The Christian Tragedy

A Continuing Problem

When I consider the Christian narrative, it strikes me most clearly as a tragedy. The Gospel of Mark, perhaps the earliest and rawest account, conveys this tragic tone unmistakably. Jesus ascends the mountain of transfiguration, rising in vision and clarity, yet he inevitably descends into betrayal, isolation and death on the cross. It is the story of promise confronted by an immovable reality; of light glimpsed, only to be swallowed by darkness. To me, it reads as a deliberate tragedy, stark in its honesty and resisting the temptation to soften the blow with reassurance.

However, the authors of Matthew and Luke seem to have been dissatisfied with such unrelieved bleakness. While retaining the crucifixion, their narratives weave in moments of glory, triumph and fulfilment. The tragedy is reframed so that it is not the final word: genealogies establish Jesus’s place in divine history, miracles confirm his authority, and resurrection appearances expand the narrative into a drama of victory. While Mark’s Jesus dies with a loud cry and abandonment, Matthew and Luke depict a more composed and purposeful fulfilment, shifting the narrative towards glory rather than sheer tragedy.

Meanwhile, Paul spiritualises the cross. His vision evokes the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness, which was a symbol of healing when gazed upon. He applies this image to Christ, suggesting that the crucifixion itself is the paradoxical source of life. However, Paul never seems to consider the deeper implications of this symbol: that the cross is not only a mystical conduit of divine power, but also a brutal political reality: The Roman Empire’s instrument of terror and domination. Theology, with its speculative structures and prooftexts often taken out of context, further abstracts the tragedy into a system.

As long as I remained in the church, the tragic story resonated most deeply with me. The idea of a man envisaging his people as a light to the world, leading by love, compassion and freedom of spirit rather than domination, only to be crushed by entrenched power, seemed honest and redeeming. It revealed the fragility of vision in a world governed by coercion. However, over time, I found that most Christians contradicted this understanding by clinging to the narrative of glory, triumph and metaphysical victory. Unable to reconcile these divergent visions, I left the church. To me, the tragedy still speaks not as a failure, but as a truth about the cost of love in a world that fears it.

But this tragedy is not confined to the first century, it speaks to the world we know all too well. It mirrors the reality of hope being crushed by violence, visions being suffocated by power and love being confronted with indifference or fear. The crucifixion becomes not just a one-off historical event, but a recurring pattern wherever idealism collides with the machinery of control. In this sense, the story exhorts us: if we recognise the cost of such tragedy, we must prevent its recurrence. We must stand against the forces that perpetuate cycles of oppression and safeguard compassion from being extinguished time and again.

The deepest tragedy

Yet the deepest tragedy, the ‘tragedy of tragedies’, is that the supposed followers of Christ, those who inherited the memory of his life and death, fell into the very trap he himself had resisted. The very power he denounced proved too seductive; as the Church gained influence, its structures began to mirror those it had once opposed. Authority became hierarchy, service turned into domination, and the message of freedom became cloaked in dogma and coercion. As the Christian community grew in power, so did its corruption. It was as though the cross had lost its warning and had instead been transformed into a banner of conquest. Thus, the tragedy repeated itself and deepened, as the movement that began with a call to love became embroiled in the same cycle of violence that it had once exposed and condemned.

The modern Church cannot ignore this, for the same dynamic continues into our own time. Christianity, which began as a voice raised against domination, is still all too often enlisted in the service of suppressing and oppressing dissidents, minorities and other traditions. Rather than being a refuge for the marginalised, it has aligned itself with structures of exclusion and control. What makes this all the more jarring is that many Christians, while exercising power in this manner, also claim to be victims of the world’s resentment. They claim to be persecuted even as they perpetuate systems that silence others.

This dual stance of exercising authority while lamenting victimhood reveals how far the Church has strayed from the tragic honesty of its origins. The cross as tragedy should remind the Church of the dangers of power, the cost of resisting it and the solidarity owed to the oppressed. Instead, however, it is all too often turned into a shield against criticism, a justification for privilege or a rallying symbol for cultural dominance. In order to regain its integrity, the Church must honestly confront its complicity and return to the tragic truth that genuine discipleship is not about grasping power, but about giving oneself away in love, even at the cost of rejection.

