If it can be assumed that the Fourth Gospel is correct, and that Jesus Christ's aim and (successful) work was to offer those who followed him eternal resurrected life, in a second creation (i.e. another and new world) that is Heaven...
Then I think we can perceive two major directions of historical misunderstanding (or, perhaps, mis-appropriation) whereby Jesus was instead assumed to be instituting a new religion of this-world: one was making this-world a better place; the other was making ourselves better people...
Such that Jesus was mistakenly believed either to be offering:
1. Social transformation; or
2. Personal transformation.
Social transformation was assumed to be accomplished by social methods - aimed at the adoptive-"tribe" of Christians.
This would be accomplished by building a new social religion, that is a new priesthood and church-organization; so that the life of all Men in that society would be changed.
This actually happened; especially with the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. Through history there have been several societies that have been transformed, by several kinds of Christian church.
The idea is that Men would be improved as individuals secondarily, by the primary means of making their social world a better place.
Personal transformation was assumed to be accomplished by the already-ancient and still present methods of mystery religion (eg. in Mithraism): by selection, initiations, training of the mind in accordance with the will.
This also actually happened. The methods of personal transformation were variously adopted for the priesthood (and later for the religious orders) of the social religion. The goal of personal transformation also led to what-gets-called the "Gnostic" strand of Christianity.
The idea was that individual Men would be made better primarily (albeit in an esoteric setting); and such Men would secondarily, as a consequence, "leaven the lump" and make this world a better place.
But if Christianity is not really about making this world a better place - and if Jesus is understood as having said that - ultimately, spiritually - this world cannot by its nature be made a significantly better place...
Then this means that social and personal transformation - while both possible - will not have the effect of betterment.
If, in fact, Jesus taught that personal transformation does not make better men, and social transformation does not make better societies - then the major emphases of the actual Christian religion through history have been wrong.
(Whether or not Jesus is understood to have asserted or implied that social and personal transformation cannot - by the nature of this mortal and earthly reality - make the needful difference to the human condition; it can nonetheless be argued that his core and essential teaching was about the next-world, not his-world; and the post-mortal state, not about making people or societies better.)
It is perfectly understandable that everyone will want a positive transformation of this mortal life: both personally and socially (even if they have different ideas about which ought to, or must, come first).
In is perfectly understandable that people should hope and want that their religion will make them better people during their lives on earth, and make this this world a better place ASAP.
All this is understandable and indeed apparently inevitable...
For example: In our post-religious society; the atheist-materialist ideologies are focused on optimistic schemes aimed at positively-transforming our-mortal-selves and this-world. Indeed; everything else is excluded by assumption.
But if, in fact, Jesus's essential and core work was aimed-at transforming our post-death and next-world state - and thus not at transforming this mortal life; then Christianity ought to have been - and ought now to be - a very different kind of religion than it actually has been and is.
6 comments:
An important observation. Slightly off topic, but the focus on this-world betterment is what the Grand Inquisitor referred to as "correcting Jesus's work," and I believe there is much to that.
Sparking off of Dostoevsky, Berdyaev noted that Jesus's next-worldy focus was dangerous to everyday life; dangerous enough to cause the collapse of nations and civilizations. Avoiding such collapse, presumably in the interest of various powers-that-were, entailed disorting or adapting the next-worldly message into something more this-worldly in scope.
Christianity would indeed had been a different religion had such "corrections" not been implemented and practiced.
Assuming a positive stance on the "corrections," one could argue that they attempt to add meaning, structure, and purpose to mortal life. After all, mortal life is preparation for post-mortal life. At the same time, the "corrections" appear to have overshot their target by concentrating almost exclusively on this-worldly transformation, be it personal or social.
The current and continuing fixation on this-worldly matters of church politics, societal influence, and other this-worldly matters among Christians does not bode well in terms of correcting the "corrections."
@Frank - "At the same time, the "corrections" appear to have overshot their target by concentrating almost exclusively on this-worldly transformation, be it personal or social."
Yes, overshot and almost-wholly overwhelmed.
There is a point - long since surpassed - at which the irrelevant, speculative, erroneous and in-general subordinate are so abundant, that the simple truth might as well never have existed... So unlikely is anyone to pick it out from the far more numerous and more emphatically emphasized distractions.
I often fail to notice this (or take it for granted) but I keep coming across serious and (by me) respected writers who summarize and encapsulate Jesus as having redeemed Mankind and the world, having begun to raise mankind towards divinity and improve social values, having instituted a turning point for the better, in the history of creation - and things such as that.
All goodness in this world is but a candle flame in the dark. It can give us hope, and light our way, but it will never repel all darkness.
I always found the LDS call to 'build Zion' here and now to be an absurd fool's hope, and not the holy kind as in Frodo and Sam's journey, but the kind that would hope for Sauron to have a change of heart.
@Sean - It's such a shame that the astonishing achievements of LDS theology have converged on mainstream Christianity, so that the end result is almost indistinguishable. One problem was an incoherence that was never sorted-out, whereby the deep (metaphysical) theological breakthroughs, were contradicted by more superficial aspects of doctrine and church order - and therefore theology was all but ignored. Mother in Heaven is perhaps the most egregious example - this metaphysical insight seems to make no practical difference.
@Bruce - A shame but not at all surprising. The will of all institutions are slowly bent toward evil. Even the institution that promotes individual communion with the Holy Ghost, more than any other, has found a way to capture its members into perpetual leader/system worship.
But we get to pick up the torch, that was abandoned along with the name Mormon, and run with it.
@Sean - "But we get to pick up the torch, that was abandoned along with the name Mormon, and run with it."
Yes.
Post a Comment