I belong to a church that has received its beliefs in an unbroken line from the Apostles and today embraces more than a billion believers world-wide. I cherish this tradition religiously, but as a scholar I recognize that the formulation of those beliefs changes with the times.

Jesus called himself “Son of Man”; his Jewish disciples saw him as “Messiah”; Paul gave him a cosmic existence and meaning; the Greco-Roman world defined him in metaphysical terms of personhood, nature and consubstantiality. As Cardinal Newman concluded, even if the basic truth remains unchanged there is evolution in Christian teaching to fit each generation.

Recently, Jesuit Roger Haight, whose classroom I pass when I pick up my mail each morning, defined Jesus for a post-modern world. Jesus is “Symbol of God.” Unfortunately, there are not many post-modern thinkers in the Catholic hierarchy.

The difficulty lies, I think, in first defining “God” and then trying to match a conception of Jesus to that definition, whether it comes from metaphysics, metaphor or mythology. In describing his own mission, however, Jesus said that when his followers saw and understood him, they then would see the Father.

Mine is not a search for the historical Jesus, the quest of so many liberal Protestants over the past one and a half centuries. Those efforts were worthwhile, if only to demonstrate that they were guaranteed to be unsuccessful. Neither do I wish to substitute some “lost” or “hidden” Gospel taken from dissidents in Early Christianity.

Rather, I side with scripture scholar Father John Meier in recognizing that the Gospels are documents of faith, transmitting faith and can only be completely understood in faith.

Jesus is the Son of God I believe in because he was a miracle worker with extraordinary spiritual gifts. The Latino Catholicism I profess leaves the door open to the miraculous, and as a direct participant in its effects, I know the transforming power in experiences often categorized as “paranormal.”

There can be no doubt that the experience of power flowing from him influenced Jesus. He was neither the first nor the last pious Jew to preach the interiorization of the Law and the Prophets, but he was – arguably – the most successful to date. When written on a believer’s heart, this preaching makes the world a better place and revolutionizes establishment equations of wealth and power.

Finally, Jesus' suffering, dying and rising again demonstrated that there is life after death. He did not so much take away evil and death as take away their sting.

I know that my definition of “Son of God” is a personal one, even if connected to received wisdom. Not everyone will believe as I do in the role of the Christian community, or in the meaning of miracles, or in the stress on social justice, or in the resurrection. Some will not believe at all.

But then Jesus guarantees only sufficient grace to all, reserving efficient grace to some. He even said that many who follow his teachings are not aware that what they do for the poor and needy among us, they are doing to him. That describes the Son of God who died for me and for whom I should live.