The Portrayal of

The Human One (Son of Man) of John:

An Asian Perspective 

 

 

by Wang Hsien-Chih

Professor of Theology Tainan Theological College and Seminary

 

 

Preliminary Remarks

      Theology is mostly bloodless as severely attacked by Nietzsche.[1] Sometimes it is too bloody as obviously exemplified in religious terrorism of various types. Theology can easily become conceptual, metaphysical and literal games which make Christians indulge in a self-isolated hypothetical world – a bloodless world. But theology also can readily become ideological, class-and-ethnicity-interest-oriented manipulations which prompt people to engage in bloody wars – so called “Holy War”. With this theological self-criticism, CCA in almost last two decades has been trying to search for a theological reconstruction entitled as “living theology “, which has encouraged theological struggles and articulations in different countries, such as Minjung Theology in Korea, Struggle Theology in the Philippines, Land Theology of Maori people in Aoteroa (NZ) Homeland Theology in Taiwan, etc.... On the one hand, “living” means vital, full of blood and tears of people, on the other hand, “living” signifies that we are surviving together with neighbors on earth.

      Bearing theological self-understanding as such, we can come to examine the esoteric theological theme of Son of Man from our Asian experiences and rediscover its theological meanings relevant to Asian situations. In this brief paper, the following themes are our main theological concerns:

I. Issues of Son of Man,

II. Three Euro American Ways of Interpretation, III. Some Asian Comments,

IV. Reconsideration of Christological Concerns,

V. Reconsideration of Ecclesilogical Concerns,

VI. Reconsideration of Missiological Concerns,

VII. Towards An Asian Theological Reconstruction.

 

1.  Issues Of Son Of Man: Some Methodological Clarification

     It is well noted that every NT scholar must write something about the Son of Man like every OT scholar must write something about the Suffering Servant. Especially, in the last one and half centuries the issue of der historische Jesus and der geschichtiche Christus (i.e. historical Jesus and Christ of Faith) has been the focus of NT studies, for which many methodological reconstructions have been invented.[2] Through these new methodologies, on the hand, issue is more refined; on the other hand, it becomes more complicated and confused. The process is still going on. And there is still short of definite answer to this issue. But some clarifications have been achieved temporarily.

     Methodologically, N. Perrin tried to summarize the debates among different schools in terms of differentiating three kinds of knowledge: 1. “historical knowledge”, 2. “historic knowledge” and 3. “faith-knowledge.”[3] Historical knowledge requires strict historical-critical method to deal with die Historie of the subject matter. Historic knowledge needs existential inspiration to grasp the meaning of historical knowledge. This is a process of making die Historie becoming die Geschichte. And the faith-knowledge entails religious experience to appropriate historical knowledge for personal faith-claim (confession). whose significance is “beyond the historic”.[4]

      Bearing Perrin’s methodological clarification in mind, we may come to apprehend the importance of the historical knowledge which has positive contribution to the faith-knowledge and historic knowledge as well. Therefore, to deal with the Son of Man issue in the light of the previous historical Jesus and kerygmatic Christ debate, we should approach this issue from three levels: 1. literal level, 2. source level and 3. hermeneutic level.

      The literal and literary level is essential and basic. At this level, many scholarly works have been accomplished in the last few decades. It is commonly agreed that the mythological or symbolic elements in the eschatological Son of Man sayings, Suffering Son of Man sayings and mediational Son of Man sayings are literal characteristics, which should be investigated and deciphered very carefully.[5] And through literary criticism, Perrin asserts that “earliest Christianity used the symbol Son of Man to evoke the myth of apocalyptic redemption where Jesus had used the symbol Kingdom of God to evoke the myth of the activity of God.”[6] This means that the transition from the use of the symbol Kingdom of God by Jesus to the later use of the symbol Son of Man (usually spoken by Jesus himself) by the early Christianity should be traced back historically to the activity of God in dealing with his people.

