Except when he's a baby. "Born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate." That's all we really need to know about Jesus, apparently. But then, how can we grow to be like him, when our view of him doesn't include more than one sentence about the time he spent growing?
How do WE get from cradle to grave when all HIS struggles seem to come right near that last part? How should the vast bulk of our life - the boring parts in the middle - reflect his?
It's a question that could have great ramifications. We don't think about Jesus developmentally, and we struggle to see the Christian Life developmentally. We've no idea why Jesus needed those thirty years between the Manger and the Cross, and we're confused about what Christians ought to be doing "until Heaven". Hmm. These things might be related...
There has not been a lack of desire to look at Christ's Life more dynamically, on the part of the laypeople. But there has been a great need for Institutional Christendom to present things in a way that promotes monolithic stability. So it's not the Creed's fault. Nor are the Gospel writers to blame. It's our fault. We've allowed his humanity to recede.
What are some other reasons why Christian authorities (historically) have preferred that we not delve into those three decades in Nazareth? I've some ideas on that which I may share very soon.
In the meantime, I'd like to hear from other bloggers and commenters.
What is (or has been) YOUR OWN view of the time between Christ's birth and baptism?