Yeah, that Jesus guy was a troublemaker, there's no doubt about it. What's even worse, he's still making trouble for us today. Why is it that he gets so much lip-service but so little attention? That's always struck me as strange. Truth be told, those who are quickest to sing his praises and cry halleluja - at least in my experience - are those who by and large think they might owe him something (they claim because he was crucified on their behalf) but other than that don't really pay all that much attention to the details of the contract.
Like any other narrative, we need to sort the truth out from the red herrings and what's false; we have to find the substance and throw away the fluff; we have to sift the wheat from the chaff. For all of you who are not familiar with the source document (and especially for those of you who think you are), let me point something out to you: what we call the New Testament is actually three different parts that have been glommed together. The first four books, the Gospels plus the fifth book, called Acts (which was written by the same guy who wrote the third gospel, which is why we can include it here) constitute the first part. It is all about what Jesus said and did. The last part is the last book alone, Revelation, or as some like to call it, the Apocalypse which is a pretty heady vision of the end of the world, so it, too stands out on its own. The 21 "books" in between, which are actually letters, mostly by Paul, make up the other part, and these tell us what Paul and his friends think that first part means. And, as they say, therein lies the rub.
Some people think it's just a bunch of gibberish because it says too many different things. Some people think it's Holy Scripture and stands above reproach. Some people simply find deep inspiration in the first part (which is what Gandhi, for example, was most concerned with). And some people don't care at all. The point is that regardless of how we personally see it, something in there is strong enough that it has persisted till today. My question is what?
It would seem to me that if in fact we have this big celebration every year honoring Jesus' (alleged) birthday, then it strikes me as most reasonable to take our cue from the man himself, not someone else's ideas about what he meant. I mean, after all, should his own words and deeds count for more than someone else's thoughts about them? I'm a big fan of originals, so that's where I go first, and that was the reason for the little excursion through what gets lost in translation. It seems to me that it's all pretty clear: "the one next to me", the "one nearest to me", my "neighbor" (if you will) is first and foremost not me. The Other is every bit as important as, if not more important than, oneself. In fact, life in general isn't about you, it's about others. That's what he said, and that's what ticks us off the most.
If you ask me, that's why Jesus was such a troublemaker: he called us out on our own hypocrisy. So the next time, should you be so inclined, praising Jesus - and passing the ammunition or whatever else you do at the time - remember it was that guy who said it wasn't about you at all, it is about who you're shooting at. The rest of us can just stop putting ourselves first. That's what I think the Birthday Boy was trying to tell us.
No comments:
Post a Comment