      From this understanding, we come to the second level of dealing with the source of the Son of Man sayings. As J.D. Crossan strongly argues that Jesus belongs to the “Artisan Class” which situated between the “Peasants and Degradeds or Expendables,” i.e., the parallel class of Dalit in India and aboriginal people in Taiwan.[7] It is self-evident that the educational background of Jesus is mainly located in the traditional Jewish synagogue setting and village neighborhood in general. This means Jesus of history is more familiar with the Jewish traditions and Scriptures rather than Hellenistic philosophy, mythologies and other religious traditions. Therefore, the self-designation of Son of Man symbol can naturally be traced back to the similar sayings in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), e.g., Son of Man in Ps 8.4, Ezek (90 times), Dan 7.13,14. Since Jesus has his own freedom to use OT as shown in NT, it is very possible that Jesus might use the Son of Man imageries in OT out of his own designation. The meanings of Jesus’ own designation are inherent implicitly in the varieties of Son of Man sayings in the Gospels. How to approach these meanings is the task of hermeneutics.

      Theological hermeneutics has developed rapidly in the last few decades. The contextual hermeneutics generally used by Asian theologians are exercised mainly in the context of social, political, ethnic and cultural struggles. Similarly the Son of Man imageries in prophetic (Ezekiel) and apocalyptic (Daniel) traditions emerged as theological symbol in Jewish national struggles during exiles. The historical and national crisis of Israel was the context for theological articulation and hermeneutics. Wider the context, broader the theological frame of reference for interpretation, and more comprehensive the theological horizon of vision.

      Besides political, social, economic, ethnic and cultural parameters in the shaping of the context in a particular time and space, ideological parameter should be included in contextual analysis. Recently R. B. Coote and M. P. Coote have pointed out the importance of power and political ideology which in various historical stages affect, and sometimes dominate, “the making of the Bible”.[8] This means that in contextual analysis we have to include power struggle and ideological conflict implicitly hiding behind the written texts of the Bible for interpretation. One recent example is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which unfolds that the stories about ethnic and land wars in OT are just one-sidedly told by the Jewish rulers and documented by their royal scribes at the expense of the ruled – the Palestinian ancestors. For Jews to enter the “promised land” is a “holy war” while for Palestinians it is blood and tears.[9] The First International Symposium on Palestinian Liberation Theology at Tantur, 1990, has severely criticized that the traditional and liberal theologies of the West has kept on perpetuating the one-sided stories in theological hermeneutics.[10] Therefore, learning from this historical example, in Asia we Christian minority of minorities, except in a handful of few countries, should be alert of hermeneutic self-justification of Christianity in the last two millennia. A hermeneutic conversion is needed for a theological rebirth in Asia!

 

II. Three Euro-American Ways Of Interpretation: A Critical Reflection

      After some methodological clarifications of the issues of Son of Man, we may make a critical reflection on the following three ways of interpretation by scholars in Europe and America: 1. Orthodox Way, 2. Existentialist Way, and 3. Social-critical Way.

 

1)  Orthodox Way

     Although orthodox scholars are very productive and skillful at the literal and literary level, they have quite definite orthodox view of the authority of the Bible, understanding of history and its relation to theological hermeneutic. Their faith-claim sometimes becomes dogmatic assertion which influence theological hermeneutic without taking source analysis and contextual analysis seriously. For instance, after clear literal and literary comments on Son of Man sayings of John, C. K. Barrett comes to assert: “Jesus is the beginning and the end, the first creator and the final; also he is the ultimate truth both of God and of humanity. Being truly God and truly man, and being also the image of God and the archetype of humanity, he is an ontological mediator between God and man; he is no less a mediator of true knowledge, and of salvation,”[11] And for him, salvation means to be free from sin and “sin consists in not believing in Christ.”[12] Therefore, he continues to say “that sin can be removed only by Christ.”[13]

     From Barrett’s statements, we can easily discern that the elements of Nicence Creed about Jesus’ two natures are taken for granted. This is the Creed after the Romanization and Imperialization of Christianity. Very clearly the Constantinian ideology has dominating impact on the making of this kind of dogmatic assertions.[14] Historically speaking, making of after the imperialization of Christianity, Christian church, by imitating the imperial structure of Rome, must be immune from political and power-and-ideological self-criticism. And the oppressed now become the oppressing class. Consequently, political and ideological understanding of sin is evaporated or becomes a political-theological taboo. The interpretation of sin and salvation thus becomes a theological tautology: not believing in Christ and being removed only by Christ. God-Christ-Emperor becomes a powerful theological line. Christianity eventually was endorsed by Theodosius in 380 as “the official cult of the empire.”[15] Christianity has power for theological monopoly although many dissenting undercurrents have been deteriorating the ground of superficial Christian unity.

