Killing Fake News...

 

Killing Fake News…

 

John 1:(1-9), 10-18
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being

1:4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

1:7 He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.

1:8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light.

1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.

1:11 He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him.

1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God,

1:13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

1:14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.

1:15 (John testified to him and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.'")

1:16 From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

1:17 The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

1:18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.

“Fake News” became a “thing” in American culture over the past five years. It seems that if an actual, factual news account went against what a certain former President believed, it was dubbed “fake news” by him, or one of his cohorts. Unfortunately, this libelous label “grew” to cover entire news networks, as well as heralded newspapers known for printing the most truthful stories one could write, including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and even the Wall Street Journal, a very conservative, business-oriented paper. These papers are the gold standard in journalism, but when they printed stories that were counter to the chosen narrative, even though the stories were quite factual, they were immediately branded “fake news.” Meanwhile, much lesser purveyors of news (I’ll be kind here) were pumping out stories puffing this particular former President, and often creating “facts” to support his desired narrative, and they were given not just a pass, but were heavily watched and believed by a large number of Americans. As one with a degree in journalism and communications, it irritated me beyond belief, and it still stings that people echo the phrase “fake news” whenever a legitimate news account “disagrees” with what they believe. I really don’t care what your politics are, or even if you happen to be a continued “fan” of the Ex-President in question—facts are facts, and when they are simply indisputable, such as the fact that the Presidential election of 2020 was legitimate, and that incidents of “voter fraud” were factually very few and far between, you may not like it, but you can’t just scream “fake news” and negate the truth. This particular fiction of widespread “voter fraud” has cost taxpayers in numerous states millions of dollars in audits, court cases, and more audits of the vote, and have even spurred legislative changes to voter rights, in some places. The facts are that voter fraud was infinitesimal, and probably the least in any modern election. Still, a large segment of the population believes it occurred, in spite of the facts.

 

Is Jesus Christ “fake news,” or not? That is the question the church has had to answer time and time again, especially when it is challenged by non-believers and the uninitiated, alike. If we approach the biblical accounts of Jesus like they were being published in a serious, modern newspaper, say the New York Times, it might be interesting to test Jesus to see if he is real or Memorex (I guess you have to be as old as me to get this reference?).

 

So, we begin with comparing the types of literature involved. In the New York Times there are: 

·      News stories, written as factually as can be possible, with facts and sources double-checked, and if using sources, having at least two, independent ones. News stories may run the gambit from current events, politics, medicine, science, or sports. 

 

·      Feature stories that are typically much longer, and that may be either “first person” or about a person or event. Facts are important here, too, but since it is not a news account, it reads more like a “short story,” in extended narrative form.

 

·      Opinion and Editorial (“Op-Ed”) pieces written by columnists or some segment of the newspaper’s editorial board. While content typically center around facts of a matter in a “real” newspaper, the slant of the content is guided by the ones writing it. A columnist intentionally gives her or his opinion with the piece, and editorials may do the same, but are written from the editorial viewpoint taken and maintained by the newspaper and its publisher. Again, in a “real” newspaper, these “slanted” articles are very intentionally marked as such, and typically appear on what are labeled as “Op-Ed” pages, to avoid confusion. (This is why TV or broadcast news has a problem, as rarely are “stories” labeled as news or “Op-Ed” when they are broadcast.)

 

·      “Letters to the Editor” written by readers but published alongside the rest of the news; these are also clearly marked, and typically include a city or neighborhood of the one submitting them.

 

·      Advertising, which is clearly marked as such in a “real” newspaper, even if it is designed by the advertiser to look like a news article.

 

Newspapers also have headlines, photographs, and “cutlines,” or captions under its photographs. Headlines are written to be compact, grab attention, but accurately (as much as possible) summarize the content that follows. Photographs are captioned so you know what you are looking at. Even in great newspapers these may have issues, as cutlines may be mixed up and appear with the wrong photo, or headlines may unintentionally mislead. Comedian Jay Leno made part of his schtick out of displaying misleading or poorly-written headlines (i.e. “The Eating of Children Under Scrutiny by Science”), and his predecessor, Johnny Carson often showed photos with mixed up captions (i.e. a picture of plump singer Kate Smith with the cutline, “The prize hog at local 4-H Fair”). The errors with photos and cutlines rarely happen today, as with digital composition, they are kept together as a file. Bad editing still may result in poor headlines, however.

