research and writing) was starting to read a new and highly enlightening, recently published book, Integral Christianity, by Paul Smith. I will be writing a review of the book when I’m finished with it…. I already know enough of Smith’s work and have perused the book to be assured I will find it more than worthy.
I will share one important tidbit from Integral Christianity here, in relation to an issue of my own growth: Paul Smith speaks about having and then growing beyond anger with the ideas or the people most representing, to us, a spiritual stage we have recently “outgrown”. There are various legitimate reasons for such anger which I’ll not go into here. I merely want to mention that, while my anger was never intense, I certainly had some, toward the style of “Evangelicalism” I’d spent childhood and much of my adult life in. It was seldom, if ever, directed toward any single person or institution. It gradually moved into mainly a sense of understanding, with mild frustration still lingering.
Perhaps because of my psychological and theological education and serving experiences, I always retained gratitude for the many positives of my background and earlier experiences… a perspective that Paul encourages in the book along with moving beyond one’s nearly inevitable anger. With this comes the graciousness of allowing everyone to be at the stage they need to be and with the people they find important and supportive at a given time.
Still, this acceptance is not the same as postmodern “tolerance” which seeks to place everything believed or practiced on a single level of one’s personal “truth”. Rather, it makes an informed and experiential “judgment” (non-judgmentally) that one has gone “beyond” or to a “higher” stage, without demeaning or belittling anyone who has not made such a transition or remains a step behind.
Thus, one can be comfortable with, even supportive of a person within the style of thought and practice where they are. I have people close to me for which this is the case. I know that the wisdom and grace to take this perspective (which I see as ultimately being from God) is liberating and powerful, both for me and for them.
So, do you have a practice, goals, or some kind of guideline for stimulating your growth? What is it? Is it in a form you can describe and somehow share with us? Or with others?
A 21st Century Socio-Psychology of Religion
Today, a rare disclosure of my thought-process as it is unfolding. Partly because I think I tend to be, on this blog, too “academic” and not enough an “everyday real person.” Even today I won’t leave the intellectual and conceptual aside entirely. But I will share on a critical subject without first trying to have all my ducks in a row. And with that, invite you to please share your interests, impressions, feelings or whatever.
Religious Diversity (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The subject, as my title suggests:
What should go into an up-to-date “psychology” of religion that would include the social aspect of our selves, so a “socio-psychology of religion”?
First, do you like this term? Is it meaningful to you? I frankly don’t know if others are using it much… I have encountered it, though not often.
I have actually thought about such a personal and societal “socio-psychology” as it pertains to religion and spirituality quite a lot (and have lots of formal and informal education on it)… just not formalized a detailed outline. Here are a few elements that I so far think are vital:
- Worldview perspectives – both personal (family and individual experiences, etc.) and cultural
- Personal “philosophy of life” (based on temperament, education, etc.)
- Religious belief system followed
- Religious experiences (or “extra-normal” ones so labeled) or lack of them
- Social forces influencing one’s religion via needs for affiliation, loyalty (or rebellion/independence), friendship, etc.
- Stages of general maturation and specific “lines” of growth (cognitive, relational, moral/ethical, etc.)
I know I’m not including everything I’ve thought about in this list, but intentionally won’t try to. I would really like to get input on what comes to your mind, or how you might be thinking of your own self-analysis regarding religion and spirituality. For example, what have you found adequately addressed or not in books, blogs, etc., of the things you wonder about or enjoy exploring? What area(s) among those above have been particularly significant for you?
46 is the earliest (nearly) complete manuscript of the Epistles written by Paul in the new testament. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
“Scripture” is the core of Western religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Few of us think much about how our Scriptures got written, edited and handed down to us. Herein lies a big problem! … a woeful ignorance about religion itself and the psychology and sociology of religion more specifically. I will speak, as I normally do, mainly about the non-religious and about Christians in this post. If you are American and not raised in one of our small-minority religions (Islam, Hinduism, etc.) you probably have at least some exposure to the Bible, perhaps mainly from hearing about it more than reading it directly…. or hearing short quotes without context.
It has been well documented by many scholars of religion and American culture that the Bible and how it is interpreted by traditional Christianity particularly, has had massive influence on our worldview and culture. I say this because we sometimes fail to realize how religion and the overall life of our nation intertwine so heavily. This raises the question:
How should we look at and treat our Jewish and Christian Scriptures?
