Are You Following Jesus or the Church?
1/24/2024
Those of you who have been following along on my presence here and on social media know that I seek the commonalities between the many different forms that spirituality has taken as it has matured over the centuries. If, as is proposed, God is one and consistent, then the inconsistencies are related to the men and cultures that gave rise to the religion that eventually replaced the original “prophet” and teachings.
Today we will examine one of the first schisms in the faith that has become Christianity — the split between the after-the-fact Apostle — Paul, and one of his companions on Paul’s first missionary journey — John Mark. John Mark left the missionary journey after a visit to Cyprus. He left unannounced and Paul refused to take him back, even at the request of Barnabas, who remained with Paul throughout his ministry. John Mark continued to serve Jesus by returning to the Jerusalem Church (run by James — the brother of Jesus) and eventually set out again with the Apostle Peter on his missionary journey which ended similarly to Paul’s final journey, in Rome. The rift between John Mark and Paul was never fully repaired or resolved.
Much is known about Paul — he wrote most of the New Testament and formed the legal and communal structures that in many ways still exist today. I am of the opinion that without Paul, Christianity would be looked upon as a minor cult in Judaism. Sort of like how Christians view the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons. I also believe that Paul, succumbing to his training as a Pharisee, injected many of his prejudices and beliefs into his writings as a way to solidify his fledgling church into something that might survive past him. He was a student of human nature, a superstar salesman, and a bit less than ethical when it came to growing that church. If the church were so inclined, there is a strong case that can be made for making Paul the patron saint of televangelists and used car salesmen.
John Mark is widely accepted in Christian circles as Peter’s nephew, who assisted and witnessed firsthand a good portion of Jesus’ ministry on earth. There are strong arguments that he was present at the last supper (which was held at his mother’s home), the entry into Jerusalem (he was sent to fetch the donkey), Jesus arrest (he was the one who escaped by fleeing the scene naked when a soldier grabbed him by his robe) and is widely accepted as being the author of the Gospel of Mark.
The Gospel of Mark is where I’m basing the rest of this theory — which I support, and which is quietly being discussed in Christian theological circles. The Gospel of Mark, according to most Christian scholars, was the first written Gospel (c. mid-50s — 60s AD). Luke and Matthew used it as a basis for writing their Gospels.
I have always considered the Gospel of Mark to be the bare-bones Gospel. There is no birth narrative. It ends with Mary Magdalene and Mary-Mom, fleeing the empty tomb. Miracles exist, but they are few, and make logical sense in the context of the culture of the time. Most of the “problems” that people have with Christianity are not present anywhere in Mark. I have often recommended Mark as the starter Gospel for anyone seeking to understand Christianity and its core teachings.
The Gospel of Mark is thought to be, in many theological circles, based on Mark’s own experience, combined with what his Uncle Peter told him about his experience with Jesus. It has also been thought to have been tampered with, possibly on several occasions over the centuries. The most cited example of this is the “evangelical commission” added to the end of Chapter 16. The text itself, as it exists now, is not in any chronological order. There is not much literary flourish, as is present in Paul’s writings, in many sections. In the sections where it is sufficient “flourish”, there is a strong argument made that these sections were either added or re-edited from the original text to polish it up. Studies have ongoing that the whole of the text is an adaptation of older spiritual tales of the time, done in a deliberate fashion, which argues against those who say that Mark did not have the education to write in such style.
As a Gospel, it is picked on for that very reason. In the Koine Greek that it was written in, much of Mark reads more like a high school term paper titled “This is what happened on my Jesus Vacation”. Style, for Mark, was far less important than substance.
As we do not have the original Mark text that was written by him for comparison, all arguments on the subject are conjecture and opinion — some educated, and some not so educated. For myself, and the purposes of this article, I have settled with the theologians who agree that the original text was the memories of Mark, and the recollections of Peter, set down to give an accurate account of the ministry of Jesus to stand in opposition to the ideas that Paul promoted that were in the very least, exaggerations. The original text was then modified over the years to bring it more in line with the theology and style of Paul.
