Conflict Abounds

That there was conflict in the early church should come as no surprise, given the controversies of Acts 6, 10, and 15; of Galatians 1, Philippians 4, Ephesians 2, and the like–let alone the division amongst the Twelve so often recounted in the Gospels. Again, that there was conflict in the early church should come as no surprise, given the propensity of human beings to separate and individuate, to divide and conquer, to bicker and fight.

If we look around the world today, we see it riddled and rife with strife, striving, contentions, disagreements, conflict. But, as has been said before, it is conflict that enables us to find harmony, disagreement leads to agreement, the thesis and antithesis combine to form the synthesis. Of course, not all conflict results in harmony, agreement, or synthesis. Some conflict simply results in disharmony, disagreement, and discord.

Furthermore, what gets recorded in history as harmony, agreement, or synthesis is often at the expense of the ones subjugated to that harmony by means of the ruling elite, whose might makes right. Indeed, throughout history, it seems that the powerful elite, ruling as they have by means of force of power, are the ones who define and write history; it is the underdog and the masses that are left with less than a stitch in the fabric of time to weave a thread into the cloth of history. Thus, the conflict between the dominant and dominated gives rise to the account of the dominant over and against the dominated in the annals of history.

Take, for example, the slave, of any era and any nation: rare is it seen for one such person to rise above to the dominant class. I do not mean that there is never or no room for the rise of the underdog to dominance: there are accounts of former slaves by the slaves themselves. I only mean to point out that it is rare, and it is rare because it is nearly impossible for one such person to rise above into such a status without great aid and assistance. When such a one does rise above, that one still is not so much dominant as divergent, a voice that contrasts with the powerful voices of the dominant class. This seems to be due to the influence that the dominant class has and the lack of influence that the underdog class has. Even Jesus of Nazareth did not rise to so much prominence until after he died, and even then it was hard won, and perhaps had not as much to do with he himself in his life and ministry than it did with those promoting him as God.

The conflict we see in the text of the New Testament (NT) is really a conflict of visions and perspectives, but should not be boiled down to mere perspectivism, because the genuine and real conflict within the pages of the NT cannot simply be glossed over as the perspectives of many different voices, all professing the same object of faith or even the same faith at all. The divergences between the various voices are of such a discord as to be nearly impossible to reconcile, even as the reconciliation of the three major Abrahamic monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam cannot be reconciled, unless glossing over the real differences between the three. To be sure, there is great agreement amongst these three major religions, but there are such differences of such great magnitude that reconciliation of the three is impossible: hence, the fact that there are three major monotheistic religions, and not one.

Concerning the NT, its text is really a text of many voices, each purporting to reveal the true Jesus, the authentic Christ, the real Messiah of Israel and of the world. Each voice promotes Jesus as God in its own way, each with a perspective that is unique and each quite different than the others. While there is continuity and agreement among some voices as those of the authors of the synoptic Gospels, there is still some very real disagreement between even these accounts of who Jesus is and what kind of Messiah he is. Even within the corpus of Paul, we find a growth or development of thought that, though holding a thread of continuity, changes from the beginning of his ministry to the end (from Galatians to Romans, for example).

One example of paramount note is that between Paul and James, between Galatians/Romans and the Epistle of James. James is said to have professed a works-based faith and righteousness, whereas Paul professed a faith-based faith and righteousness. To be sure, both state that true faith will result in good works, but James is said to have promoted a salvation that is reckoned unto one by good works. Paul, on the other hand, it is said, argues for a salvation that is reckoned unto one by faith alone. Whether there is more agreement is a matter for another time, but suffice it to say for now that there are divergent voices, different authors with different perspectives and different agendas in their writings, each one purporting to be, at least, truth, if not the truth.

Thus, the NT writes itself: a book of a cacophony of voices all vying for dominance. In response to such dissonance, many have attempted to eradicate the differences. Indeed, today, even as throughout history, many persons have sought to smooth over those divergent and disagreeing elements of the NT, which they find disagreeable. However, in the Jewish tradition, there seem to be many traditions, all in tandem with one another, in conflict and in dialogue with one another. If that is true, and if the NT was written by Jews with a Jewish background, that is, if the NT has a backdrop of Jewishness and Judaism, then we might as well also accept the divergences we find in the pages of the NT, not seek to eradicate them.

