Armpit Jesus (and other insights from the stories we tell ourselves)

I was at a Bible study last night, and a father of two young children was sharing some thoughts about celebration in Christianity. In the process, he shared a couple of stories about his 3 or 4 year old daughter, and that triggered a remembrance of another story. All three stories about young children’s thought formation about Jesus and God are extremely revealing of our Christian culture.

I remember one couple sharing their amusement and slight chagrin about the fact that their young son was absolutely terrified of Jesus. When asked why, the boy explained that he was afraid that Jesus was going to sneak in to the house at night and take him away, since Jesus was “everywhere” and “could go anywhere” and actually knew who the boy was, even though he was invisible. That phase lasted a little too long for his parents’ comfort

Last night, two similar stories were shared. His (three year old) daughter went through a phase where every time Jesus was mentioned, she would get angry, and she would say she was mad at Jesus and didn’t like him. “Really? Why?” asked her parents. “Because I have asked Jesus to come and live with me and he hasn’t.” (How can you argue with that?)

Later, his daughter went through a phase where she refused to talk about allowing Jesus into her heart. She didn’t like him, and didn’t want him in her heart. One day, the speaker came home and his wife excitedly told him that his daughter had made great progress. “Has she asked Jesus into her heart?” he asked hopefully. “No. But she has decided that he can live in her armpit.”

Though very amusing, these stories tell us a lot about how we adults think and believe. Can we blame children for their naïve assumptions? Though stories like these abound, I have never heard of a child seeing an act of service by someone, and asking if that person was Jesus. Children can’t see Jesus except in us. Explaining to young children that Jesus loves everyone, including a little child, needs to be done with actions, not words.

More than my child saying that they love Jesus (which is too abstract for very young children and even some adults), I hope that any of my future children, when they are young, will say that they want to be like Jesus, and act like it too.

Authority, Culture, and Tradition

There is a rather interesting discussion that my best friend Jared Coleman has started on his blog. The particular blog entry regards authority. The questions he raises are foreign and incomprehensible to many people from a traditional Christian background. You can not generate questions to analyze issues one has never conceived of before. That is why many will not understand the question, much less try to answer it.

I have thought of these very same questions that he raises. Because my particular spiritual background holds a self-conception of being the "New Testament church," I have at various times sought connection (and authority, by extension) to the early church. While doing my undergraduate work at Grand Canyon University, (a Southern Baptist college at the time), I took advantage of the expanded religious section at our university library and read about the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" as well as read some of their writings.

While I can't possibly begin to answer the questions that Jared poses, simply because I barely have enough foundational knowledge to begin such musings, something has been whirling in my head. I have been pondering the nature of the relationship between authority (legitimacy), culture, and tradition.

As you begin to pose challenging and exciting questions like Jared and Scott, it becomes difficult to tease out what is God's intention (Did God intend for there to be a physical, unified church?) and what is the result of the cultural interpretation of the Word (and the word), or even interpretations founded entirely on tradition. The early church (starting around 100 C.E.) apparently was organized with each church (congregation? city?) having one bishop, a board of elders (called the presbytery), and deacons. Authority and/or legitimization was established by the laying on of hands. To some extent, many feel that these early leaders were the "spiritual" inheritors of the apostles' teachings and authority. The implication is that orthodoxy was maintained by having a visible "seal of approval" by the laying on of hands by those with the most "knowledge" of these teachings and traditions.

Where am I going with this? I don't even know for sure. But I wonder, was this "chain of authority" inherent to God's design and plan, or inherent to the culture or traditions of those people? At that time, the written word was not available. All teachings were oral, with some letters sent around the Empire with brief references to widely held doctrine. It would have been culturally vital to show which individuals had been "taught" and which had not by something such as the laying on of hands. But does this cultural necessity require us to view it as God's intention?

This become more relevant as we apply this thinking and reasoning to other issues very similarly related. (Keep in mind, I am not taking a position; I'm just exploring ideas and toying with concepts.) Take, for example, the role and status of women. There is a very strong tradition codified with much authority, that keeps women out of direct spiritual leadership in the church. There seem to be some very direct "biblical" statements on this issue generating a view that the early church fathers certainly embraced. If we accept that authority and church structure can be passed down, doesn't that imply that such codified teaching should be too? Were those statements, and views, set contextually in that society, or set as inherent views of humanity?

Of course, there are other issues, and I'm still chewing on it. I look forward to seeing the discussion develop further.