Rebel With A Cause: Shattering the Myth of Jesus as Non-Conformist, Part 1

I had read the status of a facebook friend describing Jesus thus:

I do know that in His time Jesus was an outcast, a deviant, a misfit, a rebel. He defied institutions and challenged the status quo all the time.

It is perfectly understandable where these ideas come from.  Jesus Christ was seen as one who challenged the Jewish and Roman institutions.  (The parallels to liberation theology are not just coincidental.)  This imagery is reinforced by Jesus' frequent use of the formula "you have heard... but I say unto you..." during the sermon on the mount.

The problem however, is the corollary to this idea that Jesus was a rebel. These days, when certain dissident Catholics are criticised rightfully for their rebellion against the teaching authority of the Church, their excuse is to cite the popular image that Jesus "defied institutions" and "challenged" things.  Thus, these modern day pretended reformers (oh sorry, that is insulting to the pretended reformers; at least Luther and his ilk had the balls to actually leave the Church and the hard teachings they could not accept), use that image of Jesus as rebel and challenger and questioner to justify their oen rebellion and dissent.

They are in effect comparing our priests and bishops to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Of course, the way our clergy act, they sometimes ARE worse than the Pharisees and Sadducees.  But a simple examination of the facts will show that such a comparison is totally unapt and inappropriate.

At this point we must define the questions that we seek to answer:

Firstly, is it appropriate to call Jesus an outcast, a deviant, a misfit and a rebel?

Secondly, did He indeed defy institutions and challenged the status quo all the time?

Thirdly, is it correct to compare the Pharisees and Sadducees to our modern day Catholic Hierarchy?

And Lastly, is it therefore justifiable to disobey Catholic teaching as defined by the authority of the Church Hierarchy, as the major religious institution of our time on the basis of Jesus apparently disobeying the institutions of the time?

Bear with me as I share my thoughts.

Is it appropriate to call Jesus an outcast, a deviant, a misfit and a rebel?

For the non-Christian, Jesus definitely did and said things that challenged the status quo.  At the time, the status quo was the Mosaic Law.  The notion that Jesus challenged the status quo was his frequent exhortations apparently changing certain precepts of the law of Moses.  Matthew chapter 5 gives the most important examples of these.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:21-22)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.(Matthew 5:27-28)

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."(Matthew 5:31-32)

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all:  (Matthew 5:33-34)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-19)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matthew 5:43-44)

Another example that serves to reinforce this image of Jesus as rebel is his words about the Sabbath.

" One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-38)

Based partly on these examples, it would thus seem that Jesus indeed was rebellious and defiant of the Mosaic Law.  He apparently did not care for "official doctrine".  He apparently didn't care about "following the rules".

Note that I used the words "seem" and "apparently."  Again the words of Scripture themselves will illuminate the confusion about the Truth.

Jesus' Intention Was Not To Rebel Against The Mosaic Law


Christ's own words on the topic are as such:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 17:20)

Hence, to say that Jesus was a non-conformist to the Mosaic Law is an error.  Rather, Jesus was saying that the Mosaic Law needed to be fulfilled and perfected.

Of course, that mere act of updating or fulfilling may be seen as some as equivalent to the acts of today's dissenters.  For example, how often do we hear that "The Catholic Church must update it's doctrines on contraception and homosexuality".  Granted, it IS possible that an analogy may be drawn with regards to Jesus fulfilling the law and these dissenters seeking to "update" Catholic doctrine.

The major difference is that for dissenters to do that would be to equate themselves with Christ.

Now, we are Christians are called to be LIKE Christ, but not to EQUATE ourselves to Christ.

So why could Jesus have the authority to make changes and not us "common folk" ?
To understand this in the Christian context, we must go back to the basics: Who was Jesus?  We Christians do not believe He is merely a prophet, a pathway to truth.  We take his word for it when He himself says:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Hence we believe that Jesus is not just some conduit to the truth.  He IS Truth itself.

Matthew also quotes Jesus as saying:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)

St. Paul writes,

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)

For the Christian then, Jesus IS the ultimate authority.  All authority comes from him.

Can it not therefore be argued then, that for the Christian who believes in the divine authority of Jesus Christ, that He is not the one going against the standards of the world, but that it is the world's standards that are rebelling against His authority?

Again this is in perfect harmony with Christ's earlier comments about fulfilling the Law.

For the sake of argument, can we say that Jesus teachings, however, upset the higher ups?

The Pharisees themselves elaborate their reason the best:

"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

So that was Jesus' rebellion, blasphemy, claiming to be God.

We have to face it.  As Christians, we either have to accept Jesus' authority as God (and the authority of those to whom he passes that authority to) or we have to admit that Jesus was some A-1 insane efftard.  It can't go either way.

Since as a Christian I believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, I cannot in good conscience label Christ as a "deviant" or a "rebel". Rather, it is the world that deviates from and rebels from Him.

More to come in Part II.

Thought of Leaving the Church? So Have I.

