Finker has been running a series on his blog called 4+1 - he asks four questions (the same four) of various people, and then when he recieves their reply he asks each of them one follow-up question in response to their answers. He asked me to join in, and Finker's 4+1 interview with me is here.
In the process, I wrote a lengthy response to his fifth question, which I ended up deleting for the sake of leaving a little space on Finker's blog for someone else. If you're interested, the stuff I eidted out over there is here:
Finker's 2nd question: yes Jesus or no Jesus?
Maggi: Well, mostly yes. There are times when I've wondered whether there is no God, but it's pretty hard to dispute that Jesus was real, historically speaking, and that he had a profound impact on those around him. I think there are plenty of arguments you can have around the edge, and there are times when you feel like saying "no I won't" or "no I can't" to the demands Jesus made. But if he was here, right now, I think he'd be the kind of individual I'd find it very hard to say "no" to... (etc)
Maggi: My description of Jesus is only part historical, you know, Finker. It's difficult - nay, almost impossible - to say anything of absolutely dependable accuracy about what the man Jesus of Nazareth was like, as the various "Quests" for the historical Jesus have shown. And this fact gives us both a freedom and a problem. It's a freedom because Jesus, by his spirit, can become the Jesus of here and now for you, and me, and people everywhere. Were time travel possible, it's hard to imagine that a first century male palestinian Jew could relate to an over-educated, 21st century white woman. We would be bewildered by one another's cultures. Yet Jesus is real in my community by his Spirit, and becomes real through the members of that community, as well as in our own souls and imaginations. (I'm using imagination here not to suggest that Jesus is not real, or is a flight of fancy, but to acknowledge that to encounter spiritual realities you need to engage the imagination).
When I desribe Jesus as "A man of total integrity and passionate commitment to his cause" and say that he "loved life... showed deep love to his friends... dined out a lot and hung out with all sorts of people..." etc., it isn't really a historical account, it's how I conceive now of what Jesus is like, and that's the Jesus I hear calling to me; that is the spirit that when I encounter it in my own soul or in other people, I recognise it as the Spirit of Christ that lives in us, yet has a reality beyond any of us - I think that's what incarnation means.
But there's a problem too in the possibility of wide interpretation, because there are ways of interpreting Jesus that fall within the bounds of a broad orthodoxy, yet seem pretty unacceptable to me, Some people, for instance, put so much emphasis on the morally demanding aspect of Jesus that they lose touch with his compassion, making him more judgemental than liberating. Some interpret him as right wing, racist, patriarchal. All interpretations of Jesus (including mine) are a mix of historical truth and the projections of our own views. It's very demanding to see our own projections for what they are and evaluate critically our own idea of Jesus, while at the same time listening huimbly and compassionately to other people's idea of him. All the same, I don't think this means you can't know a "real" Jesus here and now; I think it means that the real Jesus we know is inseparable from our relationship to others. Only if I allow my idea of Jesus to be revised and refined by yours and other people's will I ever encounter anything of the spirit of the real Jesus. Only if you allow readings of Jesus that you find alien and strange will you ever touch the heart of the real Jesus. Often those who "feel" the reality of Jesus most acutely have the most unreal idea of Jesus. The feeling of being all switched on to God can be a comfortable disguise for a religion based on a very unreal Jesus.
So to get back to your question, via a slightly circuitous route, Jesus is "here" for me in that the spirit of the real Jesus does live on in people, in Church, in sacrament. Knowing whether JEsus is real is problematic in that sometimes the way other people present him makes me want nothing to do with him. Question - is that the "real" Jesus, or are they mistaken? And he is problematic in that I have to consider how much of Jesus is my own invention. Question: Am I just making up a Jesus I like better than someone else's? But despite all that there is a spirit at the heart of it all, rooted in the accounts of scripture, which are scripture precisely because they bear witness to Him. And thus, despite the complexity of honest faith, I do find a reality about Jesus here today.
All of this, dear Finker, even though it has an important place, is rather verbose and a bit abstract in places. The great 20th century protestant theologian, Karl Barth, was far more verbose and abstract than I shall ever be, and I take heart from him when I think I'm getting too involved in complexities of words and thought. But I take heart even more from this little anecdote. Someone once asked Barth whether he could sum up his whole theology in just a few words. Barth paused for a moment, and then replied, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." When words get too much, I always remember that.
Peace to you, Finker. Yours, Maggi Dawn.
beautiful maggi
karl barth's anecdote is one of my favourites too.
x jody
Posted by: jody | 22/03/2007 at 11:17
You have expertly brought out the fact within all the narratives of Jesus, after you dust out all the detritus what remains shining as the core is his glowing love for the humanity.
Posted by: Rog | 22/03/2007 at 20:06
An amazing meandering read maggi. I would have happily posted the whole lot!
Posted by: finker | 22/03/2007 at 20:23