Biblical Canonicity and the Gospel of Judas

I've been weary of writing anything on the newer publication of the Gospel of Judas for fear of contributing to the global speculation on how it might affect Christianity. However, after translating bits of the document and skimming it, I feel I need to say something about it. It was more than likely written in the 2nd or 3rd century by a certain group who felt a need to empathize with Judas. (And might I note that the hype concerning Judas as being instructed by Christ to mock-betray him is a very minute point within the work, ringing very gnostically) These kinds of 'unorthodox' (I use this term loosely) groups were not uncommon in the first centuries after Christ. But more importantly, it is significant to remember that the text is very Gnostic in its language reminescent of other Gnostic texts such as that of Thomas. It is uncertain whether or not this particular text was on the table during the canonization process of the biblical canon, but it is not in the canon. And so it does much to inform of another "heretical" Christian group running around the second and third century giving insight into another Gnostic group, but as far as informing the prime tenets of Christianity I find the 'hype' just that 'hype' ex nihilo. Christianity accepts the canon of the Bible as it is, not that the canon is closed as far as interpreting it, but in adding new documents. For Christians, the process of canonization, the process of tradition (in other words the continual work of the Holy Spirit) plays a very significant role in the history of the Church. Scripture is shielded by the perception that it is the word of God because those who wrote it were inspired by the Holy Spirit as witnesses to the incarnation, the Word of God. The canon of Scripture then speaks at all times to all people -- it is referred to as a 'living document,' thus making both writers and readers witnesses to the incarnation in their dialogue concerning it....

Power and Reality

I can still remember the days when one of my favorite childhood cartoons came on television: He-Man. I can still remember him holding up his sword and thundering, "By the power of Grayskull, I have the power!" What a powerful statement I used to think to myself. In fact, the statement still gives me goosebumps to this day. What it must be like to have that kind of power at my disposal...I can think of a hundred things I'd do with it (none of which particularly beneficent, though not altogether selfish). To be powerful, for me then involves having some kind of advantage that others do not have satisfying my need for speciality in and amongst my peers (especially my family and friends to whom I find an embarassing need to show-off, which does become rather embarassing at times). I want to be powerful enough to care for my son, love my wife and make my life easier. And so then another aspect of the power I want is that it makes life easier. But of course I would also want to impress the world with my power if possible...the more time in the spotlight the more inflated my ego becomes, the less stress I have, and the more I seem like that interesting person I always find on television.

In the last paragraph the word "I" and "me" appeared 25 times in a description of the kind of power I have been attracted to in my life. Thus, the power I want is an individual power that aids me and gives me an advantage in life, more 'freedom' to choose possibilities not available to others.

Again, I'm reminded of yet another superhero -- Superman. Now Superman has the possibility of flying, zapping things with his eye lasers, seeing through most objects, picking up objects too heavy for human beings, and going back in time -- all of which are possibilities not available to us naturally (as of yet at least). [And no I'm not going into a debate on what is and what is not natural...that's a few volumes of books]. Superman has the autonomous decision to use this advantage for his advantage or for others advantage. Of course, Superman is selfless, choosing the corporate good at all turns unless prevented by Kryptonite or other manipulation of his advantage.

Interesting, that when I think of power my mind surfs the array of superheroes first. Why? Is it because I was "glued to the tube" as a child and loved cartoons so much and so often that the memory stuck in the back of my mind so that it gets recalled at will? Perhaps. Is it because I imagined myself as a ninja turtle, as luke skywalker, as ender, as Aragorn, Wolverine, He-Man, a transformer, Captain Picard, Spock while I was growing up? Perhaps. Is it because all of my friends were interested in many of the same things, that I gravitated to these particular manifestations of power? Was it the yearning for acceptance that motivated me? Perhaps. Or more than likely all of these played a part in my perception of who and what is powerful and what manifestations power can take that I perceive to contain that power. It is then significant to note the social nature of human beings, and thus the social construction of what is powerful and what holds power.

