Читать книгу The Gospel of John and the Religious Quest - Johannes Nissen - Страница 5

The Religious Quest and the Religious Encounter

Individualism and Religious Diversity as a Challenge

In recent years church and Christianity have faced a number of challenges, including two crucial questions: How should the church respond to the religious quest in our time? And how should the church be involved in the issues raised by the religious encounter and religious dialogues? The two questions are closely related, since people are searching not only for Christianity but also for other religions and philosophies.

My concern here is to consider how from a Christian perspective, and in particular via the Fourth Gospel, we may be engaged in a dialogue with the religious diversity of our time. Throughout the book I employ the terms “religious quest” and “religious encounter,” but with an emphasis on the former. This is due to two considerations. First, the term “religious quest” is conceived of as being more comprehensive than “religious encounter.” Second, while “religious quest” is primarily linked to the personal aspect, “religious encounter” may point to an understanding of faith systems. In other words: the first term is about faith meeting faith, while the second is more about the encounter between religions.

The religious landscape today is undergoing a fundamental change, characterized in particular by two trends: individualization and religious diversity. The religious scene is dominated by globalization and pluralism, and when the world is “one world,” the religious encounter occurs everywhere. No longer do the different religions live in splendid isolation in diverse places, now they are potentially everywhere.

In such a situation we have all become autonomous, and can choose a creative approach to the religious diversity by pursuing our own personal religiosity. The outcome is a kind of patchwork, with many people finding inspiration in various religious traditions and choosing a multi-religious identity in consequence: in such a free-for-all the incarnate can even become the reincarnated. This religious change has been described as a transition from classical Christian faith to “new spirituality,” and is marked by a number of traits. It is a change from the transcendent God to the God within, from God as lord and master to God as friend and helper, from “understanding” to “experience,” from “faith as truth” to “faith as trust,” from a philosophical truth to a psychological truth, from hierarchical relations to reciprocal relations.1

Such individualism is a challenge to the church as the body of Christ. Is this self-centeredness compatible with Christian faith? Does it reflect a personal responsibility in a new and significant way? By way of answer we can begin by asserting that it is an important function of the church and the Gospel to be present in the individual life and to take part in forming it.2 At the same time, the insistence on the church as community and the individual as self-focused must not be seen as mutually exclusive. They may well be mutually interactive and even mutual correctives of each other. In the years to come this relationship between communal worship and personal spirituality will be decisive for the church.3

The present situation is not unlike that in the first century AD.4 The Graeco-Roman world was dominated by a common culture, usually called Hellenism.5 But at the same time Hellenism was marked by a great variety of religions and philosophies, and Christianity was just one among many.6 So what was the specific character of Christianity compared to other religious movements in the first century?

The most immediate way of answering this question is to study the New Testament writings, in particular those books addressed to a Hellenistic audience. The Gospel of John is one of these. The presupposition for this claim is that the readers of this Gospel are living in different religious and cultural settings. At the same time the Gospel of John points unambiguously to the unique salvation in Jesus Christ. It is precisely these two features—the wide spectrum of the audience and salvation in Christ alone—that make John’s Gospel particularly relevant to the encounter of contemporary Christians with other religious traditions. The crucial questions then as now are: How can we maintain genuine Christian integrity while at the same time being open to people of other faiths? And how is it possible to combine the two dimensions of openness to religious diversity, yet belief that salvation is exclusively bound to Christ?

The Gospel of John and the Encounter with Modern Religiosity and Spirituality

My purpose here is not to present a new commentary on the Gospel of John but rather to interpret selected parts of the Gospel with a specific view to the religious quest and the encounter of religions. The title of the book, “The Gospel of John and the Religious Quest,” has a twofold meaning. On the one hand it reflects the understanding that the Gospel in its origin was part of a dialogue with people from a variety of religious traditions. On the other hand it indicates how the Gospel is used today—by Christians and non-Christians—in vivid dialogue with those who live in other religious traditions than the Christian.7 Three ways of using the Gospel should be considered.

