[Oe List ...] John Knox "The Event and the Story"

Herman Greene hfgreene at mindspring.com
Wed Oct 19 09:24:33 EDT 2011


Thanks for this.

 

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of David Walters
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:05 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] John Knox "The Event and the Story"

 

The Event and the Story is from On the Meaning of Christ by John Knox
(Charles Scribner and Sons, 1947) of the 20th century. We used this as a
seminar paper in the Academy. He /began teaching at Union Seminary shortly
after JWM left for the Army. Here is his obit from the NY Times: 

Dr. John Knox Sr., a biblical scholar and an educator, died on Monday at his
home in Medford, N.J. He was 89 years old.

Dr. Knox was the Baldwin Professor of Sacred Literature at Union Theological
Seminary in Manhattan from 1943 to 1966 and then became professor of the New
Testament at the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest in Austin,
Tex., until 1971. He taught at the University of Chicago Divinity School
from 1939 to 1943.

Dr. Knox received a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1935. He became
a Methodist minister in 1924 and was pastor of parishes in the Baltimore
region and a professor of the Bible at Emory University in Atlanta. He was
chaplain of Fisk University in Nashville from 1929 to 1936. He was ordained
an Episcopal priest in 1962.



-David Walters

 

THE EVENT AND TUE STORY

- John Knox 

  

Earlier in this book we considered the elements which, at the least, must be
regarded as belonging to the event. These were found to be the man Jesus,
his life, death and resurrection, the coming of the Spirit the creation of
the community. None of these elements, we saw, can be omitted, What we mean
by "Jesus Christ" is the whole of which these are indispensable parts. But
although we had no hesitancy in affirming that the event cannot be less than
this whole, we attempted, it will be recalled, no maximum definition.
Indeed, we recognized that no absolute maximum, or outer, limits can be set
to this or, for that matter, any other event, short of the limits of history
itself. 

  

But although we cannot draw an absolute line except at the ends of history,
we can draw it there. If the reality we are considering is an historical
event, by definition anything non-historical or "supra-historical" is
excluded from it. This does not mean, of course, that nothing non-historical
is real; the whole purpose of the event, according to Christian faith, was
to provide an historical medium for 

the revelation of God, who is the ultimate reality above and beyond history
as well as within it. But the statement does mean that nothing
non-historical can be an element in the event itself. 

  

Now all of the elements we have proposed as essentially constituting the
event are historical elements: the man Jesus, his life, teaching, death and
resurrection, the creation of the church by the Spirit are all truly
historical. It may be objected by some that the resurrection and the coming
of the Spirit are not, properly speaking historical since they did not occur
publicly, but only within the experience of a limited group. But such a
criterion of the "historical" cannot be sustained. It may well be true that
nothing purely private and individual can be called historical--the
historical is essentially social- but it does not follow from this that
nothing is historical which is not universally witnessed or experienced,
even by those who are physically situated to witness or experience it. As a
matter of fact, if such a criterion were applied, Jesus himself, as his
character is presented in the Gospels, could not be regarded as an
historical person since 

nothing is more certain than that only a relatively few of those who had
some contact with him recognized this character. The indubitable fact is
that the resurrection of Christ, no less than the life of Jesus, did occur,
whether everybody witnessed it or not. The church is beyond any doubt
historical, and its very existence is a testimony to this occurrence. 

  

But as much as this cannot be said of certain other "occurrences" which the
New Testament and the creeds have affirmed, such occurrences as God's
sending the pre-existent Christ to earth, the ascention of Christ, and his
coming again to judge the quick and the dead. These are all matters of
traditional Christian belief and they all stand in some relation to the
revelation, but they are matters of belief, not of empirical fact, and
therefore do not belong essentially to the event itself. They stand at least
one place removed from what is actually given within the experience of the
community. They belong not to the event, but to the 

"story." This distinction between history and story is an important one and
deserves more attention than has usually been given to it. 

  

  

I 

  

The story is as familiar to the average Christian as the history. Indeed,
the story includes the history and many of us never think of the history
except in the context which the story provides. For most purposes it is just
as well that this is true, but for purposes of clear theological definition,
it is important always to have in mind where the history leaves off and the
story takes up. 

