A recent assignment for a class on Catholicism…

On the basis of the New Testament, how would you answer someone who says, “I don’t need a Church. My faith is in the person of Jesus.”

With the growing controversies surrounding the Christian denominations [Catholic and Protestant alike] many people are beginning to fall into the category of the above written quotation. When asked, “Who was Jesus?” and “Why did Jesus come?” many of my peers are quick to respond with something close to: “He was the Messiah” and “He came to die for my sins so I can go to heaven.” Both of these statements are astute responses yet they are incredible lacking. To limit one’s faith solely to the person of Jesus Christ you miss His entire message.

The crucifixion and resurrection were only the beginnings of the new life that Jesus intended for the world. By giving His life he put into action the creation of the Church by his disciples/apostles. The Church is so overwhelmingly necessary to a “faithful” follower of Christ. Saint Paul wrote in his epistle to Corinth, “We are all part of one body, the body of Jesus Christ.” This body that Paul speaks of, this is the same body that began to form on the day of Pentecost. That day, Peter [and the disciples] spoke to the crowds in numerous tongues, baptized them, and encouraged them to begin living in communities “that broke bread with one another.” This is what Jesus was all about, bringing about the Kingdom of God on Earth, ushering in true egalitarianism. To live your life without the Church seems contrary.

TC Mertins

When examining the primary documents of Martin Luther it is evident that he was more a medieval figure than a modern one. His writings and actions greatly influenced the Protestant Reformation and Luther stood as a figurehead to all involved with the movement. Though indicative of a man with influential and revolutionary knowledge, Luther’s ethics were based upon a Thomistic “medieval” interpretation. With examination and synthesis of three of Luther’s text, his medieval ethical interpretation can be seen.
Martin Luther’s primary text for examining the freedom of believers was Concerning Christian Liberty. In this brief treatise Luther addresses the fundamental aspects of Human/God’s Righteousness and acts as a template for Christian obedience. The entire texts rest upon two contradictory pillars: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” Though these two statements rest in cognitive dissonance they are to be understood via Luther’s two-fold nature of Humanity. Man has a bodily nature and a spiritual nature and both can exist simultaneously. This implies that one is both righteous and simultaneously a sinner in that one is “in marriage with Christ.” With baptism one receives regeneration allowing for one’s sinful nature to be destroyed; the only action that can undo the cleansing of baptism is unbelief in God. It is by having faith in God (not the doing of good works) that enlists salvation within one’s soul. Luther uses this particular text to establish the importance of doing one’s duty towards their neighbor over other aspects of life. Following along with medieval thematic elements Luther advocates faith in the body of believers.
On Temporal Authority is Luther’s attempt to distinguish the role of the believer with regards to the state. Going against the “modern” aspects of John Calvin’s theology of the believers taking an active role in the government/justice system, Luther advocates for a separation of the “sword” from the “righteous.” Luther quotes Matt. 5:39-40 in that Christians (as Christ commanded) are to turn the other cheek and to not resist evildoers. Luther claims that the state is responsible for raising the sword against injustice. This quasi-dualistic society leads Luther to establish his “two-kingdom” doctrine: the earthly kingdom and the spiritual kingdom. Luther writes:
“…God has ordained two governments; the spiritual, by which the Holy Spirit produces Christians and righteous people under Christ; and the temporal (earthly), which restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that—no thanks to them—they are obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace.”
This dualistic view of humanity greatly resembles Thomas Aquinas’ two-fold nature of the world. The Supernatural, which entails achieving happiness through God and the Natural, which allows for happiness through life. Luther’s two-kingdom model follows along with Aquinas dualistic model.
Another text of Luther’s that demonstrates his medieval characteristics is his work Against the Robbing and Murdering of Peasants. In the text Luther boldly states that the injustices being performed by the peasant revolts clearly put them outside of the realm of Christianity. Not only did they attack and pillage monasteries (“deserving death in body and soul as highwaymen and murderers”), but also they have directly gone against Paul’s command in Rom. 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” Luther goes on to state that baptism makes a man free in soul NOT mind and body. A ruler (if not a Christian) should be able to “smite and punish” the peasants who so disobey his commands because they have already ignored the commands of the Gospel and the ruler. But if the ruler is a Christian he ought to give the peasants an opportunity to come to terms (“even though they are not worthy of it”) and if that fails “swiftly take up the sword.” Calvin would later argue for the implementation of Christian leadership within society and banishment for all those not following the words of God, going against Luther’s belief of giving one a “second chance.”
Martin Luther’s overwhelming influence on Christian history is staggering. His new ideas challenged the authority of the papacy in Rome, and confirmed possible salvation within all who have Faith. His radical ideas were new and contemporary at the time, but they were greatly influenced by medieval theology specifically that of Thomas Aquinas. Thus it seems that as avant-garde as Luther was, he was more a medieval figure than a modern one.