First, the Gospel is used by Christian theologians who wish to dialogue with representatives of other religions, such as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims. Examples are given in the first part of this book. It is interesting to note that the Fourth Gospel has played a special role in India. An Indian bishop is reported as having said that while the Catholic Church is primarily Petrine, i.e., inspired by the pope as the follower of Peter; and while the Protestant Church is primarily Pauline due to its doctrine of justification by faith, the Indian Church is first and foremost Johannine. It is no coincidence that one of the great theologians of the last century, A.J. Appasamy, published several books on Indian mysticism and the Gospel of John.8

Second, it is clear that the Fourth Gospel enjoys a certain popularity among representatives of non-Christian world religions, and among those who are active in the New Age milieu and new spirituality. To support the first observation we can cite the various attempts to combine Christianity and Buddhism, or to prove that John’s Gospel is rooted in Buddhist ideas. Some argue for “the Christian Buddha,” others for a “Buddhist Jesus.”9 An example of the second observation is the work of Rudolf Steiner, who wrote several commentaries on the Gospel of John.10 Sections of his work will be discussed in the first part of this book. Interest in the Fourth Gospel among new religious movements is probably linked to the disputed claim that it is related to Gnosticism. Some New Testament scholars assert its gnostic character while others argue the opposite, albeit accepting that its vocabulary has certain similarities with the gnostic worldview. The Gospel’s relation to Gnosticism will be discussed in Part Two under the heading: “As a Gnostic to the Gnostics”?

Finally, in recent years the Gospel of John has proved to be a great inspiration to those working with Christian spirituality. Its metaphorical language and meditative form appeal to people engaged in spiritual guidance and theology of pilgrimage. An example of this is Lene Højholt’s Vejen: Meditativ fordybelse in Johannesevangeliet (“The Way: A meditative immersion in the Gospel of John”) from 2006, see also the survey and comment on this work in chapter 10 of this study.

All these examples of contemporary readings of the Fourth Gospel raise the question of whether it is possible to establish any criteria for a religious dialogue. Or to put it in another way: How far can Christians go in dialogue without betraying the essence of the Christian gospel? The question will be addressed throughout the book and discussed in greater detail in Part Two.

Methodological Reflections

Bible Readings—Academic and Experiential Approaches

For the past few centuries the study of biblical texts has been dominated by an academic approach, aiming at objective, even “neutral,” analyses of the texts. It has often been taken for granted that this approach was in opposition to an immediate and more popular reading. Today, many scholars try to combine the two ways of reading, an approach that is characteristic also of this book. However, in combining both approaches we must be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of both.

The academic approach covers a variety of different readings. The most widespread method is historical criticism which is at one and the same time both necessary yet insufficient. It is necessary because it takes seriously the human side of the revelation; the incarnation is the theological basis for the historical analysis of texts.

1. It insists on the text in its “otherness”; in this way it protects the text against subjective wishes and ideological exploitation.

2. It investigates the historical and linguistic peculiarity of the text and thereby points to its message.

3. It is actually self-critical; the interpreters should be prepared to abandon what they know in order to learn something new.

4. It contributes to an open dialogue about the Bible; the results can be tested in a public, inter-subjective discussion.

However, historical criticism also has a number of weaknesses. Firstly, by concentrating on discovering the historical meaning of the texts it can easily create a distance to present time. If the research is content with this, the biblical text will never have a chance to show its actual relevance. Second, this approach is strongly dominated by the professionals. They often disagree on the interpretation, or their interpretations are difficult to take in at a glance. All this creates the feeling of alienation. Third, historical criticism is oriented towards a cognitive apprehension. Yet reality is not just that which we can comprehend with our reason; it also includes existential questions and experiences. The historical method therefore needs to be supplemented with other methods that are open to the inclusion of contemporary experiences in the interpretation of biblical texts.

It is here that experiential readings become interesting, comprising as they do a wide variety of approaches that include psychological readings, liberation theology, interactive Bible reading, and didactics of symbols.11 The latter, in particular, is of special interest in this book; cf. the paragraph “The language of symbols and metaphors” in chapter 2 of this book. As an alternative to describing these readings as “experiential” we may also call them creative Bible studies. The term “Bible study” is a child of a literary culture in which the capacity for meditation often remains underdeveloped. Likewise, “the tendency to individualism and the focus on privacy can be fostered by the printed book. Each person has his or her own Bible to read and explain as one wishes.”12 It is therefore a challenge to liberate the Bible from being captured by a one-sided literary culture.

