The philosophy of Jesus

I am taking a screenwriting class in which each participant is invited to present one screenplay or idea for a screenplay. I wrote up an idea for an allegory of the Christian faith, and part of that allegory presents a teacher [Poima] discussing what belief in their god [Diacyntanis] means when it comes to making life decisions. It is essentially a representation of what it means to be "wise" in terms of Christianity, which is nothing more or less than answering the question "what does it mean to live by faith." In particular this is not a faith that God exists, but rather a faith that God possesses certain qualities (it is also a statement of faith in Christ's return).

I think that is a major disconnect in Christianity today, the idea that faith impacts our life not merely because we believe God exists, but that our beliefs in God's attributes modify what decisions we make. When Jesus chastises his Jewish brothers in the parable of the clever steward (Luke 16:1-13, and 16:8 in particular), this is what he refers to: those who believe in God were not acting in a way that makes any sense with those beliefs...just as someone who believes in gravity is unlikely to let go of a glass vase in mid-air --- the person's general beliefs about gravity, when applied to the specific situation of the vase, should cause the person to come to a realization that letting go of the vase in mid-air is unwise. In the same way, our beliefs about God's attributes, when applied to individual situations we face, should lead us to find that the wise course of action is different from what those who do not hold those beliefs about God.

I am pasting below what I wrote for that class regarding this screenplay, which puts a finer point on the ideas above:
----------------------
This screenplay addresses gross misrepresentations of Jesus’ story, which has all too often been hopelessly pulled from its Jewish context. It also provides an alternative view to the fundamental nature of Christianity.

In addition to this, and interleaved within it, is the philosophy of Christianity, which is seen in Poima’s teachings. Within this philosophy, people are enslaved two things:

1) Intrapersonally, they are enslaved by a futile egoism married to psychological baggage that causes them to treat others (and themselves) in ways they are not proud of. They are not the people they want to be because, for whatever reason, they cannot bring themselves to act in the way they wish they could.

2) Interpersonally, they are hindered by external agents due to those agents’ own intrapersonal enslavement. In any oppressive or unjust scenario, both the victim and the aggressor are dominated. The victim is dominated by the perpetrator, and the perpetrator is dominated by whatever is causing him to partake in his behavior.

The above might look quite reasonable and not particularly exclusive to Christianity until one gets a fully picture of what the actions in category 1 include. Poima teaches that this futility comes primarily by a lack of faith in the goodness and power of Diacentanys, that people act the way they do because they do not truly believe that:

i) Diacentanys desires the good and has the power to effect the good.

ii) Because Diacentanys desires the good (for all people), so should we.

Thus, at its heart, her teaching is against selfishness because selfishness comes from a belief that the only way one can be fulfilled is to put one’s own happiness before that of others. Contrarily, a belief that Diacentanys desires and has the power to effect the good suggests that one is most fulfilled by caring about the happiness of others. Thus, belief that Diacentanys has these qualities (a desire for, and power to effect, the good for all) makes unselfish behavior the natural and wise choice.

For example, Poima teaches that the people should give their excess money to the poor rather than save up for retirement. This is an example of how our desire to dominate our future (and our need for security in case Diacentanys cannot provide or does not want to provide) leads us to abandon others in their need. Poima teaches that people should desire the good of all because, in this, we emulate Diacentanys.

Thus, fundamentally, Poima teaches a type of liberation from slavery-to-self by fully recognizing the desire and power of God to provide. Part of this philosophy is that one can fulfilled and happy within the confines of that desire. This is the liberation from number 1 above.

Regarding liberation from number 2, which can only occur when people live in a society where all have been liberated in the sense of number 1, Poima indicates such a kingdom is coming.
Poima also tells her disciples that through her obedience to Diacentanys’ will, she has earned her prophesied position as Queen over not just the traditional land of the Draed’s, but over all land.
She will be returning to claim this kingdom, not merely to overthrow the Morka. When she returns, all governments will be dissolved, and there will be only one kingdom. That kingdom will operate along the same principles as her teachings [that actions designed to benefit others are wise] and hence only those whose previous behavior suggests they will contribute to this society will be allowed in.

Poima tells her disciples to take her teachings to everyone, both for their liberation in the current time, and so they know of her future coming. Diacentanys resurrected her from death, and the same shall be done to everyone else when Poima returns.

Topic for discussion: salvation, faith, repentance

Agree or disagree: "Most of what evangelicals claim about the gospel would be more or less accurate if every time someone mentions 'believe,' we replace it with 'repent.' We might further replace 'believer' with 'disciple.'"

Discuss.

Putting into practice

Mike, an anonymous commenter on an earlier blog entry, asked how I put into practice those things I have learned in my scripture reading. I had begun to respond to him when I realized the comment I was writing was going to get pretty long pretty fast. Instead I sued for a bit more time to answer it properly, and that is what I was hoping to do here.

It's never easy to answer these types of questions. Obviously, it does not do to "sound a trumpet" about your own work. [Side note, the actual background behind that phrase is rather interesting. Evidently it was an idiom for dropping so many coins into the conical receptacles in the temple that it made a great sound. This was called "sounding the trumpet"] In addition to that, while I'm not a very private person, I do somehow see my various responses to study and the Spirit as something that does not seem appropriate to discuss publicly. If I were a better disciple of Christ, I might feel there was something to be gained by presenting my path as a model to others. But I'm not, so I don't.