Uses of the Bible range all over the map from common quotations to intense study of it, generally by book or section or by themes such as salvation, prophecy, gender roles and women in ministry, etc., etc. What interpretations and applications people make of scriptural statements depends a lot on how they think their scriptures were constructed and with what authority. Traditional Christians believe the Bible was revealed by God, in one manner or another, and comes with God’s authority. Most of them reject the idea of any substantial role of later editing after the original authors.
Now, either the books themselves or later traditions often assign authorship to a well-known or authoritative figure. There is a gigantic amount of scholarship that deals with precisely issues of authorship, dating and editing of biblical works. In the interest of brevity and readability I won’t cite from it here; but will note that one can pursue such issues in depth for individual books or sections of the Bible. Anyone serious about understanding the Bible, for whatever reasons, should indeed make this part of their reading and study.
Can we trust the history in the Bible?
One key issue of the authority and impact of the Bible is tied to how it is thought to present history and facts. Is it reliable historically? Does it report strictly facts about events, including possible miracles of various types, in both its “Testaments”? To probably a majority of Christians, its reliability as a revelation about God and salvation is directly dependent on its reliability in reporting facts. There is often a kind of backward logic in this, however. It goes like this: “Since I know what the Bible reveals about God is correct [statement of faith], what it reports of human history and events must be entirely correct also [resulting statement of faith without serious historical checking].”
So how do scholars of history, the Bible and related disciplines say the Bible handles history? I will make only a brief and very summarized few statements here. It’s a very controversial subject with widely varying views, so one should proceed with caution. There is no simple way of deciphering or explaining the situation. Perhaps most important to say is that most people probably have it wrong on one side or the other — that either the Bible is entirely historical or it is not at all.
I’ll just say this for now:
The Bible is a collection of widely varying types of literature, all religiously oriented to one degree or another but not all even of historical nature (the Psalms and Proverbs, e.g.). Other parts often read as factual, such as early parts of Genesis, are clearly of another genre, often called “mythological” (not meaning untrue, but not scientific either). They almost certainly were never intended to be taken as historical.
However, other large sections do report things in a more or less historical manner, interwoven with theological interpretations. Key sections of this nature are the bulk of the early books of the “Old Testament” (prior to the “Wisdom” and “Prophetic” sections) and particularly the Gospels and Acts in the “New Testament.” They present a lot of detail about the formation and history of Israel as a nation and as a religious and ethnic group. Can or should we merely take this as valid history, whether the Exodus story, or the powerful “United Kingdom” period under kings such as David and Solomon, or the grandeur (and associated symbolism) of the First Temple? Whether or not we do has lots of implications, including geopolitical ones that affect international issues like Israeli and Palestinian relationships and prospects for peace.
Why may the majority of scholars be right, that the Bible is not a reliable book of history, although much of its historical sections are indeed based on actual events and real places in the larger picture?
And with this, that the Bible should be treated as one source of historical information, when examined carefully, cross-checked when possible, and taken in the light of the authors’ stated or implied purposes and slants? It simply won’t do for any educated American to merely assume (or take it on light or one-sided evidence) that either the Bible is historically worthless or that it is completely reliable.
I’ll just introduce the basic answer for now: The Bible is the product of a centuries-long process of oral traditions of actual history becoming written stories with theological interpretations attached then or later. Then came subsequent editing by contemporaries or later editors, new theological slants sometimes added based on evolving views. (Even the most conservative of traditionalists recognize this has happened though they still attribute the process to God’s revelation — timing “his” accommodation to human response to earlier revelation — progressively.)
So it goes history (events) to story (oral, then written) to theology (religious interpretation of events/stories) which then results in a new story or embellishments, refinements and such on a prior story… all with relative continuity. This allows new theology to emerge and subsequent events become more stories with the new theological interpretation (the “repeat” aspect of my title).