  

Although the story is told with some variations in the several parts of the
New Testament, it's general outline is clear and, in view of the general
variety of New Testament religion, amazingly consistent. The story is
nowhere more succinctly and effectively presented than by Paul-in
Philippians 2:6-11: 

Though he was divine by nature, he did not snatch at equality with God but
-emptied himself by taking the nature of a servant; born in human guise and
appearing in human form, he humbly stooped in his obedience even to die, and
to die upon the cross. Therefore God raised him high and conferred on him a
Name above all names, so that before the Name of Jesus every knee should
bend in heaven, on earth, and underneath the earth, and every tongue confess
that 'Jesus Christ is Lord,' to the glory of God the Father." (Moffatt) 

  

This is the story in its briefest form. As we read it, we find ourselves
filling in from Paul and others: It was out of love for mankind that Christ
came into the world and it was out of love of mankind that God sent him or
permitted him to come. One is lead to imagine a high colloquy in Heaven
between the Father and the Son as to the necessity of this sacrifice. Man,
God's creature, made in His own image and for fellowship with Himself, has
by his disobedience, by his misuse of God's gift of freedom, become
hopelessly embroiled in tragedy and death. He is held body and soul by Sin
and is unable to extricate himself. Only God can save him--and how can even
God save him unless he comes to where man is and deals directly with man's
"enemy?" Therefore, it is decided that Christ shall lay aside his heavenly
status and powers and himself become man. Thus it happened that Jesus was
born, lived a brief and strenuous life of unfailing devotion to the will of
God, preached the good tidings of the salvation he had come to bring,
repulsed all the attacks of man's demonic enemies, carried his obedience so
far as to die. But just as he had successfully resisted Sin, so he 

conquered Death. He arose from the dead and ascended to the Heaven from 

which he had come. There he now reigns with the Father and thence he shall
come at the end of all things to judge the world and to save those who have
put their trust in him and who thus through faith have been per mitted to
enter the community of those who share in his victory over Sin and Death. 

  

This summary, susceptible of modification and amplification at many points,
is intended only as a reminder of what is as familiar to us as the songs our
mothers taught us. 

  

Now it is clear that while this story embodies historical elements--the life
and death of Jesus, his resurrection, and the continuing life of the
community of faith--it also contains elements which are not historical. The
pre-existence of Christ, his decision to come into this world as a man, his
struggle with demonic powers and his triumph over them, his ascension to
heaven, where he reigns at God's right hand awaiting the time of his
return--these are parts, not of the event, but of the story. This does not
mean that they are not true, but, rather 

that if true, they are true in a different way from that in which the
account of the earthly life and the affirmation of the resurrection are
true. These latter are true in the sense that the earthly life and like
resurrection actually took place; but one can hardly use the term "take
place" in connection with "occurrences" which transcend time and place
altogether. These belong, indeed, not to the sphere of temporal occurrences
at all, but to the sphere of ultimate and eternal reality. The 

story is not an account of the event, but a representation of the meaning of
the event. The story is true if that representation is true and adequate; it
is false only if the meaning of the event is misrepresented or obscured. 

  

It will be recalled perhaps that in our examination of the Gospels we saw
the importance of recognizing two facts about them: first, that they bring
us the career of Jesus only as transfigured, and, secondly, that they are
more, rather than less, true on that account. Now I should like to urge the
importance of two somewhat analogous facts about the story: first, that it
is a story, and secondly, that the story is true. 

  

II 

  

Neglect of the fact that the story is a story betrays us not only into a
sterile and irrelevant literalism, but also into an unnecessarily rigid and
divisive dogmatism. The criterion of truth for a story is a different
criterion from that which applies to history. In the case of an alleged
historical incident, the appropriate question is, "Did it happen?" That
question may also be asked of the story, but it is not in 

that case the essential question. One's acceptance of the story as true does
not depend upon one's giving an affirmative answer to that question. Hamlet
is true or false without the slightest reference to the question whether
there was a Prince of Denmark by that name. Or, to take a much better
illustration for our purposes, one may accept as true the story of man's
creation and fall, as found in Genesis 1-3, without supposing for a moment
that those chapters give us an accurate account of an actual happening.
Indeed, it might plausibly be argued that the essential and universal
meaning of this ancient story can be grasped most profoundly only when the
story is set free from any connection with an actual occurrence in time and
space. I have no interest in making such an argument, but I would insist
that those who believe the story happened and those 

who believe it did not--or at any rate, do not believe that it did-- should
both recognize that their beliefs at this particular point are largely
irrelevant. A story is a story. You do not believe it by believing it
happened, and you do not deny it by denying that it happened. The important
Question about the story of man's creation and fall is whether we believe
what it is trying to say about God and man 

and human history. To believe, or deny a story is to believe, or deny 

its meaning. 

  

Now the Christian story is a story, and it is of first importance that we
recognize it as such. But equally important is the recognition that this
story is 

true--and true not merely in the sense in which all true stories are 

true, but also in a very special sense. Stories generally are true in 

so far as the characters of the play are life-like, their motivations 

understandable, their actions consistent and credible. In other words, 

to be true the play must be true to life as life is universally experienced
and observed. The more deeply it probes into the play of interests and
motives, the more precisely it analyzes the subtler aspects of human
relationships, the more profoundly true it is. Still, such a story is true
only because it might be true. 