 

Guess what: the Bible also has most of these forms of literature in them, minus the photos, of course: 

 

·      Among the gospelers, for example, we find that Luke is more the news reporter, making at least an attempt to be as historically accurate as he could be in his day. He must have interviewed many witnesses to write his account, as he was not one of the twelve who was always with Jesus as an eyewitness, although he may have been one who followed Jesus around. 

 

·      The writer of John’s gospel has little concern about historical facts. He, instead, is writing more of an editorial piece featuring the prevailing view of Jesus as the divine Son of God. At least he clearly labels this fact in the gospel’s first chapter, often referred to as the “prologue.” Prologue, it may be, but from a journalist’s perspective, it also labels the following content as reinforcing the “editorial” views of the Apostles and the early church, concerning Jesus. 

 

·      Young Mark is kind of a feature writer. While he writes briefly, and uses the Greek word for “immediately” more than any of the other gospel writers, he seems most interested in finishing a story about the life of Jesus, so it won’t be forgotten (this is often the motivation behind “feature” articles in newspapers). 

 

·      Paul was a columnist, pure and simple. His style is unmistakable, he is giving his very strong opinion as to what he believes about Jesus, salvation, sin, the Holy Spirit, and the concerns of the burgeoning early church. He (or an amanuensis) signs each of his letters, to make clear that it is his thought being communicated. 

 

·      Apocalyptic literature like Revelation may be seen as a type of advertisement for coming attractions. It’s vector certainly seems aimed at the future, and may serve to help its readers “buy” into a change of life or direction to avoid being on the “outs” with the sponsor. Apocalyptic literature could also be seen as feature articles, employing a “science fiction” model to get the reader’s attention. Most bad newspapers or ones extremely slanted with an aim toward garnering a niche audience are just filled with this kind of stuff (think the National Enquirer). 

 

·      One could argue that the smaller “General Epistles” that are placed “under the fold” before Revelation qualify as “Letters to the Editor.” They are attributed to John, James, Peter, or others, but they may be written by other witnesses, possibly as recollections of sermons or talks they heard by one of these “headliners.” 

 

Let me make clear here that the form of this narrative is a sermon, meant to make you think, do a bit of your own research, incorporate a new idea into your views, or adopt some minor, transformational alteration in your life. It is not an academic piece by a Bible scholar, so I am not addressing the myriad views of same concerning the efficacy of scripture, nor am I embarking on a “feature” focused on its inspiration. That said, it is important to note that one’s views of the “inspiration” of scripture may greatly color not only how you read scripture, but which scriptures you tend to hold most dear. Libraries have been written focusing on the idea of the Bible being “God-breathed,” and each testament (and in some cases, specific books) may receive varying treatment. I would say, however, that it would be better if educated believers would not deflect to a “verbal” or literal inspiration of scripture (meaning that God basically dictated it to the authors, who served as spiritual “autopens”). This view is just not supported by the Bible, itself, and creates more problems than it solves for the church. Besides, it robs the Bible of its broad views of the human experience, and its interaction with the Divine. If God simply dictates the scriptures, there is little reason for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, unless you also buy the degrading, devaluing, and reductionist view that Jesus was just a “piece of meat,” sent to die on the altar of the cross for the propitiation of sins.

 

Back to our central point…Given that what we know about Jesus is brought to us by the various journalistic accounts of the writers of scripture, is Jesus “fake news,” or not? Here is where things get either very mirky or most clear. The written accounts we have in the New Testament, and in some cases bolstered by prophetic “hints” from the Hebrew Bible, are more than adequate to form a view of the broader totality of who Jesus was and claimed to be. Liberal believers will focus more on his lessons, teaching, and example, while conservative ones are drawn to the efficacy of his actions, especially his death on the cross and the resurrection. The Good News (caps intentional) is that both have part of the “truth” about Jesus. A “fake news” Jesus is one who in no way lives up to what we read, what HE says, or what HE did.” A genuine Jesus doesn’t appear without interpreting these things, and only when it is done through the “eyes of faith.” If we have a need for redemption, are drawn to the selflessness of Jesus, or are just curious, we approach our investigation with the eyes of faith. We may bring the focus of faith to the encounter, or we may grow them as we proceed. A few illustrations may help reduce the obfuscation here.