Rarely do readers notice this going on in the Bible, partly because the Bible is not arranged chronologically, in either “Testament”. For example, the story from Paul about witnesses to the resurrection of Christ is our earliest written source, but seldom thought of as such, being placed well after the Gospels which give much greater detail of such events. These elaborated “events” it appears Paul is unaware of or else they happened very differently than described in the Gospels (whatever the case, they are confused and partially contradictory accounts). Paul’s report is clearly closer to the events in time, and probably in actuality as well…. They are seemingly visionary experiences only, not touching of a corporeal body of Jesus. It appears the stories developed over time, having been originally based on something “real” (post-crucifixion visions of Jesus by numerous disciples).
In this example (among many others that could be cited), we also can see the editing process in a significant way. Mark’s Gospel is almost certainly the first-written of those making it into our Bible. His original ending does not include any appearances of Jesus to any of his followers, only an empty tomb. There is virtually universal agreement (because of evidence from various ancient texts of the book) that the last section of his final chapter was added at some point probably decades or more after Mark concluded his work. Only in this section do we read of numerous appearances of Jesus.
Additionally, in these final few verses of Mark still in most editions of modern Bibles, we have powerful theological points such as Jesus’ “commission” to spread the Gospel, his ascension to the right hand of God, and a confirmation of “…his word by the signs that accompanied it.” (9:16, NIV) This is vivid illustration of the kind of process that went on at varying levels in many books of the Bible… for understandable religious reasons as beliefs evolved and needed to be reflected in authoritative sources.
Does the process invalidate either the history or the theology contained in the Bible? Not in the broader sense.
Yet it does clearly, to me and a growing number of progressive Christians, put limits on the kind of authority we ascribe to Scripture, however. We look for multiple attestations of truth and of wisdom as we seek out that which nourishes and guides a community or our personal spirituality, not the single witness of a single biblical author. And not just a supposedly “systematic” theology seeking to weave diverse teachings of the Bible together. Yet the Bible remains fascinating and often inspiring reading, an invaluable glimpse into how people have long dealt with the most challenging questions of life and reality.
What do you see in the Bible… how does it nourish you, dismay or disgust you, or whatever?
Conflicting Theology: Review of “Paul and Jesus” Part 2
This post is the continuation of a review of James D. Tabor’s Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity begun last week in my last post.
Dr. Tabor is a decades-long scholar of the New Testament, an archaeologist and totally fascinated by the Apostle Paul and his influence. He declares,
“… Paul became the most influential defining figure for later Christianity, even beyond the historical Jesus, but he is also a man waiting to be discovered, even after nearly two thousand years. Paul transformed Jesus himself, with his message of a messianic kingdom of justice and peace on earth to the symbol of a religion of otherworldly salvation in a heavenly world. Recovering the authentic Paul, as he was in his own time, and from his own words, is my task in this book.”
English: Ananias restoring the sight of Saint Paul (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
You know how authors and speakers often say, “If you only get one thing from what I’m saying, get this ….”? I don’t recall that Tabor says exactly this in Paul and Jesus. It would be tough, if he did, to single out one thing. But the summary above seems pretty close. Fortunately, the larger picture he is presenting can be seen, “taken in” and remembered as a whole fairly readily. I find it quite clear if we have “eyes to see.” The problem he faces, and he knows it, is that we are long-conditioned to not recognize or accept it. Our entire understanding of who Jesus was and is, of personal salvation, of “the second coming” of Christ and much more is shaken as in an 8-point quake if we see the earliest Christians in this way, taken though it almost completely is, from the New Testament. Particularly so for those who have experience and education as Christians. We have been taught to see Paul’s work as a seamless extension of that of Jesus. Tabor is only one of numerous scholarly authors in the last couple decades who are saying, “Not so!”
We won’t remember all the details of the picture as presented by Tabor, of course, but readers can and should retain the main features of both foreground and background. If one doubts but finds the picture plausible, worth considering more seriously, he or she can pursue the many footnotes and works referred to, both supporting and challenging Tabor’s conclusions. I’m confident the author would consider any open re-examination by readers a success for his effort, as would I. And the lighter reader who may have more curiosity than personal “investment” in the subject will find it easy enough to understand what Tabor is saying. And with that, to also grasp the importance of Paul’s new, profound yet speculative and often confusing concepts leading to the kind of Christianity most of us “know” on one level or another, Christian or not.
