“WAS JESUS A CHRISTIAN?”
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday,
All
The question in my sermon title is
one of those questions that startle at first hearing, or it least it was that
way for me. It is a question that
rearranges the way we think about something, and shows us how the assumptions
we make just might be worth re-examining.
I first considered this question a while ago while I was researching
Mark Twain for a previous sermon, and came across this statement from
Twain:
“As concerns Christ. . . we know one thing for certain: He was
not a Christian!”
So I’ve wondered – was Jesus a
Christian? The question lends itself to some
very simple answers. One of those very
simple answers is this:
“NO. Of course Jesus was not a Christian. He was Jewish. He was devout in his Judaism, and never
claimed to be anything else.
Christianity is a religion that was created by his followers after he
died.”
That is one simple answer to the
question of whether Jesus was a Christian.
Here is another simple answer:
“YES. Of course he was a Christian. He taught a new religion as an alternative to
the ancient Judaism of his culture.
Jesus was Christian in the same sense that Buddha was Buddhist. He was, if not the founder of it, at least
the inspiration for it.
Both answers are very credible, so
the only conclusion is that perhaps the question doesn’t lend itself to simple
answers. The question is far more
complex, and we can expect to find adequate answers only outside the boundaries
of simplicity.
Part of the difficulty of finding a
simple answer to that question is because Christianity itself has become so
complex, with so many paths and schools and spin-offs, that it isn’t easy, even
in a nation that is overwhelmingly self-identified as Christian, to hold a
coherent picture of what that means.
On one hand, we can form a mental
snapshot of a simple Jewish rabbi in ancient
Ø
An
evangelical mega-church of 5,000 members in the suburbs of
Then look back at
that picture of a simple itinerant rabbi preaching in the desert. Now picture:
Ø
A
college of cardinals in
Then glance again at
that picture of a simple itinerant rabbi being chastised by church authorities
for associating with the poor and sick and criminal. Now picture:
Ø
A
coalition of churches lobbying for lowering of taxes for the nation’s
wealthiest citizens, and cutting medical benefits for the poorest.
Or picture:
Ø
A
prominent televangelist advocating a foreign policy of assassinating political
leaders in other countries.
Can these images be held alongside
that of the original image of Jesus? One
wonders what resemblance some of today’s churches have with the religion taught. If we ask the question of whether Jesus was a
Christian, the answer surely depends on what is meant by such a claim. The question is really a two-step
question. First, we should ask, what is
the religion Jesus practiced and taught?
Then we can ask whether what he taught is Christianity as we see it
practiced today.
There is no question that from a
historical perspective, Jesus considered himself a devout Jew. He was raised in an observant Jewish home, he
was educated in synagogues, he regularly attended Sabbath services there, and
he never denied (he even avidly and proudly affirmed) his Jewish identity. His disciples most commonly addressed him as
“Rabbi.” It is true that he preached
reform of many of the Jewish traditions.
He thought the leaders were far too legalistic in their judgments. For example he thought the rules against
certain behavior on the Sabbath were far too strict. “The Sabbath was made for people,” he said,
“people were not made for the Sabbath.”
He was angered by the show of wealth
at the
It seems to me that confusion about
the religion of Jesus may be attributable to the way those who came after him focused on him rather than his message. A large segment of the Christian tradition elevated
Jesus, rather than his teachings, to
be the focus of their dogma. Jesus, of
course, taught nothing like that. He did
not ask people to worship him. He made
no claim of divinity beyond the claim that we all have divinity within us. In an interesting book called The First Coming, religious scholar
Thomas Sheehan traces the twists and turns of the early church that went from
Jesus’ teachings about religion to eventually become a religion about
Jesus. The establishment of church
doctrines about Jesus did not come from Jesus, but from some of his followers,
such as Paul.
As a summary, Sheehan said this:
“In seizing upon Jesus, the church has missed what Jesus was about. . .
. Jesus is not the object of the message
he preached.”
It seems to me that final sentence
is profoundly helpful as to our question this morning. “Jesus is not the object of the message he
preached.” It is imperative, then, to
look again directly at what Jesus did teach.
This goes a long way toward answering our question.
The religion that Jesus taught is
actually quite straight-forward. There
are, I think, two places in the Bible where we can find his attempts to
summarize his religious message. At the
beginning of his ministry, he came to the synagogue on Sabbath, and read from
the Hebrew Bible out of the Book of Isaiah.
In quoting Isaiah, he set forth an outline of the ministry he was about
to commence. Here is what he read:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to
preach good news to the poor. He has
sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of
the Lord.”
Then Jesus laid the book down and
declared this: “Today this scripture has
been fulfilled in your hearing.” Thus
began the ministry of Jesus of
The second example of summarizing
his teachings came when, after a sermon, he was asked by one of the Pharisees
what is the core of his teachings – or what does it take to “be saved.” Jesus answered this way:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all
your soul, and with all your mind. This
is the greatest and first commandment.
And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law
and the prophets.”
If our aim is to understand the
religion Jesus taught, these two summary statements should be a guide for
us. He was about helping those in need,
healing those who hurt, liberating those who are oppressed. Love God, and love your neighbor as
yourself. Those words, by the way, –
“the law and the prophets” – are the phrase used to identify Jewish scriptural
tradition. The Hebrew Bible is divided
into books of law and books of prophesy.
So Jesus was saying that the Law of Love is the foundational message of
scripture.