Let the NT be what it is, and let it speak as it is, with its many different and divergent voices represented therein. It seems that the desire to smooth and gloss over apparent and even real contradictions is but the work of one who is not satisfied or comfortable with the real differences present in the text. Furthermore, such a desire seems rooted in an understanding that truth is in some way fully comprehensible, such that we might contain the whole of it in our minds or brains–or even in a book, like the NT. But if truth is of God and God is truth, then truth is beyond us, even as God is. Indeed, as John states at the close of the Gospel by his own name, if all were recorded, there would not be enough room in all the world to contain all the truth that would need to be recorded. Yes, if all the ocean were an inkwell and all the sky a canvas upon which to write the truth of God, the ocean would run dry in a heartbeat and the sky would blacken in a minute, and still the whole would not be therein contained.

Thus, we find in the NT conflict and disagreement, but it ought not cause us undue consternation or worry, for the NT is a book of man, inasmuch as it is a book of God: as much as man is a broken and refracted reflection of God, so is the Bible, even the NT.

Variations Reiterated

Let us take a particular point, namely, the Christ–or I should say, Christs–of the NT: the Christ of Paul is not the Christ of each of the Evangelists. And none of the Christs of the Evangelists is that of the others. Neither is the Christ of these authors the Christ of Peter or James or Jude or the author of Hebrews. While there are correlations and similarities between the various representations of Christ, there are also some very real differences that should not be chalked up to mere perspectivism or preference in emphasis. To be sure, no one perceives anything exactly as anyone else, and while we are able to come to some consensus of agreement on at least the basics of a given matter, we find the Christ of Paul to be very different than that of each of the Evangelists, than that of Peter, than that of James, than that of Jude, than that of the author of Hebrews.

I make this point to make a further point, which is aforementioned, but here is explicitly stated: there was great and challenging, nearly insurmountable, disharmony, disagreement, and disunity in the early church; the early church (or, rather, churches) was made up of many diverse individuals, many different groups and factions, rife with contentions and disagreements. This should come as no real surprise, since the letters of Paul indicate as much. The surprise should be why we (and, here, I suppose, I am indicating those of my own upbringing: the Evangelical fundamentalists) have not noticed or admitted it so much before. I suppose, the account of Luke in Acts 4 indicates matters to the contrary, though, of course, on a careful reading, we do see that even Luke accounts for the contentious disagreements of the early body of believers, even in Acts 4, let alone Acts 6.

Why does this matter? Well, for one, it might afford us a breath of fresh air to realize that we, who today in the Church–which is more like churches–are so divided, might find a bit of solace knowing that there have been contentions and challenges from the beginning. Another reason this matters is because it helps us better read the NT, with the backdrop of the human element of disagreement ever looming in the background. A third reason is because it helps us better identify with the members of the early church, not as distant and far-removed icons to be venerated, but as near and dear fellow believers who wrestled to understand their faith and one another and their faith in and with one another.

Indeed, throughout the history of the Jews, there have been many different individuals who have purported to be Christ, or Messiah, the King of the Jews, fulfilling some great prophecy made to the line of David. Jesus, no less, was one such individual, but his claim to fame as Messiah comes in various shades and hues of realization, if not, revelation: we have the realization or revelation of Jesus as Christ according to Paul, and according to each of the Evangelists, and according to James, and Peter, etc. These images of Jesus as Christ that we find in the pages of the NT, intriguing as they are, are also quite complex, which easily and often leads to confusion on the matter. Some prefer to whitewash over the matter and simply indulge in the fantasy that there is but one Christ Jesus presented in the NT–albeit, perhaps, from various vantage points.

However, to gloss over the rather great, dare I say, insurmountable, differences, which create challenges, in the NT regarding Jesus as Christ is to fail to note the Jesus as Christ presented in the pages of the NT as well as to fail to appreciate the various reasons for presenting Jesus as Christ in each way that he is. Furthermore, it rails against the commonsensical plain reading of the various texts, wherein there are various and varied claims about Jesus as Christ that are plainly not in agreement with one another.

