The Jesus of the Gospels

The teachings of Jesus are in the Gospels. They contain accounts of supernatural events, but only a subset of Jesus' teachings pertain to the supernatural—and this only if taken literally and not allegorically. None of them, however, are either theological¹ or institutional in nature. Even statements such as the promise of eternal life, the existence of a «Kingdom of Heaven» within us, or the existence of a «Father» in Heaven, are not theological claims, insofar as there is no logos involved. All of Jesus' philosophy is ethics; none of his religiosity is dogma.

Christianity, if it is to make any sense at all, must be understood as an ethical way of life grounded in the teachings of Jesus, stripped of later metaphysical system-building. Theological and institutional developments posterior to Jesus, which often stand in direct opposition to his teachings, are not to be granted any authority. This includes all the central dogmas of Christianity as an organized religion: the Trinity, Incarnation, the Original Sin...

The political and historical events which led to the formulation and embracement of these dogmas are generally well understood. More often than not, they were motivated by political and institutional interests. Constantine and Justine, and the councils they convened, are a topic of political history, neither of spiritual or ethical interest. And, from a Christian perspective, it is a mistake to accept what any group of people establish or impose, be it in Nicaea or Constantinople; especially when these are incentivized or even commanded by institutional or state powers. This is what follows from Matthew 4:10, when Jesus looks down on kingdoms and empires and claims that only God is to be worshipped.

I do not deny that some aspects of theology, however embedded in political struggles, were also motivated by a genuine desire to understand the nature of God. When carried out non-dogmatically, and through the impulse of genuine curiosity and not political interest, theology can be a valuable endeavor—as proven by the likes of Pascal, Kierkegaard or Tolstoi, to name a few—. But a fundamental issue remains; namely, that religious statements such as «God exists» or «Jesus is the Christ» are not of the same kind as statements such as «this rock exists» or «Cervantes is the writer of Don Quijote». It is equally pointless to try to support or critique religion through evidence or reason. This is not at all a new or radical statement, nor one that is exclusive to spiritually oriented people: it is nothing but a linguistic fact ². And thus, the only aspect of Jesus' teachings that is properly susceptible of philosophical elaboration and debate are its ethics—which, as I have said, comprise the core of his teachings in my view.

At the end of the day, I cannot think of less relevant matters for humankind than whether Christ is consubstantial with the Father, whether souls exist before bodies, and whatnot. Are these the questions which Christ asked his disciples to ponder? Were his parables oriented in this direction? The atheist critique which claims that these questions are essentially meaningless is correct. Christianity is a way of life and an ethical doctrine, one too rich to be reduced and stifled by dogma. The independence of religion from the supernatural has been discussed before me by many—take John Dewey's essay A Common Faith—, and was best understood by prominent figures of Christianity itself, such as Tolstoi in his Gospel in Brief. There is a vast amount of human experiences that fall well within the realm of religiosity, mysticism and spirituality, without reference to the supernatural.

My view of Christianity might be considered as too puritan, in the sense that I propose a return to the Christ of the Gospels and a rejection of all theological, institutional and dogmatic developments that succeeded him. However, this is the position that allows for the most freedom. I find that beliefs which would certainly result scandalous to dogmatic puritanism—an absolute degree of sexual freedom, for instance—to be in perfect accordance with the teachings of Jesus. What is more, the absence of dogma and theology entails that each person is—and should be—free to interpret the teachings of Jesus in their own way, and conform a relationship with them that needs not conform to those of anyone else. I believe the term «Christian anarchism» applies well to this stance.

Granted, Christian anarchism is more than this. So far I have only exposed what are the assumptions which inspire it, as well as some of their implications with regards to our own personal relationship with Christ. The social and political implications of this doctrine are equally important, and derive—as far as I can see—directly from the teachings of Jesus. I have discussed them somewhere else, though in more lax and autobiographical fashion. The only thing I should wish to repeat, considering it the most crucial, is that the teachings of Jesus entail the principle of non-resistance to evil, which provides a cornerstone for social action.