Academic Bible studies tend to focus only on rational thinking and intellectual activity. But according to the love commandment in Mark 12:29–30 we must love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength—and not just our reason. The command to love insists that the whole person has to be taken into consideration, including the emotions, experiences, intuition, and the body.

Creative Bible study places a special emphasis on ordinary people, who themselves are encouraged to work creatively with the texts. Both the “insight of the feelings” and the “knowledge of the brain” are important. The Bible can be studied in a creative way by everyone—professionals and amateurs, scholars and students, clergy and laity, male and female alike. All kinds of experiences count. The only presupposition is that we accept the methods employed as valid. Creative Bible study is based on the conviction that Scripture is not reserved for theologians or church leaders and that the Holy Spirit is present and active in the life of ordinary people. The meaning of the Bible is not restricted to what was said by its authors to its first readers; it is relevant to God’s people at any time in history, including the present.

The Christian community interprets its life in the light of the biblical texts, in particular those concerning Jesus Christ. While constituting the decisive framework of interpretation for the community, they nevertheless depend on the context in which they are heard and read. It is the context that gives the foundation a present interpretation. Hence, in any Bible study we must take into consideration the twin poles of text and context, the latter being the life we are living and the experiences we have. There is an essential interaction between the biblical text and the present experience. There is no unambiguous answer to the question: “What comes first: the text or our life?” since the text interprets our life; and our life interprets the text.13

The Cut and Thrust of Question and Answer

The encounter between biblical text and modern man is characterized by a double movement. We bring our questions and our own situation to the text and the text brings its questions and its statements to us. We read the text and the text “reads” us. But how can this encounter between the text and our life become an authentic dialogue? Here we must see the reciprocal interaction between question and answer. In principle there are three possibilities:

(a) The church provides the answer—but it is not an answer to people’s questions. This is the one-way model: The church proclaims its message but without listening to the real questions posed by today’s people. We meet this form of communication when for instance we see emblems with statements like: “Christ is the answer, God’s answer.” In such cases we have to find out to whom the answer is given. What is the benefit of answering if no one is putting a question? It is in fact a problem if the church has the ultimate and final answers, while at the same time the religious and theological questions are situated in different contexts and are asked in a different language and in conditions that differ from the answer.

(b) The Bible does not answer. The Bible in many cases is a strange text. It deals with a number of issues that do not seem relevant in our part of the world, nor does it address issues that we would like to know about, such as abortion, gene technology, and nuclear weapons. We are asking too much of the Bible here; it cannot answer such questions directly. But it does answer the first Christians directly, so we can gain a better understanding of them—and then we shall discover that they often struggled with the basic problems that we face—and even from our presuppositions.

From a methodological point of view we have to go into reverse. We must start with the answers in the text and work backwards through them to find the questions. Using the methods of biblical research we can clarify the meaning of the text with a certain assurance, that is a historical reading, and afterwards we may ask what the text means for us today, that is an actual reading.

Here a distinction is made between a text’s meaning (“Sinn”) and its significance (“Bedeutung”).14 A given text has only one meaning, which is the author’s meaning (what the author intended to say), but it can have many significances. The significance is the result of the application and appropriation of the text in a new situation. From this it follows that it is as important to establish what the text means today (its significance) as it is to find out what it meant in the first century.

To conclude, the interplay between question and answer cannot allow Christians to deliver their answers without knowing the questions, nor can it turn to the Bible alone for a simplified solving of a problem.

(c) The authentic dialogue. Here the starting-point is an analysis of the concrete questions of our times with the intention of coming to a better understanding of these questions and finding the Christian answer.15 According to Johannes Aagaard, the Christian answer is given as a reply to the ancient search of humanity: “This means that we learn more about the answer of the Christian faith by having a fuller understanding of man’s religious request. For instance, we do not understand the cosmic significance of the resurrection, if we do not know the concept of samsara (transmigration of souls) as a cosmic theory. We do not understand the essence of grace if we do not know the idea of karma. Likewise we do not understand the necessity of the theology of creation if we do not see the result of seeing the world as maya. And last, but not least we do not perceive who Jesus was and is, before we have realized that he refused to be a guru for the people.”16

Mutual Critical Correlation

In recent times biblical studies have been marked by a shift of attention from the relationship between author and text to the interaction between text and reader.17 A new model of interpretation has emerged, based on the belief that deep insight and relevance lie neither in the original meaning of the Bible alone nor in the contemporary context, but in the cut and thrust of question and answer between them. This model is that of a conversation.