We need to worship Jesus less as God and follow him more as a visionary prophet. Elevating Jesus to the status of an untouchable divine figure has placed him on such a high pedestal that his lived example is obscured. When he is primarily adored as a supernatural being, his humanity, the radical choices he made, the risks he took and his vision for a new way of living together are left unexamined. Worship can become a way of avoiding the harder task of discipleship.

If we see him as a visionary prophet instead, his life challenges us directly. His words about love, mercy and justice are no longer distant ideals to be revered, but rather practical calls to action demanding our participation. His resistance to entrenched power and his solidarity with the poor and marginalised are not merely episodes in a divine drama, but a model for how to live in today’s world. Such a vision restores the tragic depth to his story and reminds us that discipleship is not about believing in his divinity in an abstract way, but about embodying his vision in our own lives, even when this puts us at odds with those around us.

By following him as a prophet rather than worshiping him as God, we reclaim the radical, unsettling, and redeemable core of the Christian story. It becomes a call not to glorify from a distance, but to engage intimately with the demands of conscience and self-knowledge. To know oneself in this context is to confront the ways in which we participate in injustice, to recognize our own capacity for both harm and compassion, and to act with awareness in a world that often rewards conformity and power over truth and love.

Living differently, then, is not a matter of ritual or dogma but of practical transformation: choosing empathy over indifference, integrity over expedience, and courage over fear. The prophetic Jesus challenges us to step out of complacency, to see clearly the structures that oppress and divide, and to embody a vision of community and care that mirrors the possibilities he revealed. In this way, the Christian story, stripped of mere worship, becomes a guide to ethical living, a mirror of human potential, and a compass for navigating the tragedies and complexities of our own time.

3 Likes

Another way of saying the Gospel is that the end became the means, that the subject became object (absorbed all consent violation), to show/inform/remind us that we are equally valued persons whose consents will be equally, impartially respected (no consent being respected over any other—equal, inclusive opportunity).

No one is forced/born into the kingdom involuntarily (although all are equally valued, whether or not we accept it). We can only stop the cycle of consent violation, of revenge, of alienation, if we do the same (forgive, recognize inalienable value) for those who have violated us…and stop initiating violation (start treating the other as we would want to be treated).

Those who don’t want to recognize or inform consent don’t want to be forgiven for something they won’t admit that they do. The most they will do is gaslight you in an apology that makes it about how you misperceived their actions and intentions—that is not a real apology—but/and you can forgive them without accepting it as an apology… and in complete absence of any apology, real or fake.

The question is not “Are we forgiven? Are we perfectly loved even though we fail to love perfectly?” The question is “Do we receive/accept it?”. The gaslighters don’t—until and unless they do (consent…and recognize the consent of others).

If you refuse to recognize personhood, you blind yourself to the fact you are eternally loved by original personhood. THAT is willful ignorance.

To recognize consents equally and impartially the way Jesus did on the cross is the true act of worship.

1 Like

I’ll paraphrase the last part of a conversation between Richard Carrier and Dennis MacDonald, in which MacDonald says:

The gospel narratives seldom preserve memories of historical events. More often, they preserve mimesis of seminal texts. These are not narratives of memory but narratives of imitation and cultural transformation. That is how meaning was created in this world.

And that point is also the “dangerous” thought. The idea that the gospels are not recollections of memory is what most people cannot handle. Even many non-Christian scholars have built their careers on the attempt to reconstruct a “historical Jesus,” always based on the assumption that the gospels are grounded in memory. This is why theories of memory have become so popular: they assume the gospels are collections of remembered fragments, randomly preserved and stitched together.

But that is not what is happening here. The gospels are carefully constructed works of literary storytelling. Their authors are not curating memories; they are creating narratives with deliberate purpose. In this sense, they operate in the same way Jesus himself is depicted as speaking in parables. These are not records of what happened, but stories designed to carry meaning.