Richard Horsley’s Jesus in Context is an apologetic of sorts; defending the jewishness of Jesus, the “living” tradition of antiquity, and the early church itself. Horsley implores his readers to re-evaluate their understanding of Jesus by examining the communities of the patristic age. In an age where events are taken at face value, Horsley argues for a new understanding of Jesus. This new understanding would take into consideration the cultural tradition or “social memory” of the early church and how it’s efforts paint us a better image of the life of Jesus Christ.
Horsley outlines his book by dividing it into four separate, but equally important parts. He begins by introducing the differences between “standard history” and “people’s history.” After defining the nature of history best suited for the Gospels, Horsley then looks at the Gospels as oral performances and the implications therein. Keeping the theme of oral performance, Horsley then investigates “social memory” and it’s role in the Jesus tradition. Finally, Horsley ends his quest by examining the role of the state as a “dominator” where Jesus is a “resistor.”
To evaluate the Gospels from a standard historical standpoint leads to non-linear understandings of the life of Jesus Christ. Standard history is often only concerned with the ruling elites who were involved with important events; the ones who “wrote” history. Horsley argues that therefore “the meaning of history, turned out to be the meaning for the elites.” When evaluating Christianity in the light of standard history it can thus be inferred that this history was “written” by the bishops, theologians and church councils. Interestingly, Christianity did not exist in time of the New Testament period as an identifiable religion; most books in the New Testament have no references to Christians or Christianity. Horsley therefore advocates for an understanding of the Gospels from the lens of “people’s history.” When evaluating historical events from the “people’s” perspective rather than the “standard,” one is able to see everything from the bottom up rather than from the top down. Ordinary people are the focus rather than the elites, all aspects of life are taken into consideration rather than the political events at the top, and there is an interdisciplinary approach rather than leaving it solely in the realm of History.
Now looking at the Gospels from the “people’s history” Horsley raises two key facts: 1) the major difference between the “elite” culture and the “people’s” culture was literacy, and 2) literacy was not used in most social and economic interaction (certainly not among the ordinary people). Jesus, throughout his entire ministry, spoke to the “ordinary people” of ancient Judea. Unsurprisingly the leaders of the early Christian communities were ordinary people; the disciples James, Peter, Andrew and John were all fishermen, and Prisca and Aquila (Christian followers in Rome) were poor artisans. These key figures undoubtedly lived in an environment of limited literacy where oral communications ruled the field.
According the Horsley modern scholarship has concluded that literacy in the Roman Empire was “limited to a small percentage of the population.” It was during this era that the Gospel narratives were passed on, leading scholars to conclude that the traditions had been remembered orally. Horsley argues that the relationship between a text and its audience must be reconsidered in a society where the vast majority was illiterate. He compares the text of the New Testament to other texts of antiquity, which were also performed orally (ancient Roman/Greek poetry).
Another major problem with writings of antiquity stems from the availability of written texts. Papyrus was the preferred medium at the time and proved to be quite expensive, cumbersome, and nearly impossible to read from (especially since the majority of the population could not read). These different factors all led to the Gospel tradition being performed orally. Horsley writes: “considering that (the Gospels) story was performed before communities in a particular historical context, the key questions to ask may be not what is meant by the words or verses … but how the performed text resonated with the audience.”
Modern biblical studies have neglected the influential role of memory with regards to the oral tradition of the Gospels. With new efforts by scholars, social memory is beginning to take hold as a major concept of tradition. But before one can understand the social memory of the early church, one must deconstruct some preconceived notions. Horsley believes that standard study of the gospel tradition has led scholars to believe that Jesus was trying to break away from Judaism. When, in fact, Jesus himself lived and died a Jew. Standard study has led scholars to posits that the Gospels were stable written texts, whereas in reality the Gospels were a living tradition only to be fully concreted in the end of late antiquity. Because the gospel narratives were performed and heard countless times, in different places, the exact wording becomes less important compared to the overall meaning and events of a story. The Gospel of Mark comes out then (when looking from Horsley’s perspective) as a mix of episodic and speech materials sophisticated in the social memory of Jesus’ movements.
The last section of Horsley’s book deals with the notion of dominance and resistance as themes of the New Testament. The New Testament itself acted as a commandment to those who reigned superior to engage in colonial rule. It helped legitimize the domination of people in order to help (Christianize) them. But the Bible also played a historical role for those being oppressed, such as when African slaves associated their slavery with that of the Israelites in Egypt during the Mosaic period. Horsley calls his readers to appreciate the subtleties of the “hidden” transcripts of the Bible to see its call for resistance by subordinated peoples.
Richard Horsley’s main attempt at placing Jesus in the proper context comes to fruition throughout the book: the memory and traditions of Jesus were performed orally before being written down, and the written texts were continually developed throughout the late patristic period. Horsley forces his reader to re-examine preconceived notions about Jesus by providing new and engaging scholarship to further his point that we can “trust” the Jesus of the New Testament.