      Let us examine further the theological assertion of Barrett. Jesus as “an ontological mediator” with exclusive claim has its political background by tracing back to the officialization of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Many other religions in the Empire, e.g., Judaism, Hellenistic mystery religions, Mithraism, etc., were excluded violently by imperial and Church powers after 380. As Christian Church gradually became a stabilizing power for maintaining imperial status quo, the church also lost her prophetic spirit for liberating the oppressed. In this sense, the prophetic hope of the symbol Son of Man as revealed in Ezekiel and the apocalyptic vision during national crisis as prophesied in Daniel are eventually lost in orthodox theological hermeneutics. Metaphysical, conceptual abstraction and mythological tautology articulation become everyday business of orthodox theologians.

2)  Existentialist Way

– R. Bultmann’s famous dictum is: “Jesus proclaimed the message. The Church proclaims him.”[16] Bultmann with K. Barth had fought against German liberal theology during the period of WWI & II. Both of them had discerned the danger of historical messianism being appropriated by dictators for political messianism. J. Macquarrie in commenting on Bultmann’s theology aptly observed as follows: “Bultmann had good reason to condemn the king of nihilistic, arrogant, subjective will-to-power that he had when he lived through the period of Nazi ascendancy in Germany.”[17] Perhaps this specific historical experience has some great influence on Bultmann’s reconsideration of the historical Jesus and the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels

      Bultmann explicates that “The preaching of Jesus is controlled by an imminent expectation of the Reign of God. In this he stands in line with Jewish eschatology in general, though clearly not in its nationalistic form.”[18] But the historical Jesus’ preaching of the reign of God is eventually transformed and converted into the preaching about Jesus by the early church as follows: “His claim that the destiny of men is determined by their attitude to him and his word was taken up by the early Church and expressed in their proclamation of Jesus as  ‘Messiah’ – particularly in their expectation that he was to come on the clouds of heaven as the ‘Man,’ bringing judgment and salvation. His preaching was thus taken up in a new form, thus becoming specifically ‘Christian’ preaching.”[19] The “Man” here refers primarily to the imagery in Dan 7.13 and the Synoptic Gospels. Then Bultmann interprets transformation as such: “the historical person of Jesus was very soon turned into a myth in primitive Christianity.”[20]

      To decipher the kerygma hidden in the myth, Bultmann proposes that in this “post-mythical age” a program of “demythologization” is need.[21] And “Heidegger’s existential analytic provides us with the conceptual framework” for demythologization.[22] Then Bultmann in Theology of the New Testament shows us that Paul and John had already started this kind of demythologizing.[23] Therefore, for Bultmann the historical Jesus is fading out of scene in NT and is substituted by the Kerygmatic Christ. Especially in John, the Son of Man myth is quite different from that in the Synoptic Gospels: 1. there is lack of parousia and cosmic signs, 2. judgment has already taken place in the incarnating Son of Man, 3. the promises of “truth”, “life” and “light” “take the place of ‘Reign of God’ and ‘righteousness of God’,” etc.[24] In other words, the Son of Man myth in the Synoptics is eventually “demythologized” by John in terms of the present “‘Krisis’ of the World”.[25] And what is needed for the Christians is “Faith”.[26] Hearing the word of Jesus with faith, the believers will enjoy eternal life here and now.