Here is my own summary of his core point in only slightly different words. The concept bears repeating: Paul transformed the beliefs and practices of Jesus and subsequently of his original followers into a new and otherworldly religion that replaced the former Israel-and-earthly-kingdom focused (apocalyptic) sect of Judaism.
Now the differences of belief and practice should not be exaggerated either…. Some key concepts were shared by Jesus’ direct disciples and Paul — centrally that of God’s Kingdom, introduced by a Messiah figure who was believed to have been raised from the dead to the “right hand of God” and who was very soon to return to culminate that Kingdom at his “appearance” (later termed “second coming”). But what kind of resurrection did they believe in? One in which Jesus’ body was still in material form though obviously transformed, only partially corporeal? And in which Jesus appeared numerous time to various of his disciples, proving the physicality of his new status although he soon after somehow “ascended” through the atmosphere to go to the Father in heaven until his return? (This the disciples obviously expected to be within their lifetimes, including the “last of all” of the apostles — per his designation — Paul, who had not been with the earthly Jesus.)
Tabor reminds us that according to most traditional Christians, from theologians to informed lay people, it was the resurrection of Jesus that transformed the dejected, perhaps nearly hopeless disciples, upon Jesus’ death, into determined, evangelizing and joy-filled people. Something apparently did do that, as the record seems clear that key disciples, including “The Twelve” Apostles (with Judas replaced, and not including Paul) did gain a sizable following for some kind (more on this later) of belief in Jesus and his return to establish the Kingdom of God. This was for about the first 40 years until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. After that, as Tabor repeatedly points out, we lose track of the Jerusalem-based early “Christians” (not yet split off as distinct from Judaism). This pivot of history opened the door for the ultimate victory of a Pauline theology and worldview, built upon but largely apart from Judaism. This “victory” was over the original disciples’ and Apostles’ concepts of a Jewish Kingdom of God and Messiah (a human, divinely appointed) with continued Jewish observances toward “righteousness.” Perhaps most centrally, this did not involve a substitutionary atonement for our sin by a uniquely human-divine Jesus.
In fact, it is this massively influential event of the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 which sets the stage for what developed in the writing of probably all, or nearly all of the New Testament (NT) besides seven letters (of 27 total books) definitely written by Paul during the 50s to the early 60s. Tabor astutely and clearly traces how the development of the Gospels apparently went, from just after the war until a few decades later, under heavy Pauline influence much more than influence of the Jerusalem leaders which included James, the brother of Jesus. (Most prominently him, as the clear head, though he is downplayed so much in the NT that his lengthy, key role is almost passed over there, and is even unknown to many lay people today who think of only Peter in those terms, while he was no more than “second in command”).
Tabor keeps reminding us that understanding how things developed in the first century of Christian faith, including how the Resurrection was viewed, is best grasped by reading Paul’s genuine letters first (1 Thes., Galatians, 1 and 2 Cor., Romans, Philippians and Philemon, in roughly that order). Only then should one go to the Gospels, beginning not with Matthew but with Mark, then Matthew, Luke and John. The Acts of the Apostles was written by the same person as the Gospel of Luke (traditionally considered to be Luke) and after it. It is the only other substantial source of information about Paul in the NT. In fact, this only “history” of the first 30 or so years of the Church is about Paul, his conversion and subsequent missionary work and his relationship with the Jerusalem leaders, more than the rest of what was happening in Jerusalem or Israel itself. (Almost none of Paul’s evangelizing and teaching was in Israel and he considered himself the Apostle to the Gentiles although Jews were part of his audiences and congregations as well, in the many cities and regions they had dispersed to.)
As Tabor illustrates well, Luke’s agenda in Acts is clearly to smooth over the strong theological conflict and high animosity of which Paul speaks, between himself and the Jerusalem leaders. Luke takes pains (often at odds with Paul’s direct testimony, and likely around 40-60 years later) to indicate that actual or potential disagreements on major issues got resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. As such, he presents an apparent “unity of the faith” by the time the historical and theological summary, in story form, just trails off with Paul headed toward Rome as a prisoner in the early to mid 60s.