The relation between text and context can be seen as a fusion between two horizons.18 The text represents the first horizon, and the context of its readers is the second horizon. The ultimate goal of this model of “interpretation as conversation” is to fuse these horizons in a way that is true to the past and relevant to the present. In the fusion of the readers’ world with the world of the text both are transformed. When readers enter the world of the text it transforms them by providing a new way of seeing and being; it offers them new possibilities. When the readers’ world is brought to the text it transforms the text by allowing a plurality of possible meanings not perceived in the past to be appropriated by them in the present; it offers the text a new way of speaking.19

Any reading of the Bible will start with certain specific questions. We cannot take up some privileged place of neutrality or complete objectivity; it is from within our “life-worlds” that we engage in the reading task. This raises certain questions, however.20 If our own life-worlds are the starting point for reading the Bible, will we not find in its pages only what we are looking for? Can we as readers be open to the challenge of the biblical text? Any use of Scripture must face the risk that the text becomes no more than a mirror reflecting what we want it to say. Some way of reading must be employed which allows the text to speak to us, and to serve as a window through which we see something besides our own thoughts.21 This relation between the biblical text and our actual request may also be explained by means of the concept of “correlation.” To understand this, reference is often made to Paul Tillich’s “method of correlation,” that is, the ideal of an interaction between God and humankind. Theology provides analyses of the human situation that provoke existential questions, and it demonstrates how the symbols in the Christian message answer these questions.

The work of theology can be compared to an ellipse with two foci: the existential question, and the Christian answer. For we have a double starting point: on the one hand an analysis of our present condition, on the other the statement of the biblical text. This question-answer correlation may of course result in a simplification, as there is a latent risk we will try to find opportune answers to our questions. Instead the relationship between the text and the interpreter should be seen as a mutual challenge. Sandra Schneiders notes that “for the dialogue between text and reader to be genuine, the text must maintain its identity, its ‘strangeness’, which both gifts and challenges the reader. It must be allowed to say what it says, regardless of whether this is comfortable or assimilable to the reader.”22

What is the theological basis for this method of correlation? Any correlation presupposes that the biblical texts deal with the same basic questions asked by contemporary readers—about blessings, good fortune, sorrow, anxiety, hope, suffering etc. But the relation is not just that we ask the questions and the Bible provides the answers. The simple scheme of question and answer is rightly corrected by Eduard Schillebeeckx, who instead speaks of a mutual critical correlation between text and experience. Our experiences have a hermeneutical, critical productive force vis á vis the Christian tradition. And conversely, the Bible and the Christian tradition have an original, critical, and renewing effect on our human experiences. The biblical texts ask questions of us, and we are forced to transcend our own self-understanding.23

The Gospel of John provides several examples of this interaction between question and answer, such as the concrete dialogues in John 3:1–21 and John 4:1–42; it is also illustrated by the use of the “I am” statements and the basic symbols, as we shall see in chapter 6 of this book.

The Five Languages of Religion

Some years ago Martin Lönnebo argued that there are five different languages in the world of religion, each language with its own specific mark. All these languages are known in Christianity.24 The first is that of experience, which includes mysticism and prophecy and emphasizes the importance of the guidance of the Holy Spirit; in its foreground stands the subjective affirmation of what may be seen as objective in Scripture and tradition. The second language is that of cult, that is the worship of the church, its gospel, its prayers, and its sacraments. The third language is that of action which includes love and the ethical dimension. The fourth language is that of doctrine, the teaching of the church that gives knowledge and transmits the tradition. In this language the focus is on the objective aspect of Christianity. This mode of speaking is often despised but it is indispensable for authentic Christianity. Each of these languages is important, and they are united in a fifth language called the language of unity, which reflects a holistic view of humankind and the world. Unfortunately, the church often expresses itself in the language of disunity. Spirit is dissociated from matter, love is separated from justice, fear of God is separated from love of our fellow beings, care for people is separated from responsibility for the created world, faith is separated from knowledge, the individual is separated from the structure, and science is separated from devotion.