Even Paul, who did more to shape the early Christian Church than anyone
else, wrote these words to the
“The whole law is summed up in a single commandment. You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.”
If this is what his message was
about, it is important to identify what he didn’t say. He didn’t give a long list of rules of piety,
about what to eat and what not to drink, or what kind of language you should
avoid. He did not say that you must read
the Bible daily or attend church regularly.
Most of all he did not say you must affirm some correct theological or
metaphysical formulation of God, and certainly he did not say you must worship
him, Jesus, as a God. What he said was more
profound. Love God and love your
neighbor.
In a real sense, the message of
Jesus was precisely to teach that love is more important than laws in religion
– to put love before the law. Law was a
central concept for the ancient Hebrew tradition, and the scriptures were
explication of the laws that must be followed if you are to be obedient – there
were dietary laws and laws about behavior on Sabbath and laws about who is and
is not family, and so forth. But Jesus
came to raise the law of love above all others.
“The whole law is summed up in a single commandment,” wrote Paul. “You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.
Jesus identified with those who
suffer rather than with the powerful.
This was dramatically illustrated at the “last supper” when he said to
his disciples:
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me
drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, sick and
in prison and you visited me.”
The disciples were confused because
they didn’t remember such circumstances, and they said: “Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed
thee or thirsty and give thee drink? And
when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or sick or in prison and
visit thee?
And Jesus answered,
“Truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these, you did it to
me.”
It isn’t that difficult to identify
the religion Jesus taught. It was a
religion of service and compassion and love.
It was to bring out from us our ability to care for others. In a book about Jesus, writer Donald Robinson
said it this way:
"The ethical
core of Jesus' teaching was the conviction that an attitude of un-judging love
was all that we need to guide us in our relationships with others, and that
this attitude, to be effective, must be unconditional. No matter who the person was, whether
righteous or sinner, Jew or outcast, no matter what that person had done, this
attitude of un-judging love must be maintained.
"He said,
'Love your enemies,' not because there was any special merit in loving enemies,
but because this is one of the most difficult situations in which to maintain
an attitude of good will. He said,
'Judge not,' not because he looked upon all ethical distinctions with
indifference, but because the frame of mind which seeks to discriminate
good and evil in others is incompatible with a compassionate acceptance of
them.
Now that we’ve identified the
religion of Jesus, we return to the question of whether the religion Jesus
taught was the religion of Christianity as we understand it. Again, the answer isn’t simple. To the extent that Christianity has become a
religion of rules and laws, or dogmas, to the extent that it promotes
intolerance and fosters judgmental attitudes toward others who are different, it
is a far cry from what he taught during his life. To the extent it has become a means for
providing social status or arrogance at being on better terms with God than
your neighbor or justifying wealth or accumulating power, it is not what Jesus
taught.
But to the extent that today’s
Christianity is able to inspire compassion for, as Jesus said, “the least of
these,” then the religion he taught continues today. Jesus had no control over what people did
with the religion he taught after he was gone.
The fact is that the religion that
became Christianity has a very mixed legacy.
On the one hand we know the shadowy side of that tradition – the
inquisitions and crusades that slaughtered countless innocent victims, the promotion
of slavery, the alliance of religion with political power-brokers, and the use
of religion to amass wealth and power.
On the other hand, we can still see much
more than a mere trace of those who have taken Jesus’ message seriously. Over the years, many churches have worked to
make life better for their neighbors.
They have created hospitals and schools and orphanages. They have worked for justice and lobbied for
the interests of those disenfranchised from society’s power. The message of Jesus has not become entirely
lost over the ages, and some today still practice its core: Love
your neighbor as yourself.
There are important pockets of the
Christian churches that to practice the religion that Jesus taught. Within the Catholic Church there are entire
orders of religious workers devoted to helping the poor and homeless. Many churches have stepped up to the plate in
raising money to relieve human suffering from recent hurricanes and
earthquakes. I spoke recently with a
Methodist in town who is passionate about a project to promote clinics in
The religion that Jesus taught is
alive and active in many quarters of Christendom today. With these examples, but only with such
examples, I have no problem identifying Jesus as a Christian.
I’ll close with a couple of comments
from the early Unitarians about the religion that Jesus taught. The first is from William Ellery Channing,
who led the beginning of Unitarianism in American 200 years ago. Channing wrote that “Others may love Christ
for (his) mysterious attributes; I love him for the rectitude of his soul and
his life.” Elsewhere he said this:
The end for which Jesus came was to convert people into real
friends. He came to operate on the
spirit, to implant a principle of true love.
He came to adorn the human character, to strip it of everything fierce
and repulsive, to make it attractive. He
came to take from our hands the implements of war, and to open our arms to
embrace one another.
From the beginning, the Unitarian
tradition has insisted that Jesus can be a model for us only to the extent that
he was, indeed human. We cannot hope to
aspire to a divine model, but we can stretch ourselves to follow an
extraordinary human example. It is from
this perspective that I close with the words of Unitarian Theodore Parker in
his landmark sermon in 1841 on “The Transient and the Permanent in
Christianity. Parker said:
“(As great as Jesus was), still was he not our brother, the son of man,
as we are; the son of God, like ourselves?
His excellence, was it not a human excellence? His wisdom, love, piety – sweet and celestial
as they were – are they not what we also may attain? In him, as in a mirror, we may see the image
of God, and so on from glory to glory, till we are changed into the same
image. Viewed this way, how beautiful is
the life of Jesus.”