Given the above, I'd like to speak in generalities without hiding behind them. I see my life as shaped by two particular spiritual priorities:

i) The importance of truly relying on God.
ii) The importance of hearing the Spirit.

Now, the above is a rather dubious separation...I'm not suggesting there are clean boundaries here, but I would perhaps say the first forms a type of "passive" informing while the latter forms an active one. Perhaps one is the gentle pressure of the spirit, and the latter is the more severe prick when needed.

In any event, I have learned that much of Christian practice comes down to truly relying on God, and understanding what that means. In my book I call this facet of salvation "Imperial Salvation." It is Christ viewed not merely as a king (who has the authority to make laws and execute power) but rather as "Emperor" (where the focus is on Christ as Provider). That understanding of a providing emperor is something our western culture has trouble fully getting, especially in America where self-actualizing is of huge interest.

In 1st century AD, the emperor was a major source of providence. The emperor also had his own church (though most emperors had the good sense not to be considered an actual god, but rather merely the Son of god). Much of what Paul was getting at in his letters has to do with the idea that "Jesus is Lord(, and Caesar is not)." That not only came down to who had the right to rule, but also whom was to be relied upon for sustenance. And that is one (getting back to Paul again) one of the reasons why Paul was so upset with certain Gentiles who were being circumcised. He found it almost an affront that believers were not relying merely on Christ but felt a need to hedge their bets by trying to be joined to the Temple and Mosaic covenant as well..a type of "back-up plan" of sorts.

In any event, the notion of relying on God is a very deep well that Christians have the opportunity to drink from. It is at its root an indication of faith. Not only faith in God's power, but also faith in God's benevolence. It also represents willingness to abide in God's desire by consenting to whatever state such reliance causes one to be in.

For that reason, I suggest to Christians to develop a healthy apathy toward their own bank account. I'm against mortgages (or any other situation where someone borrows money to obtain a personal possession). When I got into an accident (my fault), I determined the amount I was willing to pay for a car by simply looking at what I had in the bank at the time.
I don't lock my doors. I don't lock my car (unless asked to do so, or in a rare case where I think leaving my car unlocked my tempt someone into a crime). I don't believe in retirement accounts. I believe things we own end up owning us, and I strive to only buy things I actually have a real use for.

I think if Paul were alive today, he might well have some things to say about those who put their trust in their IRAs or their possessions. Just as he had some remarks about those who put their trust in the circumcision, rituals, or human philosophies (see Colossians).

None of the above is meant as casting judgment on others. But I do think that these things end up being a blessing [just as the Jews consider the Law a blessing when others might regard it as a burden]. Obviously, if someone wants to borrow money to buy a large home to start an orphanage, I'm certainly not going to criticize them.

This reliance on God transcends pecuniary issues. I rely on God for my self-concept as well, and the Almighty has blessed me with a wonderful fiancee who reminds me that I have some value. I believe much of the material-centric nature of our world is based on people turning to new cars and home-ownership not for the security they offer but as proof to themselves of their own success. This is once again a faith issue. Your place on the corporate latter, your car, your home, etc. these are always there staring you in the face to remind you of what you have accomplished or what you have that others want... and so they make an easier source for self-concept building than relying on knowing (or hoping) that your life is a pleasing aroma to God.

The same goes with our relationships, right. Much of the damage we do to others, either in romantic relationships or casual ones, comes from self-concept issues and a desire to be convinced of things about ourselves we do not believe but wish were true. Back-biting, insults, gossip, etc. much of how we treat others comes down to our own insecurities. Relying on God means not using our social interactions for our own affirmations, etc.

I might have wandered a bit from the topic now...but I did want to give some taste about how I see the "relying on God" notion as creeping into our lives in so many ways. I see two worlds co-existing at the present time: the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Mammon. I try to rely on the former for those things I need, and I"m hopeful I'll get better at that. I believe my soon-to-be-wife is better at that than I, so in marriage I'm buying free tutoring in this. ;)

Mike, if this does not answer your question, I trust you'll let me know.

Clarification: Saved by Faith

It appears a clarification is needed concerning a post I wrote recently on works-righteousness.

Based on a couple emails, I think people were drawing the conclusion that I'm opposed to a "saved by faith" theology. Not to make those people feel bad, but I believe that this is an example of something pretty common in Christianity:

i) Someone says something nettling to the theological scaffolding of evangelicalism.
ii) Evangelicals jump to conclusions based on whatever is said.
iii) They reject those conclusions as untenable, hence allowing them to ignore what was originally said rather than grapple with its merits.

In this case all I was pointing out was that the term "works-righteousness" is ill-conceived and has no really valid meaning. It is rather applied like a scarlet letter to a wide variety of thoughts evangelicals wish to denounce.

I most certainly hold that we are justified by grace and saved by faith...the question is what do those phrases mean? Here is where our 20th century Western perspective on the world really leaves Christianity prone to misinterpretation. Since the New Testament was written by 1st century Jews, we have to ask ourselves what those words would mean in the context and the lexicon of their Jewish writers. Rather than pick definitions that are line with the theology that makes sense to us or satisfies our desires or works within some extra-biblical natural theology we dream up, we have to get down into scripture and ask what the terms mean to the Jews who wrote them... taking into particular consideration the prophecies that described the Christ and His work.