      Therefore, we have seen how Bultmann’s existentialist way of hermeneutics eventually turns from the historical Jesus’ proclamation of the Reign of God to the Kerygmatic Christ’s calling for existential decision through faith. This kind of understanding of existential encounter with God during hearing the preaching of the word in Bultmann’s thought of later years,[27] Macquarrie comments on it as “too ‘situational’” and “individual.”[28] And Perrin is very relevant to claim the importance of the historical knowledge. He says: “We believe we have the right to appeal to our limited, but real, historical knowledge of Jesus. The true kerygmatic Christ, the justifiable faith-image, is that consistent with the historical Jesus. The significance of the historical Jesus for Christian faith is that knowledge of this Jesus may be used as a means of testing the claims of the Christs presented in the competing kerygmata to be Jesus Christ.”[29] Therefore, Bultmann’s faith-image should be “tested” by the “real” and “limited” historical knowledge of Jesus. How to make such a test is our continuing concern in this paper.

3)  Social-Critical Way

– From Bultmann’s existential and individual way of interpretation, we turn to the social-critical way developed after 1970. N. K. Gottwald is one of the important initiators of this kind in OT studies while G. Theissen significantly initiates this kind of research in NT studies.[30] Theissen used “Aims and methods of a sociology of the Jesus Movement” as the starting point for his research on early Palestinian Christianity.[31] A socio-political and socio-economic analysis of the situation of Jesus’ time could identify the peculiarity of Jesus movement from other movements, e.g., Qumran community, resistance fighters movements etc.[32]

     In the framework of Jesus movement the role of Son of Man has a distinctive position between the title Son of God, which “stressed involvement in the divine world and the breaking in of transcendence,” and the title messiah, which “was above all bound up with the cross (e.g. Mark 15.32).”[33] Therefore, for Theissen, Son of Man is “the most important title.”[34] Theissen mainly deals with the sayings in the synoptics. He differentiates two types of saying as such: 1. “the sayings about the earthly Son of Man”, and 2. “sayings about the future Son of Man.”[35] In the first type “the Son of Man transcends the norms of the world around. He breaks the Sabbath (Matt 11.18f).”[36] And also the earthly Son of Man has “to suffer under the reactions of the world around.”[37] In the second type the Son of Man will become the eschatological judge.

      With Theissen’s social-critical approach, we may make use of the method of contextual hermeneutics to explore more comprehensively the distinctive role of Son of Man in John. The contextual analysis of the historical situation of Jesus’ time can help us not only to identify Jesus’ role in John but also to make a parallel analysis of Asian situations of our days. Through inter-contextual encounter the present meaning of Son of Man sayings could be approached more intelligibly.

      We can see that Theissen’s social-critical method has balanced the dogmatic abstraction of the orthodox way and the individual faith-claim of the existentialist way. Since these Euro-American scholars have made their own contributions, we Asian theologians should move further from our own contextual experience.

 

III. Some Asian Comments

      Since the end of WWII many Asian countries have been independent from foreign colonial powers. Many Christian churches, which came to Asia together with their colonial oppressors, remain in the same place while they have to face new national situations. Churches of Sri Lanka, for example, have been caught in a situation of “hopelessness” because of ethnic and cultural conflicts.[38] The fading out of imperial powers and the rising up of nationalism in Asia are not just a political problem but also a theological and ecclesial problem.

      In the last fifty years, churches in Asia have been struggling through the similar process of national crisis and nation-building. Precisely, the symbol Son of Man in OT also emerges out of the national crisis of Israel and Judah. This contextual parallelism might evoke our theological imagination in doing interpretation. For instance, recently C. S. Song has made a Christological reconstruction “from below”. His first book is entitled: “Jesus, the Crucified People.”[39] He definitely rejects the orthodox interpretation of the Cross as God’s plan rather asserts that “the Cross is Human Violence.”[40] He says: “The cross is the plot of an organized religion blinded by its own power and orthodoxy and unable to tolerate those deeply and sincerely religious persons eager to restore faith in the God of love and mercy.”[41] The evil power which crucified people is not only dictatorial political power but also self-justified organized religious power.

