The Gospel of John and the Encounter with Modern Religiosity and Spirituality
My purpose here is not to present a new commentary on the Gospel of John but rather to interpret selected parts of the Gospel with a specific view to the religious quest and the encounter of religions. The title of the book, “The Gospel of John and the Religious Quest,” has a twofold meaning. On the one hand it reflects the understanding that the Gospel in its origin was part of a dialogue with people from a variety of religious traditions. On the other hand it indicates how the Gospel is used today—by Christians and non-Christians—in vivid dialogue with those who live in other religious traditions than the Christian.7 Three ways of using the Gospel should be considered.
First, the Gospel is used by Christian theologians who wish to dialogue with representatives of other religions, such as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims. Examples are given in the first part of this book. It is interesting to note that the Fourth Gospel has played a special role in India. An Indian bishop is reported as having said that while the Catholic Church is primarily Petrine, i.e., inspired by the pope as the follower of Peter; and while the Protestant Church is primarily Pauline due to its doctrine of justification by faith, the Indian Church is first and foremost Johannine. It is no coincidence that one of the great theologians of the last century, A.J. Appasamy, published several books on Indian mysticism and the Gospel of John.8
Second, it is clear that the Fourth Gospel enjoys a certain popularity among representatives of non-Christian world religions, and among those who are active in the New Age milieu and new spirituality. To support the first observation we can cite the various attempts to combine Christianity and Buddhism, or to prove that John’s Gospel is rooted in Buddhist ideas. Some argue for “the Christian Buddha,” others for a “Buddhist Jesus.”9 An example of the second observation is the work of Rudolf Steiner, who wrote several commentaries on the Gospel of John.10 Sections of his work will be discussed in the first part of this book. Interest in the Fourth Gospel among new religious movements is probably linked to the disputed claim that it is related to Gnosticism. Some New Testament scholars assert its gnostic character while others argue the opposite, albeit accepting that its vocabulary has certain similarities with the gnostic worldview. The Gospel’s relation to Gnosticism will be discussed in Part Two under the heading: “As a Gnostic to the Gnostics”?
Finally, in recent years the Gospel of John has proved to be a great inspiration to those working with Christian spirituality. Its metaphorical language and meditative form appeal to people engaged in spiritual guidance and theology of pilgrimage. An example of this is Lene Højholt’s Vejen: Meditativ fordybelse in Johannesevangeliet (“The Way: A meditative immersion in the Gospel of John”) from 2006, see also the survey and comment on this work in chapter 10 of this study.
All these examples of contemporary readings of the Fourth Gospel raise the question of whether it is possible to establish any criteria for a religious dialogue. Or to put it in another way: How far can Christians go in dialogue without betraying the essence of the Christian gospel? The question will be addressed throughout the book and discussed in greater detail in Part Two.
Methodological Reflections
Bible Readings—Academic and Experiential Approaches
For the past few centuries the study of biblical texts has been dominated by an academic approach, aiming at objective, even “neutral,” analyses of the texts. It has often been taken for granted that this approach was in opposition to an immediate and more popular reading. Today, many scholars try to combine the two ways of reading, an approach that is characteristic also of this book. However, in combining both approaches we must be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of both.
The academic approach covers a variety of different readings. The most widespread method is historical criticism which is at one and the same time both necessary yet insufficient. It is necessary because it takes seriously the human side of the revelation; the incarnation is the theological basis for the historical analysis of texts.
1. It insists on the text in its “otherness”; in this way it protects the text against subjective wishes and ideological exploitation.
2. It investigates the historical and linguistic peculiarity of the text and thereby points to its message.
3. It is actually self-critical; the interpreters should be prepared to abandon what they know in order to learn something new.
4. It contributes to an open dialogue about the Bible; the results can be tested in a public, inter-subjective discussion.
However, historical criticism also has a number of weaknesses. Firstly, by concentrating on discovering the historical meaning of the texts it can easily create a distance to present time. If the research is content with this, the biblical text will never have a chance to show its actual relevance. Second, this approach is strongly dominated by the professionals. They often disagree on the interpretation, or their interpretations are difficult to take in at a glance. All this creates the feeling of alienation. Third, historical criticism is oriented towards a cognitive apprehension. Yet reality is not just that which we can comprehend with our reason; it also includes existential questions and experiences. The historical method therefore needs to be supplemented with other methods that are open to the inclusion of contemporary experiences in the interpretation of biblical texts.
It is here that experiential readings become interesting, comprising as they do a wide variety of approaches that include psychological readings, liberation theology, interactive Bible reading, and didactics of symbols.11 The latter, in particular, is of special interest in this book; cf. the paragraph “The language of symbols and metaphors” in chapter 2 of this book. As an alternative to describing these readings as “experiential” we may also call them creative Bible studies. The term “Bible study” is a child of a literary culture in which the capacity for meditation often remains underdeveloped. Likewise, “the tendency to individualism and the focus on privacy can be fostered by the printed book. Each person has his or her own Bible to read and explain as one wishes.”12 It is therefore a challenge to liberate the Bible from being captured by a one-sided literary culture.
Academic Bible studies tend to focus only on rational thinking and intellectual activity. But according to the love commandment in Mark 12:29–30 we must love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength—and not just our reason. The command to love insists that the whole person has to be taken into consideration, including the emotions, experiences, intuition, and the body.
Creative Bible study places a special emphasis on ordinary people, who themselves are encouraged to work creatively with the texts. Both the “insight of the feelings” and the “knowledge of the brain” are important. The Bible can be studied in a creative way by everyone—professionals and amateurs, scholars and students, clergy and laity, male and female alike. All kinds of experiences count. The only presupposition is that we accept the methods employed as valid. Creative Bible study is based on the conviction that Scripture is not reserved for theologians or church leaders and that the Holy Spirit is present and active in the life of ordinary people. The meaning of the Bible is not restricted to what was said by its authors to its first readers; it is relevant to God’s people at any time in history, including the present.
The