Most nations hold America to be a nation more powerful than others, right? Not always. It depends upon your particular view of power. Returning to my first comments, the individualistic power that I grew up with informs me that indeed America is extremely powerful: we have an abundance of resources, wealth, autonomous freedom to choose within the parameters of the law, education, democracy, and the ability to destroy the world a thousand times over (or something like that). This is the power that gives Americans their perceived advantage over those in the rest of the world. We ignore the rest of the world because we know we are better than they are. Or we give the rest of the world charity while we stuff our faces, shop, buy, buy, buy, and indulge not in our ignorance concerning the condition of others but in our ignoring of them while masking with ignorance. Concerning the American mindset, I am not going to criticize it much more than I already have, but I would like to point out that it is our perceived advantage, our perceived power, that contributes to global strife because we tend to universalize our perception for the rest of the globe. And yes, the globe has conformed somewhat to the predictable advantage of the West, but because it is predictable, because it is physical and tangible -- something available to the senses that answers many questions. What is more powerful to us than the advantages we can see, touch and experience? That which we do not experience -- what I will refer to as the sacred?

What is powerful about a man who dies by having his hands and feet nailed to a tree where he slowly suffocates? What is powerful in this image? Is this merely a cathartic, experiential sort of empathy we have for a person who has committed no crime to die such a horrible death? I can still here my high school english grammar professor telling the class about the Bible as a good work of literature, utilizing rhetorical devices and grammar constructions uniquely to evoke certain emotions and create an ambiguity that lends it its power to transcend the ages (thus far). The sacred was not something embodied within the text, but mere rhetorical ambiguity to excite the weak-minded. Of course I believed him...his reasoning was sound, but more importantly he had answers, he had an empirical advantage over the religion to which I associated myself, which merely offered idealistic ambiguity (I thought at the time). How could Christianity, seemingly large and powerful, claim a power that revolves around a man that died on a tree and claim a power in faith that cannot be empirically verified? Faith could be merely explained away in terms of a psychological need, while the power in the crucifixion could be explained away as an event that embodies certain possibilities not available to human beings to which human beings find hope that one day they might be more than who and what they are. Is it the need of human beings to redefine power so that we are not bound by our temporal and humanly limitations? Is this why religion exists? So that human beings have the power, the advantage to cope with their existence in the empirical?

There are two powers at work here: the power of the sacred (mysterious advantage), and the power of empirical advantage. It is important to note this because both exist in our society.

Let's look at a metaphor: power as art. But what do I mean? Well, art can be powerful in a number of ways. It could be that art has its power in and among the cliques that auction it off and buy it. Or it could be that art has its power merely in an aesthetic sense. Or it could be that it has power psychologically. Or it could be that it has its power in human nature? Art can derive its power as communication? My point is that the power inherent in a work of art depends upon where a person or community stands at any given point in time. There are cultural factors that play a part, religious factors, etc. Isn't it interesting that we create art, which then takes on a life of its own, and then we exploit it to fulfill our own advantage. Art is then very powerful in an infinite number of ways. This is why it must be controlled. Granted this is a bit simplistic and not a complete analysis, but brevity is my goal: the power in art is balanced by sacred advantage and empirical advantage; in other words, power exists in art, but that power is sacred. But what is sacred cannot be so without control, otherwise society would fall apart. When what is sacred breaks loose, violence ensues (i've said this before). I would elaborate on these examples, but here are a few that I find relevant: The French Revolution, Protestant Reformation, Evolution...

What is sacred is institutionalized by religions to control it...but institutions, utilizing an empirical advantage cannot always contain the sacred advantage because the sacred is not always predictable. The empirical advantage only stands the test of time if something is predictable. But the sacred advantage points to something inexplicable, something not static that violates the empirical advantage we cling to in the West as what is powerful. Art is exploited as an empirical advantage, bought and sold, but again when the sacred advantage breaks free, it will violently re-emerge and redefine itself as art -- and this is true art.