      But the mainline churches left in Asia almost continue to maintain traditional western theological understandings of orthodox hermeneutics. And their ecclesiological structures are confined to their western constituency. Mission in terms of church growth is still a popular opinion. Therefore, Asian Christians should start with a thorough self-criticism of their theological understandings. Hopefully someday we can tear down the irrelevant theological Temple and construct a new one. Socialcritical and historical-critical approaches should be taken seriously. But although the Euro-American theologians have worked hard to identify the economic, political and social issues, they mostly have neglected the ethnic and cultural issues, which have great impact on the shaping of Asian people’s life and already are inherent in the making of the Bible. And it is quite evident that today ethnic and cultural conflicts have been taking place everywhere in the world from Chechnya, Bosnia to North Ireland, where Christians are killing Christians and Muslims brutally. Therefore, if we do not try hard to make theological and ecclesial conversion thoroughly, Christian churches might be fading away from earth or become some sort of antique.

 

IV. Reconsideration Of Christological Concerns

     A purely textual analysis of the Fourth Gospel indicates that after Jn 14 the theme of Son of Man disappears. F. H. Borsch comments: “Though Jesus in the Gospels is reported to have spoken of himself almost solely with reference to this designation and employed it at crucial junctures in his ministry, the later New Testament writers, the early Fathers and bearers and creators of tradition seem almost wholly unconcerned with it.”[42] Borsch continues to ask: “Why, we ask, was this so?”[43] This is a question which might bring us to reconsider the Christological concerns in and after John.

     In John, there are about two types of Son of Man sayings. The first type consists of six verses which refer to passion theme (Jn 3.14; 6.53; 8.28; 12.23,34; 13.31). The second includes four verses which refer to the mediating role of Jesus between heaven and earth (Jn 1.51; 3.13; 6.27,62). In the passion theme the verbs “lift” and “glorify” are the same way to talk about “crucify”, “offer”, and “be put to death”.[44] But obviously, besides using the highly theologized verbs “lift” and “glorify” in John, there is less vivid description of passion stories as narrated in the Son of Man sayings in the Synoptics. This means the early persecuting and suffering reality is gradually shifted to a later different situation. According to Bultmann, the Gnostic dualistic challenge characterizes the context of John’s time.[45]

      Bultmann’s theory can also explain why the second type of Son of Man sayings is a peculiar element in John different from those sayings in the Synoptics. The mediating role of Jesus who grants “eternal life”, “truth”, “light” to people has its contra-gnostic meanings. Bultmann thinks that this is John’s “demythologizing” theology. And John’s Incarnation framework continues to be emphasized in I Jn 4.2,3: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.” (cf. Jn 1.14) This means that the apocalyptic Son of Man with clouds in the Synoptics, who will judge in future, is shifted to the incarnating Son of Man on earth, who is judging the world here and now. Thus, the central focus of Incarnation should be shifted from the cosmic and heavenly concern to “Logos became flesh”. – the very earthy and historical concern.

      Form the textual and contextual analysis above, we try to reconsider three important Christological themes in John: 1. the Son of Man and the Historical Jesus, 2. The Son of Man and “the Crucified People”, and 3. “The Son of Man and Friend.”

1)  The Son Of Man And The Historical Jesus

– As Bultmann develops his interpretation of the Son of Man in terms of existential demythologization, we have observed his tendency of turning away from the importance of the historical Jesus. Perhaps, this has to do with his personal existential experience under the demonic domination of the Nazi regime. Holocaust is not just a present story. Many holocausts took place under the guise of Pax Romana during Jesus time.[46] Pax Romana was the status quo enjoyed by emperor, kings, nobles, the military, the rich, the ruling religious leaders, etc., who dictated the meaning and writing of history. On the contrary, the peace (shalom) of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus was a “banquet” for all who are oppressed, thirsty, hungry, sick, poor, naked, disfigured, disfranchised and female, etc. Jesus was too subversive to the status quo. Therefore, he was crucified by the people who enjoyed the Pax Romana. Basileia tou Theou became a political taboo. The historical Jesus was transfigured to rising Christ, then became kerygmatic Christ.