Again, the reason many want to gloss over the differences, rather than celebrate the diversity of differences, may seem to stem from some need for a certain kind of certainty that relies upon a rigid structure of complete and utter agreement. It is as if a consensus of agreements must be had in order for truth to be known. But if truth is of God and God is beyond us, then how should we ever know truth in full? Thus, we like blind men feeling the elephant, demonstrate our ignorance as well as our limited knowledge by pronouncing our smooth perceptions of texts that are far from being anything but smooth. Indeed, a text with teeth, with rigid edges and unfinished parts is of more interest (to the textual critic and historian, I suppose) than are smooth glosses, which, though possibly giving a sense of security and certainty to some, do not advance the truth of the matter, which is foremost in inquiry.

Christs of the NT

When Paul portrays Christ Jesus, he portrays him as “Christ crucified” (1 Corinthians 1:23; cf. Galatians 3:1). Now, to the ears of a twenty-first century Christian, “Christ crucified” may be no real trouble for our understanding; but to a first century believer, such would be, as Paul writes, a “stumbling block” to the Jews and “foolishness” to the Gentiles. Why? Because a king who was under the curse of God (Galatians 3:13) could not be a king at all, that is, one blessed by God or divinely appointed: it’s the great role reversal of the greatest becoming the least becoming the greatest of all by being the least of all.

When John portrays Christ Jesus, he portrays him as the risen lamb that was slain that takes away the sin of the world (Revelation 5:6; cf. John 1:29). While this seems to comport well with Paul’s portrayal of Jesus as “Christ crucified” and while there is real agreement between the two portrayals, there is a distinct and real difference between the two, namely, that Paul’s portrayal of Jesus is as a dead and defeated king whereas John’s portrayal of Jesus is as a risen and defeating king.

Again, when Matthew portrays Christ Jesus, he portrays him as the Prophet after Moses, a new “Moses” (Deuteronomy 18:18; cf. Matthew 5:1-2 and Deuteronomy 1:1-2, 5), proclaiming a new “Law” on a mountainside, even as Moses proclaimed the Law on the mountainside of Mount Horeb as recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy. Jesus, in Matthew’s portrayal of him as Christ, is a kind of philosopher king, laying forth the truth of the Law in an ideological, though practical manner.

And again, when Mark portrays Jesus as Christ, he portrays him, in the final analysis, as both the Son of God as well as very much a human, the Gospel of Mark ending with the death of Jesus on the cross, an empty tomb, and no clear resurrection, but the women who went to the tomb leaving it with utter fear and dread, saying nothing to anyone. Mark’s portrayal of Jesus is that of both a divine as well as a human king, beginning his Gospel with the pronouncement that it is the “beginning of the good news about Jesus the King, the Son of God,” which would have been a line stolen out of Caesar Augustus’ book, about whom it was written that his birth was the beginning of the good news for all people in the Roman Empire (i.e., the whole world). Now, Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as a clear and ready opponent to Caesar and all his progeny, makes Mark’s Jesus a kind of Christ or king who is a replacement of the Caesars: Jesus takes the place of Caesar and is both God and king, where the Caesars once claimed to be.

Let us take these four portrayals of Jesus as Christ and assess them one against another; such an assessment, comparison, juxtaposition may help us better understand the reasons why there was conflict in the early church as well as how to make sense of it.

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

Paul’s Jesus is a dead and defeated Christ. John’s Jesus is a risen and defeating Christ. Matthew’s Jesus is the great Prophet, after the likeness of Moses, a kind of philosopher-lawgiving Christ. Mark’s Jesus is the great Caesar, one up from Augustus, a kind of human-divine Christ.

We might well say that each of these Jesuses is but a different perspective of the same person–but we would be wrong. For to say that each is but a different perspective of Jesus is to fail to appreciate the real–and contradictory–differences between the four: how can Jesus be a dead and defeated king while also being a risen and defeating king? He may have been one at one time and the other at another time, or he may have reversed the rules regarding death and defeat to redefine these as life and victory; but it rails against commonsense and basic understanding to hold both as equally true at the same time. Thus, we might well have found John and Paul opposed to one another in the early church, and if the leadership can’t even agree, how is the laity, those following, supposed to agree?