Returning to the power of the cross that the Apostle Paul vehemently clings to in the letters attributed to him within the New Testament of the Bible, this is the power of the sacred with a temporal face, a promise, a hope, and an example for all of humanity. Understanding that human beings do not have access to understanding such power he relies on the grace of God to reveal such things to he and his brothers and sisters in Christ. As theologians put it, he sees through the lens of the cross revealing true power for what it is. And for Paul true power is God, the Sacred. But because human beings are limited beings in time, we can recognize true power when we see the world through the lens of Jesus' crucifixion, and as such focus the power of the sacred on its true origin. Christianity is not then something that one chooses, but is a reflection of how one perceives the power of the sacred given by God. But this perception of the sacred advantage is not unique to Christianity.

This power is institutionalized and focused in a number of ways by many people -- the world's religions, et al. Who has pegged the perception of the sacred that is more right? Christians, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Atheists, Scientists? Though I hate to brave a discussion of faith, this would be a logical place to do so. To start, the Muslim faith involves a numerical system wherein for every good act, certain numbers of eternal years of salvation are added into one's overall salvation; and for every bad act, a subtraction of years of eternal life? Christianity suggests that what we do has no effect on our eternal life, but rather God graciously gives all the possibility of eternal life (and no I will not go into a theological debate on election here -- I find it pointless and a Scriptural stalemate -- the point is that only God is responsible for human salvation). Comparing these two religions is walking a fine line here and I do not do justice to either...but what this illustrates is a difference in how the sacred is identified. In one, we have an empircal advantage still that seeps into eternal life, and in the other, we have an advantage that is not in our hands. Is the power of the sacred ours to control outside the temporal or not? Granted, this is of course conjecture, but it could be that we try to attribute the dominating perception of empirical power as more powerful into what we consider the power of the sacred. But if the power of the sacred is more powerful than the empirical advantage, then I have an ontological problem in attributing my socially conditioned empirical advantage to that of the sacred.

Returning to art, if buying and selling it as a commodity and the aesthetic value are together the socially constructed empirical advantage and human beings try to transpose this power onto the sacred power of the art, the empirical power falters every time because of its limited nature being imposed on something pointing to what is transcendent. But art, whether created as such or not, is not static or necessarily specific to a particular time period...

Here is where real power dynamics come into play and they have to do with a deeply-rooted metaphysical question: what is real? Reality over the years has been vastly interpreted in a broad range of ways...from Plato's forms, Aristotle's observation (potentiality and actuality), Bacon's induction, etc, etc...however the work does not stop with them (yes, I know I'm holding an allegiance with existentialism) but is a process of defining in our own lives. What is real to me, a social being (another assumption, I know), in a community with others? Or to phrase it another way, how do others reflect what is real? Because this question is processual and ongoing in our lives with no clear-cut definition given our temporal existence, then power struggles will always be a part of temporal humanity. In other words, while the good Muslim in Iraq holds that what is in the Quran is real, then any other possibility of what is real is automatically excluded from the discussion. Or if a Christian holds that what Scripture says is real, then this also excludes other possible definitions of reality. Absolutist, monopoly claims on reality are bound to cause tension and conflict where belief and faith are concerned because conviction does not change I have come to realize among many people I admire and respect.

Faith is something inherent within human nature that is generally characterized in the West in one of two ways: 1) true human nature is purely deterministic and physical and thus faith can be explained genetically as an evolutionary survival mechanism, or 2) true human nature is not yet realized and mystery is still in the equation leaving much conjecture. Scientist' allegiance to 1) pose the possibility of ending much tension and conflict with the correction of the misunderstanding that has long plagued humanity by means of de-mystifying the universe and the human being.

As such, I might add, 1) is attractive to me, in my experience and interactions with others, but 2) is more real. This could be because mystery plays a large role in my social life, or it could be that in my interactions and yearning for knowledge I have been unsatisfied with how much I can learn and retain from a broad spectrum of categories. Or it could be that my religious upbringing plays a large role in my perception of reality. Who knows? But what I do know is that historically, when scientists, Christians, whoever thinks they have everything almost figured out, more questions arise, and more questions arise until the questions far surpass the answers. And even when answers "solve" questions, the questions still remains with addendum questions. And when paradigms come crashing down at the introduction of a "better" one, the questions are continually being re-asked in different ways for purposes defined by the culture asking the questions. Thus the questions and the answers are both culturally conditioned and culturally limited.