      Consequently, under Pax Romana the historical Jesus and Basileia tou Theou were fading out in NT. But the Son of Man symbol in John, which can be traced back to man, men and son of man in Gen. 1.26ff.; Ps. 8.4-8,80.17; Ezek (90 times); Dan 7.13f., has still preserved some link with the historical Jesus in the passion sayings. Of course, under Roman authority John has to avoid direct confrontation if he talks too clearly about the crucification and Basileia tou Theou.

      Now we are surviving together in this post-cold war world. Pax Romana gets collapsed and people are disillusioned of any imperialism and colonialism of any kinds. We need not to follow John’s and Paul’s “demythologization” in terms of existentialism. We have to dig out the profound and creative meanings implicit in the symbol Basileia tou Theou proclaimed and witnessed by Jesus and his early disciples. Both Perrin and Crossan are dedicated to bring forth the great power inherent in this symbol.[47] And Song has accomplished his second book on Christology entitled “Jesus and the Reign of God”.[48] These are significant examples for further pursuing the meaning of the historical Jesus and the Son of Man.

      In Asia today, on the one hand, people are suffering for the dictatorial or ethno­centric political messianism under the guise of so-called indigenous democracy. On the other hand, the religious fundamentalism provides quasi-messianic or apocalyptic hope to people of desperate situations.[49] Christianity has to face this political-religious situation by reconstructing contextual Christian theology. Definitely, the Son of Man theme is a distinctively relevant one. It is very inspiring to read Jn 1.49: “Nathana-el answered him. ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’” “The Son of God” and “the King of Israel (Victorious Messiah)” are the Christological titles used by Nathana-el. But Jesus’ answer, instead, is “the Son of man”, (Jn 1.51) which is a powerful challenge to Asian political-religious messianism and millenarianism.

2)  The Son Of Man And “The Crucified People”

– Christus Victor traditionally symbolizes the mentality of the Western churches throughout two thousand years of history. But for Asian churches in the last few centuries, what we have experienced is Jesus crucified and people crucified. The Western church cannot do theology properly by bypassing the desperately profound challenge of the Holocaust during WWII.

      J. B. Metz once wrote: “We Christians can never go back behind Auschwitz: to go beyond Auschwitz if we see clearly, is impossible for us by ourselves. It is possible only together with the victims of Auschwitz.”[50] “Victims of Auschwitz” – six million innocent Jews, have lost their lives by the monstrous power of which Christians have a part. Not only we have to stop writing theology of Christus Victor, but also we have to “be born from above” or we “cannot see the kingdom of God.” (Jn 3.3) Metz calls for “a radical change of direction” and he acknowledges that “it cannot be accomplished by personal Christian reflection or even institutional action alone. The change can occur only by embracing the suffering and the heirs of that suffering.”[51]

     Similar holocausts have happened in Asia too. Starting from the period of colonization of Asia by the West, during the two world wars, during struggles for independence and during the so called revolutions many holocausts have happened and millions of people have lost their lives. In Sri Lanka alone, in a country of only 18 million people more than a hundred thousand have been massacred within the last twelve years. Some of the perpetrators of such hideous crimes against people have been acclaimed as national heroes. This peculiar Asian reality reminds us that our task in Asia is far more difficult. The countless victims in Asia have been crying out from the hell, but they are rarely heard on earth. Especially we Christians have heavier ears.

       Therefore, following the Son of Man and the historical Jesus, we have to identify with the suffering and the struggling peoples in Asia.[52] Jesus says: “I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.” (Jn 10. 14f.) This good shepherd image signifies the life-relation between Jesus and his people. Their lives are unified in the love of God. This Christological image of good shepherd can also make up the diminishing passion sayings of the Son of Man in John. And the climax of crucification unfolds the violence done on Jesus and countless victims of Jesus’ time by the Roman Political power and Jewish religious power.[53] Thus, Song asserts: “In Jesus crucified on the Cross we behold the crucified people. And the reverse is also true... and in this Jesus and in such people we encounter the loving and suffering God.” He continues: “Jesus, in short, is the crucified people! Jesus means crucified people. To say Jesus is to say suffering people. To know Jesus is to know crucified people. A critical Christological conversion takes place here.”[54]

      Here, Song suggests such a theological epistemology: from the crucified people we come to know Jesus and God. This means the crucified people is the starting point of doing theology. In Asia, e.g., Korean Minjung theologians and Indian Dalit theologians have been engaging in this kind of theology-doing. Now, the crucified people is best represented by the Son of Man images, e.g., in Gen 1.26ff., created in according to God’s image and endowed with power, in Ps 8.4, 6; 80.17, bestowed with authority, in Ezekiel as persecuted collective victims as well as prophet, in Dan 7 as massacred people and victorious saints in corporate personality of Israel. Inherent in these texts and contexts there are abundant meanings relevant for our Asian theology-doing.