A funny thing happened to me as I looked through a newspaper today.  The Philippine Daily Insinuator, I mean, Inquirer, put up an article claiming that approximately 1 out of 11 Filipino Catholics has thought about leaving the Church.  Apparently this was triggered by a dissident so-called priest's "challenge" in aforementioned dissident's blog to have the Social Weather Stations find out if there is a significant number of Catholics who are disgruntled with the Church because of the insistence of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines to *GASP*, stick to Catholic Doctrine when it comes to artificial contraception and thus, the Population Control, I mean, pay-for-condoms-and-pills-with-taxpayers-money-instead-of-getting-them-from-foreign-donations, I mean, the Reproductive Health Law.  For a blog entry and survey done in February, I find it interesting that the results were made public now, after campaign season has started.  Hm...

Anyway, I was actually about to let this tidbit go when I saw that the PDI actually went out of it's way to interview a particular convicted religious offender.  Funny how the mainstream media goes out of it's way to interview such folks when it doesn't go out of it's way to report stuff like WHY the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception (and I mean officially, with Church documents and history and stuff, not the crap that our own less-than-ideally trained clergymen spew out).  The religious feeling offender said something to the effect of "hey, 1 out of 10 Catholics thinking of leaving! Yay! More Filipinos are not choosing reason over religion."

So... I start with - is reason and religion mutually exclusive? People who claim such can fall under the following categories:

a) Some (not all) Atheists who want to feel smug and feel intellectually superior to religious people, even if aforementioned atheists merely repeat often preached myths and fables fabricated and spread by messiah like figures like Richard Dawkins.  I mean seriously, atheism sometimes feels like a religion to me, sans belief in God but full of the "yes, we repeat what you say master."

b) Catholics or practitioners of whatever religion who question a particular tenent or doctrine of aforementioned religion with the intent to disobey.  For example, the dissenters who want the Church to change it's stand on artificial contraception like to say that they (dissenters) are using reason while those who choose to obey the Church as per Jesus' command are merely blind followers.  The funny part is that it is the dissenting Catholic who is blindly obeying and listening to what they want to hear.  The thinking Catholic realizes that Christ established HIS Catholic Church, promised that the Holy Spirit will assist the Church, and that he who sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.  Ever.  (cf. Mark 3:28-30)

People seem to like to think that the Catholic Church produced its doctrines out of thin air.  The fact of the matter is that the Church formulated it's doctrines precisely because its job is to prevent confusion.  Doctrines are formulated to clarify what defines or what doesn't define Catholicism.  To pooh-pooh doctrine (as even some so-called Jesuits have done) is basically spitting at the Church itself, and thus spit at Christ. (cf. Acts 9:4)

But now back to the topic at hand.  What do I have to say about 1 in 10 Catholics thinking of leaving the Church?

Putting aside the fact that many of those in that roughly 10% already don't hear Mass regularly (hint), let me say that my first reaction was NOT "oh no, one out of ten!"

In fact, it was "what? ONLY one out of ten have thought of leaving the Church?"

Why do I think this way?

Let's examine the reasons why people think of leaving the Church.

I would think that the most logical reason would be "I don't agree with the teachings or a particular teaching."  That is a good one.  I know a gay friend who left the Church because he does not agree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality.  Good for him.

See, this is a GOOD reason to leave.  Much better than people STAYING despite not being in communion with the universal faith and then trying to force their own beliefs on those who want to believe in the apostolic faith.

Another reason would be, "How can I stay in a Church whose members don't practice what they preach?"  Again, another valid reason.  My answer to that would be I'm not in the Church for the pedophile priest, for the boring sermon, or the corrupt bishop.  I'm in it because of Jesus Christ.  So why are there weeds mixed in with the wheat?  Uh, Jesus said that that would be the case. (cf. Matthew 13:24-30)

Hence, those who think of leaving the Church are doing so because they are thinking.  That doesn't mean that they will actually leave.  I've thought about leaving the Church in the past precisely for the two reasons I elaborated.  Yet, here I am.  I chose to stay despite the problems, because I firmly believe in the words of Christ.

So what about the idea that one out of ten have thought of leaving the Church being indicative of reason over religion?  I daresay that if Filipino Catholics used their brains more, then MORE people should have thought of leaving the Church, even if they do not, eventually, like me, or leave then come back with a solid faith, like many friends I know.

The reason why a good chunk of 90% have never thought of leaving could be one of two reasons:

a) they have experienced the same doubts that I have, but never thought of leaving.

b) they are blind sheep who choose to ignore all the problems in the Church or

c) they never really bothered to think about the reasons for their belief.

I know a lot of faithful catholics who belong to A.  I don't know anyone stupid enough to fall under b (well wait, yes I do), but I think most Filipinos fall under C.

Most Filipinos don't even KNOW Catholic doctrines.  Hence, how can they think "hmmm, what's the bibilcal basis for the immaculate conception?" when they probably aren't even sure what the immaculate conception is!

I therefore conclude that when a serious Catholic does not take his religion for granted and tries to probe everything with reason, then the aforementioned Catholic, unless his mind is fully illuminated by the Holy Spirit, will run into speedbumps and roadblocks.  I also find it safe to assume that many of these roadblocks may have them consider, or think about, leaving the Church.  The real question is: how many really do leave, why do they really leave, and whether after going around aimlessly, do they actually end up coming back home.

Remember, Christ would leave the 99 to go after the 1 lost sheep.