What is real and what is powerful? What lens do you look through to answer this question? Paul used the criterion of the cross, the scientist the criterion of the scientific method, and the list goes on.

Rambling on and on is really a process of thinking through and re-assessing the lens through which I see because it makes no sense. I find power in what is seemingly unpowerful as a Christian and as such find myself always in tension (a concept I blogged on before). There are no assurances other than a deeply rooted faith I have for seeing the world the way I do and the community of friends and family that continually inform, encourage, challenge, and love me.

Though I did not discuss love here in this discussion, perhaps it deserves mention because for me it exhibits what is sacred and powerful. And that power is not a dominating one, not an advantageous one. Power is not advantage in the sense that we define it, but power is advantage in serving others through love. It is perhaps this deeply rooted faith in love that undergirds this discussion. It is this criterion that institutionalizes the sacred for Christians rather than the political organizations of the church that rest on this foundation. Traditionally, since Martin Luther the emphasis for Protestant Christians has been on grace and faith. But there is always a danger in holding to faith alone when the ambiguity of the term has historically led to very individual interpretations of it. Faith, hope and love are inextricably linked or a Christian has merely succumbed to empirical advantage over sacred advantage thus claiming grace alone as a means of human salvation but denying it at the same time.

To conclude this discussion of power, it is important to note that this discussion by no means limits anyone's perception of power. It is merely a little chunk to contribute to a conversation that is normatively significant.

Obscurity

I would like to begin this discussion upon some feedback I have received concerning my blog. There are some who find it very obscure, perhaps too focused (or perhaps lacking in focus) on ideas and concepts that could not possibly have practical implications for living...not to mention my bunny-trailing (somewhat convoluted) style that connects some ideas, sometimes seemingly contradictory ideas, with others.

I must confess that these blogs are somewhat journalistic in that they follow a stream of consciousness arising from particular issues and ideas that I find to have extremely important practical implications (at least at a given time within a given context). There is not one blog post that is purely for intellectual reasons devoid of anything practical because there is no way to split the two and remain a whole person. Good intellectual endeavors are grounded on solid practicality. Or rather practical decisions require intellectual incite that inform those decisions rather than merely making a practical decision because we are biased a certain direction. All action should be well thought out and weighed. Here are a few examples of topics I have previously discussed:

A couple of posts I made concerned the topic of 'time.' Why is this important I'm sure your asking, when you think that it doesn't really matter because you know that it exists. But your assumed definition of 'time' is a foundational element in the way you think. For the Christian time is referred to linearly...in Hinduism, time is considered to be cyclical...in science, time is considered in terms of the fourth dimension. Most of us falls into one category or another and from that category we make assumptions about how we should live our lives...If time is other-dimensional, then time has always existed and one can put forth theories that suggest a possibility of time travel. If time is linear, as in the Christian interpretation, then time has a sure beginning and end. If time were other-dimensional for a Christian though, then the messages concerning creation in Scripture would take on new meaning that is otherwise not interpreted as such. Time therefore is fundamental to how we think and act.

Another example would be some of the posts I've made concerning 'art.' For an artist, there are sure practical reasons for why they do what they do, though those reasons are not perceived as such in the larger community. Here again, I am speaking about breaking down our preconceived societal assumptions and allowing ourselves to understand a category that exists, and exists practically, according to our nature, as well as aesthetically. Here again, a major point is that the assumptions we make concerning human epistemology (that is roughly human ways of knowing) play into how we think about ourselves as human beings. Do we reject art because we see it as a waste of time which accomplishes nothing? Or do we see art as something foundational to our nature as human beings? The abundance of art, or imitated things referred to as art in our culture posture this sort of question.

There is another blog on tradition...why might this be significant for practical thinking? There are some who tend to allocate their thinking to the past, and many to what might happen in the future, and much of where you belong on this spectrum has to do with your interpretation of tradition -- its relevance to modern-day experience. This is an inquiry wherein you are looking at your self and critiquing your own bias and your own definition of tradition that effects your ideas about the world, about relationships, about your job, etc...