3)  The Son Of Man And Friend

– “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, ..., but I have called you friends.” (Jn 15. 12-15). “What a Friend we have in Jesus” is a popular hymn we love. But a careful reading of the words of the hymn, nothing like Jn 15. 13 is mentioned. Of course, when we are in trouble, we need a friend. But a friend who can “lay down his life” for us is what Jesus wants to say to us.

      Asian Christian spirituality is too much domesticated in the “soft” gospel songs. Maybe, too much and too long sufferings in Asia make peoples become passive and soft. Jesus seems soft too because he has suffered together with people. He does not take the Zealots’ revolutionary activism. Neither he protects himself by joining Qumran community.[55] Sometimes, Jesus starts his movement by making friends with the outcast and the crucified people. In doing this, he has to “lay down his life for his friends.” (Jn 15. 13) The Son of Man is the Friend of Minjung and Dalit. This is very hard!

     In the great religionsof Asia, we have many friends who lay down their lives for the beloved victims too. Can we say: Jesus, Buddha, Ambedkar and Confucius are friends since they are friends of the suffering peoples? This is a Friend Christology we have to pursue further.

     Jesus’ emphasis on friendship is the suffering and self-sacrificing love. This love is unfolded in Jn 3.16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” And at the end of John this love is reemphasized in the threefold questioning of Peter by Jesus: “do you love me?” (21. 15-17). And the command of Jesus is always: “feed my sheep.” (21.16). This theme of love is continued to IJn 4.7-21. Here is an echo of the crucification theme: “...for God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, ... sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins.” (IJn 4.8-10)

     Therefore, in this Friend Christology, the foundation is the mandate of Jesus “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (Jn 15.12). Actually, in Asia, it is easier to apprehend Jesus as Friend rather than Messiah or Son of God. If we can approach our christological reconstruction from the Son of Man as Friend of love, then many highly speculative Christological constructions could be isolated or deconstructed.

 

V. Reconsideration Of Ecclesiological Concerns

      It is commonly noted that John “contains no specific command of Jesus to baptize, and no account of the institution of the Eucharist; neither rite is explicitly mentioned.” On the other hand, John distinctively affirms: “The Word became flesh; flesh became the vehicle of spiritual life and truth, ... The incarnation was itself sacramental...”[56] It is very significant that John’s concept of church is not defined around the ministering of the sacraments and preaching of the word of God.

      After the Reformation of the sixteenth century in Europe, the word of God becomes the central concern of theology while preaching and sacrament-ministering become the focus of the presence of church among Asian peoples, who have already too many scriptures of many religions, and practice too many kinds of religious cults. The evident consequences are that we Christians are talking too much than really love our neighbors, and we are ritually isolated in our sacrament practices than go out to make friends with the suffering peoples.

      1982 CCA called a theological symposium for “a search for a Relevant Ecclesiology in Asia”. In this symposium, the themes of suffering peoples and church are integrated although no definite consensus about a relevant ecclesiology in Asia is achieved.[57] New religions of different types have been arising in Asia to meet the needs of peoples. In Japan, for instance, people are organizing more than hundred new religious communities every year in the last two decades. Among them, Aum Shinrikyo sect is just one radical example of apocalyptic millenarianism which is a syncretism of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. Shoko Asahara, the founder of the sect, claims that he is the reincarnation of the Logos and prophesies that “the final war” at Armageddon will begin in 1997.[58] The nerve gas event on March 20 this year in Tokyo opened the Pandora’s box of terrorism and religions in Japan and other places around the world. This is a challenging lesson for Asian churches to learn: on the one hand, why peoples in Asia need new religions since there have been so many old big religions already? On the other hand, why such an advanced civilized Japan need religion at all? The former question is directed at Christian churches too. When church separates herself from the suffering of people, people will leave church.

