The role of the Church in defining the nature and role of Jesus of Nazareth is undeniable. Through the process of canonization it was determined by the early Church which writings would make it into the New Testament and which would not. Paul’s influence is clearly seen in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and because John’s gospel differed so greatly in style and content there was much debate about whether or not it should be included.
I would guess that what most of us think we know about Jesus was learned from the Church, not from the Bible. The argument could be made that the Church simply teaches the Bible, but history informs us that the early Church was integrally involved with developing the Bible from which it teaches. Only within the last century have early texts that didn’t make the canonical cut been brought to light, providing us with a glimpse of the Jesus free of ecclesiastical influence.
So, is it the Church’s Jesus that I’m supposed to be following? Again, what’s in it for me? And more, what might possibly be in it for the Church? Does the Church have anything to gain by presenting a Jesus which appeals to my self-interest? One must wonder why Jesus himself was not clearer about the dogma he considered important rather than leaving such a responsibility to the emerging Church. Is it just possible that he had something altogether different in mind?
No comments:
Post a Comment