This also explains why the Roman church eventually created its own version of Christ. Just as Virgil had recast Homer to embody Roman virtues, so too did the church take existing sources and reshape them into a Roman narrative. The Christ they promoted was not simply remembered, he was reinterpreted, transvalued, and made to fit Roman ideals of order, authority, and endurance. In this process, Jesus was transformed from a Jewish prophet into a universal saviour who upheld Roman cultural values, ensuring Christianity could become the empire’s defining religion.

We are dealing with a narrative that retells older stories, using familiar stories that are changed to show Jesus to be the better Elijah, Moses, or even Dionysus (John’s Gospel). The story as a tragedy is probably the closest to the historical events, but the transmission of the Gospel needed familiar stories for Greek and later Roman audiences, which explains Matthew, Luke and John.

1 Like

This is, of course, a familiar narrative. It remains within the old structures that deify Jesus rather than follow him. The terminology is decisive.

Worship emphasises reverence for Jesus as divine, raising him above us. It often manifests in liturgy, song, prayer, and ritual.

  • In Hebrew, the common word is hishtachavah (to bow down, prostrate), denoting reverence before God or kings.
  • In Greek, the word most often translated as “worship” in the New Testament is proskuneo (literally “to bow down, to kiss toward”). It conveys physical gestures of reverence and submission.

Discipleship emphasises following Jesus as a teacher and prophet, walking behind him, learning from him, and imitating his way of being in the world.

  • The word disciple comes from the Latin discipulus = “student” or “learner.” In Greek, the term is mathētēs, meaning pupil, apprentice, follower.
  • To be a disciple of Jesus meant joining his way of life, learning his teachings, practising them, and imitating his example. It’s less about adoration and more about formation and taking on his vision and values.

The tension is that Christianity historically leaned more toward worship (Jesus as God to be adored) rather than discipleship (Jesus as teacher to be followed). I argue that the more the church exalted Jesus as divine, the less emphasis was placed on actually following his radical example.

My perspective largely stems from the comparative reading I do across different traditions. When you set texts side by side, striking affinities begin to emerge. For instance, the Upanishads display a strange and haunting resonance with the words attributed to Jesus. They share a quality of language that bypasses elaborate theology and speaks directly to the soul, touching something universal in human experience.

The Upanishads frequently refer to ‘this’ and ‘That,’ the distinction between the impermanent and the eternal, yet ultimately declare that, in reality, it is all one. In this vision, multiplicity dissolves into unity, and what appears divided on the surface is revealed to be bound together at a deeper level. Reading Jesus’ teachings, especially passages such as the Sermon on the Mount or his parables, I sense a similar dynamic: a call to look beyond surface divisions and discover the kingdom of God not as a distant place, but as something already present and hidden within and among us.

This suggests that monotheism, pantheism and panentheism, often treated as rival philosophical categories, may in fact spring from a common intuition, glimpsed differently in different cultures. Whether one speaks of the eternal Brahman, the God of Israel, or the indwelling Spirit, a shared attempt to articulate the ineffable unity underlying all existence comes through.

Viewed in this way, Jesus’ vision is not a sharp departure from other spiritual traditions, but rather part of a broader pattern in humanity’s quest for meaning. Acknowledging this does not diminish his uniqueness; rather, it situates him among the great voices of wisdom who, across cultures, sought to bridge the gap between the finite and the infinite. The affinity between the Upanishads and the Gospels shows us that, at its highest level, the human spirit often arrives at parallel insights: what we call God, Spirit, Brahman or ‘That’ is what sustains us here and now; the eternal and the impermanent are not two, but one.

Those enthralled by power concentrate purely on “this,” the impermanent and ephemeral, and forget “That,” the eternal. But the Vedas say, “Thou art That,” and ignorance of this fact leads to the murkiness of ignorance. This is why light is so prevalent in religion, because it leads to understanding and insight rather than only to knowledge.

Bob, what Church was it?
It is obvious that this has affected you deeply.