The order of the five languages is not random. Nor is the space allotted to their various descriptions. The language of experience is mentioned first. In his preface to a book on Christianity and new spirituality Lönnebo claims that no one is short of spiritual experiences but they often lack the language to describe them. The experience of life as being more than the material and visible world is true for all people—from small children to the elderly, from the intellectually gifted to the mentally disabled. The language of experience is the most important language of all, and it therefore has to be developed and delineated. If this occurs, a liberating and mature spirituality may be created, which in turn can make us more human and lead us to a sense of community, to peaceful co-existence, and to taking great pleasure in all things in nature. The most important method is an open and respectful dialogue—both within Christianity and between Christians and representatives of other faiths. The more we open ourselves toward others, the greater is God. We will discover new well-springs in our own Christian tradition.25

Experience and Theological Reflection

In his description of experience Lönnebo highlights individual experience and mysticism. By contrast I wish to underline collective experience, as well as point out the interaction between practice and theory. This interaction is seen in many New Testament texts, two of which deserve our attention.

The first is the Emmaus story (Luke 24:13–35), which has three phases: (a) The experience of the disciples saddened at the events of Passover week. (b) The emergence of a stranger who shares his reflection on biblical texts with the disciples, and (c) The turning-point of reflection into the new practice of fellowship at the Eucharistic meal. It is essential that this experience be shared with others, and so the disciples return to Jerusalem and from this city the Christian mission takes its start (Luke 24:44–47).

Reading the Emmaus story we learn that understanding the Bible is more than just an intellectual exercise. Gesture and action have a similar importance, with the real change occurring at the breaking of the bread. Here Jesus discloses his identity, the eyes of the disciples are opened, and they recognize him. There is a problem, however, when it comes to transmittance and communication; it has to do with the relation between the experiences of the first communities and what is experienced in later generations. We cannot just repeat the first followers’ experience of faith. This problem is reflected already in the New Testament, and it brings us to the second text.

The passage of 1 John 1:1–4 has four aspects that are expressed in various ways. The first aspect is the experience of the disciples: “what we have heard,” “what we have seen with our eyes”; “what we have looked at and touched with our hands.” The second aspect is the Christ event: “what was from the beginning”; “the word of life”; “the eternal life.” The third aspect is the communication: “we have seen it and testify to it”; “and declare to you.” And finally the fourth aspect which is the goal: “so that you also may have fellowship with us”; “and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

This introduction to the First Epistle of John gives expression to the foundation of all Christianity, namely the concrete experience of Jesus, the Word that was incarnated. It is a new experience of what life is. At the same time the text poses a specific problem of the relationship between such alien experiences and our own. The experiences of Jesus in the flesh came at a specific time and cannot be repeated. But they can be proclaimed for another group of people who in their specific situation can enjoy fellowship with Christ and other Christians. Here we see how the text must be transmitted in a double sense. It has to be a bridge over the distance in time, and it has to create a new fellowship.

Experience undoubtedly plays a significant role in reading and understanding biblical texts—in particular the Fourth Gospel (see also the paragraph “Come and see!” in Part Two). But it is also important that we do not overlook the interplay between experience and reflection, for there is a risk here of overemphasizing the role of the experience.26

In a comment on the document Tro i lære Niels Henrik Gregersen rightly warns against the risk of what he calls the “fundamentalism of experience.” We each have all kinds of experiences in many different contexts, yet we are all responsible for considering which of them are the most important. When encountering spiritual currents we may be tempted to reduce Christianity to a religion of experience or to say along with one of the conversation partners in the book who says: “[W]hat is real Christianity is the experience of what has an effect on us. People have a claim on experiences. Christianity is a religion of experience.”27 However, according to Gregersen, Christianity cannot be defined as a religion based on experiences, for “if that were the case, it would have become a backward-looking religion, based on experiences from the past—instead of being open to the present time in the hope of a new future.”28

There is a need for a balance between experience and theological reflection. The dialectic between “the text” of life (experience) and the text of the Bible is the kernel of the interpretative enterprise.29 Without the interaction between the two entities we have either a theology from above which neglects the present context, or a theology from below which uses the Bible to illustrate and validate a predetermined activity. There is a need for a perspective that involves a view from above and below simultaneously.