But the biblical stories of man's creation, fall and redemption would, as
regards their really important significance, be false if only such truth
could be affirmed of them. These biblical stories, while not being accounts
of actual incidents, nevertheless have a connection with actuality which
stories of the ordinary kind do not need to have. Thus the creation story is
true only if God is in fact the Creator of the heavens and the earth and of
man in His image, and the story of the fall is true only if man is in fact
alienated from God and thus actually falling short of the glory of his own
true nature and destiny. In other words, these biblical stories, which are
not self-conscious literary creations but genuine emergent from the
experience of a religious community--these stories are attempts to express
an understanding of the relation in which God actually stands to human/life,
and they are true in any really important sense only if that understanding
is correct. 

  

This distinction is even more clear when we consider the story 

of Christ. This story is not only connected with actuality in the general 

sense which can be asserted of the earlier biblical stories, that is, 

God is in fact our Redeemer from Sin and Death--but it is also related 

in the most intimate and necessary fashion with a specific historical 

occurrence. The actual life, death and resurrection of a man form the 

great center of the story. The meaning which the story as a whole sets 

forth is the meaning which was actually discovered in the event itself. 

  

There is, therefore, a certain inevitability about this story, as was hinted
earlier in a reference to the creeds. It cannot be replaced or, in its
essential structure, modified. The meaning it expresses cannot be expressed
otherwise. Metaphor can always be substituted for metaphor and parable for
parable; and although one parable or metaphor may be judged more apt or
effective than another, none can be thought of as indispensable. But the
story of Christ is absolutely unique and irreplaceable; and this is true not
only because it includes the account of an actual historical event as a part
of itself but also because it is itself, in all of its essential parts, the
creation of the event. 

  

The story came into being as a phase of the community's life and is as truly


an element in the event as the community itself. The story came into being
because the meaning of the whole event, as it was realized and fulfilled
within the experience of the community, was too great for merely historical
terms to express it. For the event was known to be nothing less than the
revealing, reconciling, redeeming, act of God. God had drawn near in Christ.
This was not mere metaphor; this had happened. But simply to affirm this is
virtually to tell the 

Christian story; for when that story is stripped to its essential elements,
is it not seeking to say just that, and indeed only that? Thus although the
event took place on earth, the story, which embodies the meaning of the
event, begins in heaven and ends there. Can anyone, even now, to whom the
event has occurred think of it as beginning or ending anywhere else? Can the
heights and depths of the meaning of the event be expressed in any other
way? To witness the event is to believe the story. 

  

But the point must be made again that although the Christian will inevitably
believe the story (and often we do not know how deeply we do believe it), it
is important for him always to realize that it is a story he is believing.
Otherwise, he is likely to become rigid and harsh in his orthodoxy, and his
conception of Christ may become an instrument for dividing the body of
Christ. 

  

III 

  

Perhaps our thinking in this Perplexing area may be somewhat clarified if a
distinction is made between what may be called the historical, the
ontological and the mythological The' Christian confession involves all
three elements, and we Properly understand the meaning of the term
"mythological" in this connection only if the truth and importance of the
other terms are recognized. By the "historical" element in Christian faith
is meant, of course, the event we have been Considering through these
chapters, and it must not be forgotten that the resurrection of Christ, the
coming of the Spirit, and the creation of the community 

(different ways, perhaps, of referring to the same reality) are as much a
part of it as are the Personality and life of Jesus of Nazareth. By
"ontological" I mean the God, who stands above and beyond history as well as
within it, who has acted in and through the event, making Himself known as
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. By "mythoogicaI" I refer to the
supra-historical elements in the story which came into being within the
Christian community as the only Possible way to express this transcendent
and redemptive meaning of the event. 

  

Not one of these elements can be omitted or neglected Without 

the destruction or distortion of the essential meaning of the Christian 

confession Gnosticism in all its forms, ancient and modern, affirms the 

Ontological and the mythological but disparages or despises the historical: 

The Christian "gospel" becomes a mere story with its universal meaning. 

Fundamentalism in all its forms, traditionalist and sectarian, affirms 

the ontological and the historical, but repudiates the category of the 

mythological thus manifesting either insensitiveness to the vastness of 

the mystery of God's being and purpose, or else ignorance of the true 

nature and the necessary limits of history. It is left for certain types 

of modernism to recognize elements historical and mythological in the 

Christian tradition, but to deny the reality of the God of Christian faith, 

thus robbing both history and the story of ultimate meaning. 

  

But if this last position destroys meaning, the other two seriously distort
it. All three are false to Christian experience, in which history, faith and
story are fused inseparable. As members of the historical community we have
witnessed the event, Jesus Christ the Lord, and in faith we have received
its meaning as the saving act of God, but when we try to express, or even to
grasp that meaning, neither philosophical nor historical terms will serve
our purpose, and our thinking and speech, whether we recognize it or not,
become inevitably mythological. But the myth or story, in its own
appropriate way, is as true as the history with which it is so intimately
connected and as the faith which it was created to express. 

  

On the Meaning of Christ, John Knox, Charles Scribner and Sons, 1947 

  

  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20111019/c1a827dc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OE mailing list