There are many but few that are based on an understanding and the interpretation of biblical teachings.

Having come from the Pietist movement and with years of biblical study behind me, I once served as an elder in a mainstream Protestant parish. However, what I found in the Protestant church was disappointing; it revealed itself to be more of a social club than a living community of service. The church’s spiritual mission seemed secondary to its social cohesion, and while conversation and fellowship were pleasant enough, the deeper call to serve others was largely neglected.

As you may know, the word ‘deacon’ is derived from the Greek ‘diákonos’ (διάκονος), meaning ‘servant’, ‘waiter’, ‘minister’, or ‘messenger’. These meanings encapsulate what I believe to be at the heart of Christian life: active service to others. When I later entered the nursing profession, I saw deaconship as a natural extension of this calling. Yet I was soon confronted with various forms of lethargy, both institutional and personal. In the mainstream church, the work of service was increasingly delegated to professionals, while congregants contented themselves with the comfort of social interaction.

Within the Pietist circles I had once belonged to, there was sympathy for my vocation, but also a distinct fear of getting involved. The idea of going out into the streets and meeting people where they lived and suffered was quietly dismissed. Many preferred to keep their faith within the safety of their homes and study groups, unwilling to open their doors to the real world outside.

Over time, I also began to notice how the compassionate teachings of Christ were being downplayed. When I preached about compassion and the human side of Jesus’ ministry, several men in the congregation told me that I was being ‘too emotional’ and should focus on doctrine instead. Ironically, it was the women and younger members who came to thank me afterwards for words that had touched their hearts. Around that same time, I was also cautioned about reading ‘forbidden’ books, which were works written by pastors who, like me, had rediscovered the centrality of compassion in the Gospels and drawn parallels between the teachings of Christ and those found in other spiritual traditions. Their real ‘fault’ was acknowledging that divine truth manifests across cultures and scriptures, in our own.

My curiosity deepened, and I began to read more widely. Thomas Merton’s writings had a profound influence on me; through him, I found a bridge between Christianity and the contemplative traditions of the East. I also discovered that many believers, both Catholic and Protestant, shared my hunger for a deeper, more inclusive spirituality. Often, it was the congregations rather than the priests or pastors who welcomed these explorations. A few clergy recognised the spirit of the ancient deacon in my approach, yet engagement seldom went beyond polite acknowledgement. The idea was appreciated, but the effort required seemed too great.

Eventually, my search for understanding led me further afield. I began to travel, listening to Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Muslims in Egypt and spiritual teachers from India. My religious studies expanded beyond Christianity, fuelled by the belief that compassion is a universal virtue. I was deeply inspired by Karen Armstrong’s Charter for Compassion and her Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life, both of which affirm that compassion lies at the heart of every ethical and spiritual tradition. Her vision that all faiths can unite through empathy and service resonated deeply with my own experience.

Around the same time, I became interested in the philosophical and linguistic origins of the New Testament, particularly through the work of scholars such as Pierre Grimes. From Grimes, I learned to view the Gospel of Mark as a work of classical structure, written in the style of a Greek tragedy. The Transfiguration stands at its very centre as the moment of revelation and transcendence, after which Jesus begins his descent towards Jerusalem and the cross. This opened up a new dimension for me, revealing that at its core, Christianity is both drama and revelation: a human and divine story interwoven through suffering, transformation and love.

At our core, we are imaginative storytellers. William Blake called this the ‘Poetic Genius’, the creative spirit that shapes our inner world and the world we share. When joined with compassion as the central teaching of life, this same spirit reveals how, though outwardly different, religions are like the fractal colours of light: diverse expressions of one radiant source.

Human beings have a natural affinity for one another; a kinship that transcends creed or culture. Yet we are continually distracted by the pursuit of power and possession. Our true nature is to exist consciously, creatively and compassionately, but instead we are taught to seek security in ‘having’. This illusion of ownership, rooted in fear and impermanence, consumes our resources and fractures our communities, setting us against one another in rivalry and division.

