Madam, - After Hilary Wakeman's woolly liberalism (Rite and Reason, December 22nd), it was refreshing to read Vincent Browne's direct assessment of Christianity (Opinion, December 24th). The sharpness of his logic cuts to the obvious consequences of any debate on Christ's character: if he is divine, everything changes.
Of course, if merely human, Jesus had no higher authority than any moral spokesman who anticipated or succeeded him, and all Christian belief is without foundation.
Vincent Browne inclines to the second view, claiming that Jesus avoids any explicit statement of divinity throughout the gospels. But perhaps his analysis of scripture is more obtuse than his understanding of its implications.
The divinity of Christ is woven through the texture of the gospels, continually implied through his relationships and actions. He calls the 12 disciples - is not one of them - and thereby recapitulates God's historical relationship with Israel; he commands the elements and forgives sin.
But the divine picture also receives more obvious emphasis within the four books. The phrase "Son of Man" - continually claimed by Christ for himself - is a direct reference to Daniel 7. The Old Testament prophet recorded that the Son of Man received "authority, glory and power" from God and that "peoples. . .worshipped him". Clearly the trope emphasises Christ's divinity, not humanity.
The reference to Matthew 26 highlight's Jesus's characteristically oblique teaching style, avoiding the anticipated answers and forcing his questioners to re-examine their assumptions.
Even the friendly messengers sent by John the Baptist in Luke 7 to establish if Jesus is the Messiah are denied a direct answer - something that could have been given by any mountebank. Instead, they are referred to his works - "the deaf hear, the dead are raised" - actions of an incarnate deity.
But Jesus could also be direct. After a prolonged debate with religious leaders in John 8 concerning the identity of "Abraham's children" he claims - with shocking explicitness - "before Abraham was born, I am". His audience knew that "I am" was the name God gave when asked to declare his identity to Moses in Exodus 3:14. Consequently, "they picked up stones to stone him" for his blasphemy.
Certainly Vincent Browne's understanding of the gospels is much clearer than Canon Wakeman's. The gradual, nuanced revelation of Christ's divinity is far from the loud, vulgar style demanded by mythology. Nevertheless, it is still there. And, if Jesus did claim to be God, we are confronted with the stark choice recognised, with Browne-like clarity, by C.S. Lewis: "Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or a madman or something worse. . .But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." - Yours, etc.,
MARK McCORMICK,
Harold's Cross,
Dublin 6.