1. For a full list of the characteristics of the classical Christian faith and new spirituality respectively, see Mortensen, “For All God’s people,” 476.

2. Ibid., 476.

3. Bollmann, Kirke til tiden, 90–92.

4. There is a risk of using an analogical model which is too simple. To avoid such a risk, one must argue that patterns and paradigms exercise a normative role through analogical imagination, which seeks to act in new situations in ways that are faithful to the original pattern. In order to be both free and faithful, modern believers reason by analogy from the earlier interaction that is witnessed in the biblical text to a similar response to the challenge of their own time. Analogical thinking relies on imagination and the ability to discern similarities and differences between one situation and another (Spohn, What Are They Saying about Scripture and Ethics?). On analogical imagination, see also Nissen, “Bible and Ethics,” 86–87.

5. On characteristics of Hellenistic culture, see Stambaugh and Balch, The Social World of the First Christians.

6. This reminds us of the modern phenomenon of globalization. For further characteristics of globalization in early Christianity and today, see Nissen, “Mission and Globalization in a New Testament Perspective.”

7. The present investigation only sporadically touches upon the relation between the Fourth Gospel and Judaism. From a historical point of view this relation is important (see also chapter 4 of this book). Biblical scholars have produced a number of analyses. For instance, there has been much discussion as to whether the Gospel has some anti-Semitic dimensions, a question that has also relevance for the present dialogue between Christianity and Judaism.

8. E.g., Appasamy, Christianity as Bhakti Marga.

9. Borup, Dansk Dharma, 22–24. Notto Thelle (Buddha og Kristus, 89–102) gives a review and critical evaluation of some recent books.

10. Steiner, The Gospel of St. John; and Steiner, The Gospel of St. John and Its Relation to the Other Gospels.

11. A survey of the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods is given in Nissen, “Mødet mellem Bibelen og nutidens mennesker,” 73–89.

12. Weber, Experiments with Bible Study, 10–11.

13. Hammar, Det som hörs, 21–24; Nissen, “Mødet mellem Bibelen og nutidens mennesker,” 49.

14. Nissen, New Testament and Mission, 15.

15. Traditionally theologians have defined the sources of theology as Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason. The Indian theologian Thomas Thangaraj has suggested the addition of a fifth source, namely dialogue: “Dialogue as a source brings new knowledge and opens our minds into newer ways of thinking and knowing” (Thangaraj, “What Are the Implications of My Experience of Interfaith Dialogue for the Understanding of Christology?,” 11).

16. Aagaard, “Den religiøse dimension,” 19.*

17. Nissen, “Matthew, Mission and Method,” 74–75.

18. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 101–21 and 293–326.

19. West, Contextual Bible Study, 44.

20. Green, “The Practice of Reading the New Testament,” 415.

21. Cf. Nissen, New Testament and Mission, 15. On the problem of self-asserting Bible reading, see my remarks on Luke 4:16–30 (ibid., 68–69).

22. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text, 171.

23. Schillebeeckx, “Erfahrung und Glaube.”

24. Lönnebo, Religionens fem språk.

25. Lönnebo, “Trons språk,” 11–12.

26. The relation between the experience of the first Christians and our own experiences is discussed in an important article by Sauter (“Wie kann Theologie aus Erfarhrung entstehen”). He asks if we are able to formulate authentic experiences without just repeating previous experiences. The dilemma can be put as follows: On the one hand stand the biblical texts, which came about in a very unique historical situation; hence, they reflect specific experiences. They are seen as a sort of “primordial” (original) experience and it is presupposed that we should try to imitate them. On the other hand the biblical texts belong to a concrete historical situation which is impossible to imitate or copy.

27. Tro i lære, 23.*

28. Gregersen, “Kirkens grænsegængere,” 38.*

29. For further reflections on this issue, see Nissen, “Scripture and Experience as the Double Source of Mission,” 182–86.