Now, back to the critical resurrection question and how Tabor handles the many puzzles surrounding it in the NT. Since it seems to have been so central for Jesus’ original followers, then for Paul and on down to most present day Christians, how are the contradictions (within the Gospels) and the confusions (between the Gospels and Paul) to be sorted out? Is there any pattern or meaning to them? What does any resolution leave us to understand? As to pattern, Tabor contends that the chronological approach of Paul to Mark to Matthew and Luke (with John likely following last but differing in focus and theology) gives us the keys. The story is too involved to summarize well here. But it is basically this: The disciples do return, disheartened, to Galilee (as omitted fully by Luke). There Peter is probably first (as Paul reports) to have “seen” Jesus, followed soon by others, perhaps in joint visionary experiences. At some point, with faith in the still-coming Messianic Kingdom renewed, and expecting Jesus to very shortly bring it in from God’s throne, these Galileans re-gather in Jerusalem.
According to Paul, his vision and all the other appearances of Jesus were of the same nature — visionary. Though Paul refers to Jesus as crucified, buried and raised on the third day, he shows no interest in his tomb being found empty. Tabor relates, from the Gospel texts themselves, how it probably was discovered empty because Joseph, the tomb’s donor, had moved the hastily and temporarily entombed body to its final burial place. Whether or not this vital fact was discovered by the disciples later sometime, as it seems it would have been, is not a crucial point. The Gospel writers wouldn’t include it if it was, decades later while passing along either the existing tradition and/or building their own case for a corporeal resurrection; and Paul was unconcerned with the physical body’s disposition, in his firm belief that Jesus became a “life-giving spirit,” having a “spiritual body,” and using similar phrasing frequently. An additional indication that Paul refers to merely visionary appearances, not a body of “flesh and bones” as in the Gospels, is that he refers to an appearance to “over 500 brethren at once” (1 Cor. 15).
No hint of this comes up in the Gospels, despite the fact that they go to great lengths to detail convincing appearances, confirmed by multiple witnesses…. Did Paul hear wrongly about something this major? Did he just make it up? (Probably not, implying one could locate some of the living participants, though his Corinthian letter recipients were far from Israel.) Or were all the appearances of visionary nature? The last of these makes much the best sense to me, consistent with Tabor’s emphasis (although Tabor does not analyse this particular detail as he does others). Still, any interpretation of how Paul comes to the “over 500″ statement presents real problems for the Gospel contention that Jesus made a point of being touched, showing his wounds, eating, etc. (that is, he was not a ghost). In seeking to relate Jesus’ “many convincing proofs” of bodily presence (Luke in Acts 1:3), how is the appearance to over 500 left out? (Luke seems to indicate a smaller total group of disciples before the ascension, numbering it “about 120″, Acts 1:15.)
Now, in getting so detailed on mainly Paul and the Gospels on the resurrection, I have merely given a sample of the approach of Tabor in Paul and Jesus. He goes into both helpful detail and effective summary in covering Paul’s theology and how it differed so radically from that of the Jerusalem leaders who apparently were distant enough from Paul’s work most of the time that the true differences only came out gradually and were confronted in Paul’s final trip (of three) to Jerusalem. According to Luke, who Tabor calls questionable, at best, as to his historical claims although Luke obviously has consulted sources, this confrontation indirectly leads to Paul’s arrest and transport to Rome. We get no clear sense of how the examination of Paul there actually turned out. However, as Tabor develops at some length, Paul’s later writings show clear disdain for and opposition to alleged apostles who he believes (as do I) are the Jerusalem leaders and their representatives (“apostle” is a fairly broad term not always referring to “The Twelve” and/or Paul).
I’ve taken the time and space here to highlight factors from this excellent book because I believe it is both very important and appeals to a broad readership… virtually anyone interested in their own Christian faith or in the religious history of the first century. I find Tabor impressively proves his point that Jewish (and some “hellenist”) Jesus-followers, mainly in Jerusalem, and Pauline Christians made up at least early “Christian” groups. The two groups were mostly distinct and geographically separate with distinct beliefs and practices which did overlap in part and shared a common base in Jewish messianic hope. That one, following Paul’s “revelations,” eventually prevailed has meant that we have mostly lost touch with what it originally meant to be a “Christian” in the early years in Israel, and what that seems to say about Jesus and “the Gospel.”
Have you read the book? Do you intend to? Please share your thoughts whether you have or not, intend to or not!