 

When I was a child, my family watched Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol every Christmas season for years. I loved it, and even as an older child, was so disappointed when it disappeared from the roster of hundreds of broadcast seasonal offerings. SO, I found a DVD of it, and brought it to Louisville to watch with my grandchildren and their family this Christmas (the first one I could actually spend with them, since I retired in July). I think they enjoyed it, but being well-versed in Dickens’ story and not in the corpus of the Magoo genre, they were more than a bit puzzled by why it was so important to me. As I watched it for the first time in over 50 years, I must admit, so was I. The best I could come up with was what it meant to me back then (as best I could recall) when I watched it with my family. My “eyes of faith” concerning Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol have grown beyond the actual telling of the story, and is only precious because of its memory. The “eyes of faith”—or lack thereof—my grandchildren brought to the story caused more curiosity and raised more questions about it, and therefore required interpretation. People’s memories, experiences, and the era in which they were raised will cause them to approach the scriptures—and even Jesus—with the similar divergences.

 

Here’s another example. In junior high and high school, we read portions of the works of William Shakespeare. For eyes, the language was extremely obfuscating, the poetic artistry of iambic pentameter was lost on us, and our limited life experiences rarely resonated with the likes of Portia, Shylock, Antonio, or even Romeo and Juliette, for that matter. Reading Shakespeare as an adult gives one very different “eyes” with which to appreciate him. The character development alone is worth the read, and the beauty of the poetic form is almost magical. The stories certainly more parallel my experience of the human condition as covered in the narratives, and I resonate with Romeo and Juliette at least a bit, even after almost 45 years of marriage! 

 

So it is with the eyes of faith I bring to my personal Bible reading. My experiences, my better understanding of the language and sitz im leben of the various texts, as well as my desire to deduce truth, gain inspiration, and receive direction from them greatly colors how I interpret them.  Of course, seven years of theological education has given me both the tools and the freedom to cut the scriptures loose from artificially imposed limits picked up from adolescence and a brief, teenage foray into the world of fundamentalism. 

 

I would argue that the “eyes” with which I approach scripture today have given me a much richer, deeper understanding of it, as well as a passionate respect for it and what it can do in my life. Its “authority” is not derived merely from its inspiration, or certainly not from some notion that it is historically accurate. It is authoritative for me because it has brought me a life-changing faith, and it consistently and constantly feeds that faith. It introduced me to the totality of the Christ Event that has such profound theological underpinnings, and it has introduced me to Jesus, who has made both a personal and a communal connection for me with God and others. Even if someone were to someday “prove” that much of what we find in the Bible never occurred, it’s authority in my life would not wane because of the positive direction it has helped steer my life and my incursion into the broader community of faith.

 

So, the answer to the question, “Is Jesus fake news?” is most definitely “NO.” I would argue that from the perspective of a good journalist, Jesus Christ may be the most genuine person who has ever existed. Every type of literature has been impacted by the Jesus story, and throughout the history of “his-story,” the written and spoken accounts of it continue to attract the seekers, nurture adolescent faith, and transform life and thought. And the church, or “community of faith” that has grown up around the life of Jesus continues to grow and morph, adapting itself to “connect” to each era and challenge it faces. When the scriptures say that “Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever,” they do NOT mean that Jesus doesn’t change! Instead, this is a witness that the life-changing power of the Christ Event will never be diluted, let alone destroyed, no matter what anyone does, says, or writes. There is just too long a history of “walking facts” to dispute its truth and genuineness, and too many living witnesses of it who continue to testify to its reality.

 

As I said at the beginning of this message, there is no “fake news.” There are falsehoods that are not supported by fact, and there are accurate news accounts that are. Interpretation is an art like commentary and Op-Ed—when it is done well, it serves to bolster our understanding of the story and the root or supportive facts. So it is with the scriptures, and so it is with Jesus. We have no photos of Jesus, but what we read in the first chapter of the Gospel of John is our “proof”: No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made God known.

 

As we begin a new year with hope, let us also rejoice in the reality of what we believe. And may we kill “fake news” once and for all, to the betterment of humankind. Amen.