A Village Where Thinking of Jesus Goes On
We live in a village. It, like most towns in Southeastern Michigan, has been around since the 3rd or 4th decade of the 19th century. I’m not sure just why it is here, though certainly the river on its border is a primary reason. There has long been a history of cottage industry in the area and to this day there are small industrial companies in and around the village. But, no doubt, this was primarily a place gathered around to meet the needs of the local farming community.
Those roots led to conservative conviction and so it seems to me to be a place where memory and tradition have been important and no doubt also the Republican Party. We moved here after years of living in the University city, which is 5 or 6 miles to our east. That is a community much larger, open and dedicated to the future, with mostly more liberal values and historically greater parity politically. We noticed when we got here that our village had a distinct small-town quality to it, though we can see stresses in its life as the city has sprawled this way. The 21st century shoulders its way and the new threatens in some ways those older convictions. In the 2008 election, much to their surprise, Democrats won a number of local elections and had to be taught how to govern having no living experience with its responsibilities.
There is an Episcopal church in town. It has been around a good long time as well, much longer than the church I worked at for such an extended spell. Like the village it is a small religious community, with maybe between fifty and one hundred going to church on a Sunday at its 2 services. We had been going to church there recently after a couple of false starts earlier.
Then the parish was visited by a tragedy. A conflict erupted between the Rector (pastor) and a large number of the parishioners. The Rector was forced to leave and the parish collapsed. Now it seems to be struggling back to some kind of normalcy but it has had a hard time. My wife, Emily, and I already had enough grief with the church over the past 10 years to bear the pain of the collapse so we stopped going on Sundays. I knew that the troubles had not needed to occur, that effective leadership would have solved the anguish, yet I was helpless to help or so it felt. This kind of story is repeated time and again in our church. I lay much of the diocesan and congregational trouble on professional leaders who often simply do not get it. The cynic wonders why.
So I am pretty chary of the institutional church these days. Somewhere in the middle of something, it came to me that the church was far more interested in itself as institution than it was about itself as, in the old language, the body of Christ. I do not mean this in either a pious or even religious way but, to use secular language, as a question of values. I knew, years ago, when my priestly colleagues began to refer to themselves as the CEOs of their congregations that we were in for a bad spell. As the years passed and congregational life began to look very much like the rest of suburban life – with business being a central value, with religious values determined by busy programs and success determined by the same kind of success General Motors seeks to recover, I began to fade away. I remain fixed in an old and longstanding conviction that Christianity is about being and not about doing. Being busy is not being faithful; it is institutional, secular and often selfish.
Yet I remain drawn to the faith of my childhood and profession. I understand that the Church has always been broken and broken seriously. Even the most cursory study of its history fills one with dismay and disgust. The oldest institution in the world, it is marked at least as much by its secularity and failed humanity as it is by its spiritual gifts and love for neighbor and self.
It is also true that the very idea of a loving God has become difficult for me in the face of the mindless horror and heedless cruelty experienced by so many innocent millions of humans. The idea that this suffering is to be blown off as something called the Will of God seems theological madness. At some very deep level, I simply do not get it. Suffering for what appears to be only for the sake of suffering cannot, I think, make sense. And the way in which historic Christian theology is currently twisted for ideological and political reason appalls and infuriates me. Those loudest announcing how Christian they are in our society are as far as I can tell hardly Christian at all. Yet they dominate the media having made victim of its ignorance, foolishness and shallowness.
Nevertheless I still find my heart tugged by the faith and my mind enriched by its story and drama. I turn sidewise but not away, even though we hardly ever go to church these days. I know I am in a great company of those in the same place. It is just too hard for me to get there yet the faith remains embedded within me.
What holds me are three things: The family I grew up in, live in and worship to this day, the enormously loving church I worked in for many years which got it right, and the astonishing thought and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
I would speak of Jesus. Two of my favorite and best teachers, thoughtful preachers, profound thinkers and friends, both priests, came in the later years of their lives to the conclusion they no longer could describe themselves as believing Christians or even as religious. One of them, an impeccable scholar, writer and thinker, has concluded out of his years of brooding that finally there can be no such thing as an historical man named Jesus. For him the historic Jesus is a pious fiction. I am sure the other, my ethics professor in seminary, felt at the end of his own dance something very like the same. I absolutely respect them both for their integrity and courage. My own scholarship pales in comparison with theirs. But my mind simply does not read the land that way. Neither does my heart.
I can never truly know who Jesus was or what he thought; the biblical record is too scrambled and short-handed for that. What we have in it are clues to who he was and how he was, enough to make a faith, but not enough to give us a fully realized life. Those who wrote the books (gospels) regarding him did not know him personally and did not have the libraries and newspapers and other conforming documents which any decent historian writing today would insist on. There is no evidence that any one of them, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John knew him nor even perhaps his original followers, though some of those foll owers may have lived long after Jesus’ murder. We believe likely that the earliest of the gospels was written somewhere around 70 AD, 40 years after the experience the Church called Easter. The gospel of John is from the 2nd century, perhaps nearly 100 years after the cross.