Now, in my seventies, I have turned to a more contemplative and meditative life. Having spent so many years trying to bring people together through compassion, I now find peace in simplicity. My attention now rests on what is near and real: my family, my neighbours and the small acts of care that imbue daily life with a quiet sanctity. I often write, not to instruct, but to reflect. In that reflection, I realise that the same light that once compelled me outward now guides me inward. This is where I am today: grateful, still learning and content to dwell within the stillness that once eluded me.

The test comes to every soul, there will be apostasy, some will prove to be traitors heady high minded, they will turn away from the truth making a shipwreck of it.

Your reply is quite revealing, shedding more light on your worldview than on my reflection. Rather than engaging in conversation, you have chosen to react in a defensive, moralising and fearful manner. I understand your concern. However, my path isn’t about abandoning truth but discovering its deeper unity and the compassion that lies at the heart of all faiths.

While I was speaking about the human capacity for imagination, compassion and spiritual connection across traditions, which is an inclusive vision rooted in experience and wisdom, you immediately shifted into a framework of judgement, warning and exclusion. I am not writing this to attack you, but to act as a mirror.

When you use phrases such as ‘there will be apostasy’, ‘traitors’, and ‘shipwreck of the truth’, these echo biblical admonitions, particularly from Paul’s epistles and the pastoral letters. They imply that exploring beyond a rigid doctrine is tantamount to betrayal or spiritual failure. Essentially, it’s a theological reflex that emerges when faced with pluralism or inner freedom, and some believers respond by invoking authority and fear.

There’s also a psychological aspect. I am concerned that such a response may stem from anxiety, from a fear that my path of contemplation and universal compassion threatens your sense of certainty. I emphasise being, whereas you cling to having the truth.

What you call apostasy, I see as growth and the courage to follow truth wherever compassion leads. In my experience, faith that cannot face questions or the light of other souls has already shipwrecked itself.

One example

Most of the Christian world knows that something dramatic happened in Augsburg, Germany on October 31st 1517.

On that day an obscure monk named Martin Luther ambled up the north door of the Castle church in Wittenberg and nailed 95 theses to the door.

What many may not know is that on October 31st, 1999, 482 years after Luther lodged his protest, another dramatic event took place on that very site.

Choosing the very same day and location of Luther’s challenge, representatives of the Roman Catholic religion and the Lutheran World Federation signed an agreement entitled : Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification hailed by some enthusiasts as an end to the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide, this document has received much press and attention world over.

Now the two theologies are as far removed from each other as the East is from the West, one example the Catholic Church’s “indulgences”.

But they were apparently reconciled and then a few years later the Methodists joined the Declaration then the World Communion of Reformed Churches joined the Catholics, the Lutherans and the Methodists and agreed on the joint document and signed it. Now the World Council of Reformed Churches is the largest Association of Reformed Churches in the world. Hence my reason for saying Jack of all trades and master of none.

Your dissatisfaction perhaps prompted your move from your Church or maybe you saw this as the reason to explore further afield.

Personally I have no desire for a “life ever after” this one is proving to be enough for me, nevertheless I hope my faith will never waiver.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. My reflections weren’t intended to address denominational differences, but rather the underlying language of myth and compassion that is common to all sincere faiths. The events you mention are part of history. I was talking about the symbolic imagination that lies at the heart of it, but you don’t want to address that.

I sense a subtle hint of scepticism, as if my openness to other traditions is perceived as a sign of dissatisfaction or spiritual compromise (‘Jack of all trades, master of none’). Your remark about my ‘dissatisfaction’ is patronising and implies that my reflections arise from disillusionment rather than deep inquiry.

Your closing line, ‘Personally, I have no desire for an afterlife… Nevertheless, I hope my faith will never waver’, is contradictory and self-centred. Rather than engaging with my themes of imagination and compassion, it simply circles back to your own stance, perhaps in an attempt to reassert certainty after your more fluid perspective caused you to waver.