Why the intellectualizing on Scripture topics in the Christian tradition? There are so many ambiguities in the translation of Scripture and how it portrays certain things, but Christians take this book to be a living document through which one can truly know, or come close to knowing the Truth. It would be unfair of me to negate such intellectualizing about it since Scripture by its very nature calls for interpretation and reinterpretation with the help of the Holy Spirit. But the intellectualizing always serves a practical purpose for the Christian community. Again, the basis for how one views Scripture lies in these debatable nuances which are constantly be shifted to accommodate for experience that is different from those only a generation ago. Scripture is silent on many issues that we address in churches today and as such require faithful thinking to address the issues rather than acting first and thinking later.

Why talk about ways of knowing? Because I think epistemology is so convoluted in this postmodern day and age that anything goes...it is helpful to set some criterion at least, rather than merely ascribing to one category or another. There are various levels of knowing and I'm not about to make a claim for one above all others just yet. First one must weigh the options. But once a person has come to an epistemological answer that serves them best, then their actions and thinking tend to revolve around that principle. Again, it informs your action perhaps even unknowingly or unwittingly to yourself.

Anyway, these are just few personal answers to my blog posts...which by no means exhaust the various questions we should be asking ourselves. Just remember that these blogs, though you may not agree with them, are to spark conversation rather than obscure it. Perhaps there are tidbits you may find interesting and may want to explore, or perhaps you may disagree and want to explore the avenue in an opposite direction. This is my hope for this blog. It is not a journal because it is not meant only for me. It is meant for those also who feel the need to continuously assess and reassess their lives. Life, by no means, entails an easy answer. Even the simplest answers are complex in various ways. Practicality for one person is not practicality for another since we live in a multi-cultural world. I cannot just make an assumption about many of these topics without at least considering other points of view. To me, that is irresponsible on my part, since I take seriously treating and loving others as I love myself...

An Incomplete Education

We would all like to be well-rounded, yes?...I mean as far as knowing about as much as we can whilst we can still breathe...the more we know, the more worth we have, the more potential wealth we might obtain, right? Unfortunately I am obliged for my well-rounded, 'liberal arts' studies...the bane of my existence for the price I have paid for semi-universality of 'well-rounded knowledge.' Better to be partially knowledgeable of most major categories than to concentrate full attention on one, right? Wrong! Better to be partially knowledgeable on most but very knowledgeable on one, otherwise, how does knowledge compound? Or is compounding knowledge a problem, overloading our brains which cannot venture to know everything lest they confound?

I struggle with what I do not know, but moreso because I struggle with what I do know about not knowing that in turn feeds the tension between knowing and not knowing that nourishes my thought and action. All things worth contemplating spawn, for me, from concepts in tension...this last point is my point (forgive the hopping to get there). This bias has somewhat illuded me until I was walking to drive home today (forgive the mixed metaphor) and I bunny-trailed, much like you see here in this blog, to this locale. I am uncomfortable with comfort, though comfort be the normative societal strivation, and with uncomfort I am uncomfortable with the comfort I find in uncomfort's very nature.

I am, yet I am something else as well whilst I perceive myself as being. There are no categories that can strategically compartmentalize my strife, because I desire it. I need it. Without it, I am not me, the same me that perceives himself to rationalize, love, empathize and devote himself whole-heartedly to and for the objects of his love. But how can a self in tension make a whole-hearted claim when a tensioned self is by nature not whole? What is it within the very tensioned fabric of the cosmos that whole-heartedly conveys to me a perception of whole-heartedness, where whole-heartedness may or may not be but a figment instilled in me by experience or natural inclination? My love blossoms the heartier as my frictioned ontological, epistemological, and ultimately metaphysical dualisms fuel my soul's fire that is my being.


Tis tension that holds all seen and unseen together -- The name of my tension is Love. Love alone, inexplicable and bountious, perceived as a tensioned knot, ordered and taut, sustains me. It is my will to be free of such tension in time, to finally have rest...but in time I remain in tension with all things temporal hoping for a future of rest in eternal Love that is the source of my search for Truth, the source of my categorical quandaries of mind, the source of rest in a moment forever that is free of tension.