Matthew’s Jesus, as a great Jewish Prophet-King, versus Mark’s Jesus, as a great “Roman” human-divine King, are diametrically opposed to one another: one is about upholding traditions, customs, and the Law, while the other is about overturning traditions, customs, and the Pax Romana. While Jesus was a Jew and very much Jewish, Matthew’s Jesus is steeped in Jewishness/Judaism while Mark’s Jesus is professed by a Roman centurion as the Son of God: what do we see here? Mark is presenting Jesus to the world, and especially the Gentiles, as king of the world and Christ of the cosmos; Matthew is presenting Jesus to the world, and especially the Jews, as king of the world and Christ/renewer of the Law.

These different portrayals of Jesus are of such difference that to reconcile them bends the mind beyond comprehension. Now, some may easily say that there is no challenge here to reconcile such juxtaposed and differing portrayals, but to say that is to merely gloss or smooth over the jagged and rough-edged differences, because Christ cannot at once be both dead and alive, neither can he be both fully a Jewish King and a Roman King. Even as death is opposed to life and life to death, so was Judaism opposed to the Roman Empire and the Roman Empire to Judaism. We must not blithely think that there are simple answers to the differences and real contradictions of the NT, and, indeed, the whole Bible itself.

There are real differences, which cannot be glossed over as mere illusions or illustrations or vantage points. This is because they are irreconcilable differences, namely, death and life as well as the Kingdom of God versus the Kingdom of Man or Empire. I do not mean to say that there are not points of agreement between the different and various portrayals of Jesus as Christ, only that we ought not move so quickly to where there is agreement, without first sitting with and learning from the real differences.

I point all this out to demonstrate that there are real (and fascinating) differences between the portrayals of Jesus Christ in the pages of the NT. It should not be a fact from which we shy away nor should it be something to cause us great consternation; rather, we should embrace it, not glossing over it, as if God needs us to fix whatever “messiness” there might be about portraying his Son in one way or another. For, if God is okay with the portrayal of his Son being so diverse and divergent, then who are we to oppose a diverse narrative about Jesus?

Conflict in the Early Church(es)

My final point of all this is that what we glean from the pages of the NT, the letters and Gospels, the revelations and exhortations, reveals to us an early church of various divisions and factions. I do not think it is too far of a stretch to say this, as in nearly every letter of Paul, he is addressing some division or another, trying to build up unity within the churches he planted throughout the Roman Empire. Peter, James, and Jude, too, write to encourage unity and keeping the faith, as such was a challenge in a very particular way in the first century Roman Empire.

We often might look back with rose-hued glasses at the past, especially a religious past, and find a kind of unity that is out of our grasp: so, we find a kind of comfort in thinking that there was at one time a kind of unity and holism. It’s a bit like us white Americans thinking that there was a great time of peace in the USA in the 1950s: it was right after WWII and right before the “riotous” 1960s; it was a time of homogeny and peace, where “everyone” got along. However, if we were to ask one of the many Blacks lynched in the 1950s, they and their families surely would have a different story to tell.

In a very similar way, when devotees look back over their religious history, it can often be with rose-hued glasses, perceiving the times before, even the ancient times, as better than now. Part of this seems to be that we are more and more aware of what is happening now that is not good, namely, we now suffer, and we do not have the dead alive with us to commiserate with us and tell us how much they too suffered. Our memories fail us and we read into religious texts like the NT what we think we ought to read into them, rather than allowing them to breathe forth what they actually state.

I write all this to remind us that there has never and likely never will be a Church of such unity and uniformity that all her children will be of one accord, one mind, one purpose, one aim. We are each unique individuals, bringing each our own unique experiences and lives lived to the table of fellowship. We ought not seek to homogenize all stories or persons into one, but, rather, we ought to celebrate the differences and seek to establish a unity in essentials (whatever those be) and tolerance at all times. If we live as guided by the love and truth of God, we will be the Church, even if we name various churches as home.