This kind of response often comes from people who are uncomfortable with ambiguity or synthesis. My writing invites symbolic and contemplative thought, whereas your frame of mind seeks fixed boundaries: doctrinal, historical and categorical.

I can understand why my idea of mythic imagination might sound to you like theological relativism or ‘mixing religions’, triggering a defensive need to restate what you consider firm ground. However, the spiritual and imaginative capacity we all share awakens compassion rather than contention. The contention in the church is largely due to people who think like you do.

OK. Who am I to disagree.
I can see you are a man who holds a grudge.
Perhaps you could take a chill pill?
:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I am a man who has worked for compassion in the church and in services, and I see a lot of people undermining that work. But they lack the self-awareness to understand what they are doing.

That isn’t a “grudge” but disappointment.


And people have this goodness in them, if only they were not distracted.

1 Like

I have had time to reflect on this and part of your history you have given regarding the church you left and the example I gave was to point out the many diffeences there are in the demoninations, as from what I have to assume, that difference in how you chose to address the congregation and how the Elders perceived it to be (for want of a better word) was unacceptable to them, this caused the break and the reason you chose to move on. I know this is not 100 per cent accurate but I do not know the details of all this, so I am limited in my understanding of it all.
If there is scepticism in my replies, that is due to my cynicism regarding people in general. I am supposing you are using “symbolic imagination” and I do not see the purpose of this, only that it leaves your mind open to other elements that may not be positive.
But hey, I tend to be rational in my thoughts.

Tarot cards are a tool specifically designed to stimulate and engage symbolic imagination, serving as archetypal symbols, dream images, and maps of the unconscious. By interpreting the rich, mysterious illustrations, individuals can connect with their inner worlds, externalize internal states, and make meaning through creative, non-linear reflection.

That says it all. You have gone full circle. LOL

The way that people tend to address that lack of understanding is to ask questions. Your terminology (“demoninations”) suggests that you feel you don’t have to ask questions, but have already made up your mind.

If you are cynical about people generally, then this would support what I just said: You have made up your mind. If you were to ask me what “symbolic imagination” implies, it would be a conversation and not a condemnation. That is not “rational.”

Then you bring Tarot cards into the conversation, associating them with what I have said, and you also seem to have a fixed idea about them. You also seem to regard archetypal symbols, dream images and maps of the unconscious as threatening. You then conclude with the statement, ‘That says it all,’ using it rather like a judge’s gavel to deliver a verdict.

I don’t know if anyone has told you this before, but passing judgement on people is not what Jesus recommended. A discussion forum is a place to discuss subjects in detail, taking different issues or ideas into account. I started off talking about how I see the narrative around Jesus as a tragedy, and how the Church gained power by reacting much like the people in that narrative who opposed Jesus. A tragedy within a tragedy, if you will.

I see the story as valuable, showing how the spark of imagination that gives rise to a spirit of deeper unity and compassion is stifled by judgement, warnings and exclusion. As I said before, your frame of mind seeks fixed boundaries, doctrinal, historical, and categorical. It’s the same mindset that wanted to stone Jesus when he said he was one with the Father. It is the same frame of mind that led to his death.

So, if we are talking about going around in circles, this is what I would call the tragedy of tragedies. Rather than speaking with dissenters, we pass judgement on them, whereas Jesus had a message of love, even towards enemies. Ironic, isn’t it?

We are as far removed from each other as the East is from the West, I will leave it at that.

1 Like

Bob has spelled out his Christology here to an extent. I get that you don’t approve of his, reason4emotion, but, I’m not really clear what you believe about Christ. Would you like to make that clear?

While we’re at it can I spend a lot of time posting to tell you guys what I think about Jesse James or Meg Ryan while things are happening in the world that have absolutely no bearing on or relation to either of them such that I’d even wonder why I’m talking about them at all?

I’d like to do some gentleman from 1179 who was a cobbler in a small village in Wales too if I may.

I will not, however, talk about the most important people in the history of the world like Marx and Lenin instead, though. Better to spend time thinking about completely irrelevant people from history.

You can start your own thread to do that, rather than trying to derail this one.