the medium (you and me) is the message

I guess it is dangerous to quote out of context. I wanted to post the previous quote because I felt that it expressed a very pastoral scholarly sentiment that I not only agreed with, but was very encouraged by. The reality is that when it comes to speaking about Jesus historically, it is very important that we be honest about the data as it exists. When we press it further than it is intended to be pressed (for example no one saying of Jesus or teaching of Jesus in the Gospels ever claims to be word for word what was spoken at a given time or place) we run the risk of misrepresenting the data and ultimately misrepresenting our Lord.

For many evangelicals historical inquiry is considered useful only so far as it can be used as a club with which we can bash the heads in of all who dare to suggest that the words and stories that are contained in our text are not the actual words and actions of the Lord. In order to explain discrepancies in various accounts then we are forced to flatten and bend the text in ungodly ways to make sense of the data. It is much better to receive the texts as they were intended to be received, traditions/memories about Jesus the God-Man who actually existed, and who's life and ministry provide the example for all subsequent communities of faith, communicated through the memory and voice of ordinary un-educated men.

Not factual literal accounts, not audio recordings, not transcripts, not video evidence. If Jesus felt it were in important for us to have word for word accounts of his life and teaching surely he would have included scribes and not fisherman as his confidants. Heck he would have even written stuff down himself. The fact that he didn't seems to suggest that he had faith that the Spirit would recall all that really mattered, and that the voice of the uneducated ordinary men who followed him would be better than his own to communicate his message. Interestingly this seems to follow a pattern found elsewhere in scripture of God choosing ordinary men, empowering them by his Spirit, and then using them as the primary means by which he makes himself known among the nations.

We worship a holy God who lives in unapproachable light and who desires to be known but who chooses to make himself known through the fallible ordinary lives of sinful man. That God created man pre-Fall to be his image bearer on the Earth is easy to accept (apologies to those who find even this ridiculous/unbelievable), that he remains radically committed to them as his image bearers, and primary defenders of his reputation despite them being completely corrupted by Sin is miraculous. Why did he not come in our day when we could have recorded his teaching and miracles in High Definition and mass produce exact copies on Blue Ray DVD's? For real impact we could have even enhaced some recordings with 3-D technology so that those who watched could feel as though they were actually present. I would suggest that it is because the testimony of the Spirit of God breathing life into that which was once dead (me and you) always trumps texts, audio recordings, video etc. as an effective means of communicating the Gospel.