However, why strive to find eternal rest in the very thing that has inadvertently fueled my temporal unrest in search of eternal rest? Should I not protest my limitations as an unrested being? Folly of me to consider such! Enculturated freedom indeed informs me to ask such questions when true freedom is bound up with gracious servitude and limitations. Free in unrest is a binding in rest therein whereby tension again arises from what I desire to know but do not know whole-heartedly as my limited self. Enculturated freedom is bound in the possibilities available to me, though I may perceive some unfulfilled possibilities, which transcend those boundaries. True freedom is bound by unlimited possibilities unavailable to anything temporal, anything created. For all created is bound to that which is responsible for their creation since true freedom is an impossibility for those who did not create themselves, thus unable to claim a self-creation that would grant them the true freedom in transcendence.

Humanity and the imago dei of Christianity

Here is a mini, Christian-slanted spastic sermonic blurb on recent observations that is more a rant than an argument:

I think that the category (doctrine of the imago dei) itself leads to alienation and exploitation by those in power. What is the image of God within a Christian framework? -- posed as a question among the pluralism of evangelicals the answers vary (perhaps a postmodern outtake on the doctrine) and loosely end up referring to what separates humanity from the rest of the world. This sounds reasonable under the umbrella of the Genesis accounts. However, this point is where men and women for centuries have deviated to fulfill their own selfish intellectual and political endeavors.

If human beings all fall under the umbrella of the image, then where then does any kind of doctrine of election fit into the scheme of things. God did not create the elect in the image of God, but humanity in the image. But then sin "came into the world" (via the story of the serpent) and corrupted that image (sin as the choice to disalign oneself from God). God holds all -- man, woman and serpent -- to be morally responsible agents and they are punished accordingly. With the image totally distorted in humanity (rather than obliterated) then what can be known of the image is the embodiment of the image in Jesus -- the image of God. Why not look to Jesus as image rather than trying to look only to what separates humanity from the rest of creation? What separates us from creation is not an adequate starting point in my perspective.

This is where Christians falter when it comes to understanding sciences that pit human beings as animals, when a dictator declares to be acting in the image of God, when wars ensue based upon a selfish version of the image. Specializing ourselves entails a road to sin. We are to be "stewards" of the earth in relationship to and with it and God. Christians cannot always be on the defense when science discovers how something seems to work when something indeed works in a particular way, or when a discovery seems to jeopardize a particular slant on Scripture.

Scripture, by its very nature needs interpretation and reinterpretation individually and especially corporately if Scripture is taken to be a "living document." Perhaps a definition of inerrancy requires personal and communal interpretation and reinterpretation by those created in the image of God since we were not created as the image of God (with the help of the Spirit). And since perhaps those outside of Christianity have insights that Christians may or may not have (the Spirit "works in mysterious ways"), it seems logical to me to include their interpretations as well within the global Christian conversation rather than internally shunning them as emanates from Christian bias and perhaps a flawed view of justification on the part of God. Quite frankly, we are afraid of those who are different even though those different are created imago dei as well.

It is absolutely disconcerting to witness Christian proclamation that does not correspond with Christian praxis. God gets left in the pews on Saturday and Sunday (and sometimes Wednesday) in modern times to hibernate until the next worship service rolls around. Though it is not apparent that this particular nominalization problem is related to the image of God, it very much is. What separates us from the rest of the world, period, is just another open-ended statement that can be bent in many different directions to accommodate human interests. The focus can be deferred from God onto humanity without anyone noticing (until it's too late of course). Our view of the image of God as a specializing of humanity has in some ways become a crutch for Christians unwilling to put forth the effort to truly contemplate just what that image entails (as Jesus exemplifies). We tend to lose our humility and take advantage of the ego-boost that the image seems to lend us.

Even further, Christians seeking to isolate themselves allowing others to "get their just rewards" are perhaps misunderstanding the very nature of the imago dei which entails relationships. God's justice is Hers and not ours and should perhaps be left out of the equation for Christians. Perhaps Christians should have a situational universalist mindset when relating with others, if only briefly and carefully, to avoid internal condemnation of others brought on by personal bias. It takes realizing our own bias, "knowing thyself," to relate fully with others and to grapple with the tension of being like God, but not God.

Discombobulated Sermon ended...