Much of what Paul has written is less about Jesus, and more about how to run your church. He was a huge promoter of the public “confession of faith” — which in today’s lingo would cause “crowd buzz”. His writings contained a lot of advice on how to deal with troublesome believers, differences of opinion, and encouragement for up-and-coming pastors. The basis of Paul’s theology (his beliefs) is outlined in Romans, and interspersed in the rest of his letters, but in essence, what Paul did was build a structure for the new and rapidly forming religion.
Paul’s Evangelical efforts are summed up best by Paul himself:
“For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” 1 Corinthians 9:19–23
Even 2000 years ago, that would be a display of questionable ethics.
The discussion around this rift has been making the rounds for a long time. I’d imagine it started when Mark showed up at the Jerusalem Church unannounced. Many in the Jerusalem Church found Paul to be a disagreeable person but valued his results. At the same time, they were concerned about his concessions to the Gentiles.
In truth, the concessions he made were not in opposition to Jesus’ teachings — most were not commented on by Jesus at all. It is very possible that Paul thought that since Jesus didn’t speak directly to an issue, it wasn’t important to him, which logically fits. It was a useful sales tool, but to the older Christian converts, it seemed a lot like the new customers were getting a better deal than the people who had been followers of Jesus since he was walking around among them. Like your cell phone company does. James, who ran the Jerusalem Church, did not favor many of Paul’s ideas. Peter tended to mediate between Paul and James. Peter, at least, had direct knowledge of Jesus’ intentions.
The core of the discussion about Mark’s departure is “why?”. What would cause Mark to abandon Paul, and serve the church with others instead? What would cause Paul to then treat Mark with disdain, rather than the loving heart that Jesus taught?
The theory contends, and I agree with it, that Mark did not approve of Paul’s grandstanding and the embellishments that he attached to Jesus’ actual teachings, and no longer wished to be associated with him. James was evidently in agreement with Mark, as is witnessed in his teachings in the letter of James, in which he goes on the record to “clarify” Paul’s teachings to the church in general. It can be argued that the Gospel of Mark was written in response to Paul, to clarify where Jesus ended and Paul began. The same argument can be given for the Epistle of James.
So where does that leave us? There is no archaeological evidence that will clear this up. It is really a pointless trivial debate. Well, until you consider that, if true, it would be a fairly direct route to all of the complaints that people raise against Christianity today. Those complaints rest solidly on interpretations of Paul’s rules justifying the prejudices against other Christians and Jesus fans. Rules that made it easier for the Roman government to co-opt Christianity into a control mechanism, which has now outlasted every other control system by centuries.
Jesus taught a way of life, not a religion. Jesus taught that our connection to what many call “God” is direct, it needs no intercessor dressed in black with a little white stub in the shirt collar. The phrasing used by Mark in chapter 12:30–31 is the supreme teaching of Jesus (quoting Leviticus), which is both simple and genuine, as opposed to the arcane arguments of the dozens of different Christian denominations and sects pointing fingers at each other, claiming sole possession of “heaven” and “truth”. Simple truth is God-given. Complicated rules are the sole purview of humans.
We find Christianity in America today pulled in two different directions based on two different approaches to the teachings of Jesus. The Marcan position is that Jesus wished to emphasize the teachings of Jesus as practiced in Jerusalem, by the people who knew Jesus — which was showing love to all, and helping the poor and marginalized. The Pauline version emphasizes salvation and showing a proper “image” to outsiders as a way of attracting more followers. It doesn’t take a lot of time or nuance to figure out which of these models a particular church follows. Examining the model of the church you are attending seems to be the most basic way to determine if you are following Jesus, or just participating in making the crowd claiming to be Christian bigger. Asking yourself that question may answer why you don’t necessarily feel close to God, even though you are churched up to the hilt.
Thank you for once again showing an interest in improving your spiritual life. These writings build on each other to demonstrate that spirituality and God are not an abstract, frivolous set of chains to add to your burden, but a way to lose the chains that other humans have put on you. If you like one, read the others. If any of this makes sense to you, please drop a like and subscribe. Feel free to share this with people that you think will help. If you have questions or want further clarification, put it in the comments, or contact me through social media.
Continue on in Faith, Peace and Love,
Ecc.RL Brandner, New Ecclesiastes Ministries