So the books in which we find ourselves grounded cannot be described as historical. Yet it seems equally clear to me that they are also not myth or fable. They are, I believe, about a history, one surrounded by myth (the very best kind which is story telling seeking the Truth) but a history nonetheless.
I feel this for a number of reasons, some of which, of course, I am not aware. But let me try one or two:
In the first place, there is no reason for anyone to have invented Jesus. What cabal dreamed up the greatest lie in human history and got away with it Scot-free? That does not seem a reasonable explanation emerging out of the lives of a small, tiny group of ill-educated and apolitical fishermen and tax collectors. And why would they do it? For what good reason would they engage in this and then sell it around the world, finally suckering in thousands and finally millions and billions of human beings? I believe there must therefore stand at the center of the stories of Jesus something else, a someone who was real and individual. Otherwise, those stories make no sense, and have a lie, however innocent, as their purpose.
Of course it may not make sense. In our culture, bombarded by information, shared by nearly all of us we yet continue to be hoodwinked and have the wool pulled over our eyes as a common definition of who we are. A significant portion of the American population believes that our President is not a citizen of the United States, nor a Christian, that evolution is not descriptive of the creation of the heavens and earth, that global warming is some kind of intellectual trick and that faith is largely a matter of political ideology. Our nation went to war in Iraq having been hoodwinked by our own government to believe in lies which though finally proven to be lies survived far too long to have been acted on responsibly by us. Thousands have, as a result, died to defend the indefensible. President Lincoln said it best that you can fool some of the people all of the time. So perhaps we live in a faith structure that is a hoax. It is just that I don’t see how.
I think no group could have dreamed up the unity which exists in the teaching of the gospels and especially in the parables accredited to Jesus. Without a doubt some of them have been edited and nearly ruined by the editing but many of them, most, are the work of a remarkable and unique mind. A mind that in a few words telling a tiny story could lay down and open the largest imaginable truths. The words of Jesus are it turns out forever new.
I come from a largely urban technological era and the New Testament is mostly about a rural non-technological era, yet the ideas at the center of that document remain today as clear and valid as they ever did when first heard. There is in them a perpetual daily newness that cannot be dimmed by time. They are, I believe, largely the work of one amazing mind.
For many years I worked on a daily and weekly basis on those words and especially those stories. Called to speak and write publicly about them, I lived my professional and personal life in their company. Each year Sunday after Sunday we were called to read them aloud, over and over and over, and each week I sat down, took in the text and wrote what I called either a sermon or essay about first this one and then that. At the end I had read them all dozens of times and was called to think and say out of them something particular for those who heard or read me at my work.
I never, to the tragic end of my professional life, tired of the task. There was always, in every one, something new to glimpse, touch, laugh over, weep with, celebrate. I came to admire the heart and mind of Jesus above all. I still do, despite our empty seats on Sunday morning. I came to believe in them and in him, not as some great God but as this child of our wildest dreams of hope and promise who was touched by the divine in nearly unspeakable ways. I still see him today not so much as Lord above all, but as this man, drawing stick in hand, around a fire with a circle of trusted friends and, perhaps, family, showing them the Truth in the stories he told – there was a man with two sons, there was a woman who lost something precious, there was a child who was hungry, there was a man who was full of evil forces, there was a farmer who seeded his farm, there was a rich man who looked down on others not like him. One after another the stories came out and are for me and us forever alive.
Someone reads them to us and tells us of them and if, if, the thing is got right we laugh or weep or celebrate or fall on our knees. We know we have been touched by the love which is our deepest dream and wildest hope. This truth cannot, I feel, be the work of a committee or a plot.
The stories have, or course, been manipulated, edited and sometimes nearly ruined by well-intentioned followers and believers and some of the stories have been made up by someone else and slipped in. The Bible has been laid hands on by those who would have better left it alone. It cannot be whatever is meant by the word infallible but it remains sacred; the right place to place to put ones bets as our best hope.
So I come to this: There was a man who had hold of the main thing. About him we know very little, less than we would like. He lived like nearly every other man or woman, happy and sad, healed and broken, poor yet deeply wise and rich in that wisdom, who carried with him a kind of wondrous magic. He shared it with anyone who would reach for it and out of that came a Word which transformed reality. He was, it appears, finally broken by those who could not bear the truth he confronted them with, yet somehow, whoever and whatever he was could not and would not die.
Some few of those who heard him and observed his loving acts did not forget them in the face of his murder. About him they would not and could not keep silent. In their ones and twos they told his story out of their memory of how and who he was. The story, the words, were enchanting and compelling and the word of them grew and flourished. Out of the magic of that came today finally this man writing this little essay who with his wonderful wife who lives in the middle of our nowhere village, oldish, limited, foolish, broken and broken-hearted but full of love and laughter and passion. He is no longer good at going to church but he loves his Lord.
Douglas Evett
Dexter, Michigan
AD 2110