      People need community and friendship no matter how high civilization is advancing. It is in community with authentic friendship that people’s longing for love is fulfilled. The climax after the Resurrection story in John is not a great commission like Matthew but a great commandment of love (Jn 21. 15-17).[59] We can say that the whole of John and the Johannine Epistles are consistently penetrated by and permeated with the incarnating love of God as Jesus, the Son of Man and Friend of all.

                Barrett says that “like Mark and Luke, John does not use the word ekklêsia.”[60] Since there is neither institution of sacraments nor the concept of ecclesia in John, this provides us more freedom to designate the John’s concept of church in terms of “good shepherd and sheep”, “true vine,” “friend”, etc., which are integrated in the love of God realized in the “flesh” of the Logos, Jesus, the Son of Man.

 

VI. Reconsideration Of Missiological Concerns

      The classical concept of mission is derived from the Latin missio which means “to send.”[61] After the imperialization of Christian church under Pax Romana, the meaning of missio became a kind of institutional sending of missionaries, which eventually resulted in the church expansionism. J. L. Gonzalez aptly describes this historical process of church’s mission as from the formation of “the Imperial Church” to “the Beginnings of Colonial Christianity.”[62] Most of Asian churches are the victims of this colonial Christianity although there are still some positive elements left in Asia.

     From this self-critical review of mission, we may turn to the original meaning of missio in terms of the sending of the Son by the Father to love the world (Jn 3.16), and to sacrifice his life for his friends (Jn 15.13), and to give sheep “life” “abundantly” (Jn 10. 10), to grant his people “eternal life” (Jn 3.15), and even to make those who “believe in his name” “to become children of God” (Jn 1.12). It is marvelous to see that Jesus, the Son of Man, as he prefers to address himself, is the friend of Minjung, who can give power to believers to become children of God. Here the suffering Minjung has been transformed into children of God. From this we can perceive a missiological principle: mission is not church expansion but making Minjung and Dalit become children of God. In this sense, since we can become children of God, doubtlessly Jesus can be the Son of God and our Friend.

      Therefore, the reign of God in the Synoptics which is symbolized in the great banquet of people of “nobodies”,[63] now can be further narrated as a community of children of God. People of nobodies become people of somebodies who are created in the image of God as the Son of Man.

       Obviously, this kind of missiological reorientation creates a lot of difficulties for the institutionalized churches in Asia. But if we do not search to be born “from above”, definitely we cannot “see the Kingdom of God” (Jn 3.3) To get rebirth, the first step is to get liberated from the colonial Christianity which have been dominating churches in Asia, Africa, and Indo-America. The second step is to reconstruct Asian theologies in the light of the new missiological understandings. To do this, theological comrades should get together to fight for the crucified peoples in Asia.

 

VII. Towards An Asian Theological Reconstruction

      Reconstruction begins with deconstruction. Deconstruction involves psychological, spiritual, methodological, ecclesiological and missiological dimensions. It is something like to tear down the old house. The task must be thorough that we may have a piece of good land to rebuild a new house. The new religious movements in Asia are booming but Asian societies are also becoming more confusing and chaotic. It means the so-called new religions are actually not new enough. Metaphorically speaking, they are not “deconstructed thoroughly” before building a new house. Many new religions are just “blended” type of various old religions. They do not really fulfill the needs of the Asian peoples.

      To build new house we need new materials and new methods for construction. In the context of Asian cultural and religious pluralism, we have abundant new materials for reconstruction. But the essential step is the feeling of need for theological conversion. There should be no more Christus Victor, but the crucified people, the Son of Man. This is the starting point of theological conversion here and now.

 

 

A Response to the paper

by Chuang Ya-Tang

Assoc. Prof. of Theology, Taiwan Institute of Theology & Culture.