November 30th, 2006
Apparently people love that New York Times Magazine interview. Here are some links:
November 30th, 2006
I overheard a Christian intellectual discussing his views about the “historical Jesus” today. I didn’t hear the complete conversation, nor did I involve myself in the discussion. However, I added the arguments in with what I have read and heard from progressive Christians over the last six months to a year. This is not an argument meant to convince you of Jesus divinity, only the Holy Spirit can accomplish that. This is about the efficacy of Scripture within the church.
What he said was that Jesus had a certain set of teachings on humanity, many based in the Torah. But that after his death his followers, in the interest of keeping the movement alive, attributed words and actions to him that didn’t happen. One of his arguments was that the writings followed, in his words, “a hundred years after Christ died.” I felt the urge to correct him at that point, considering that the latest,the Gospel of John, was an eyewitness account. Estimates say c. 100 A.D., and since John was an adult when he walked with Jesus, this seems like a late date. The earliest estimates are for Mark, in the 60’s, 30 years after the crucifixion. So he based his argument on a lie (he has a Ph.D. and is ordained, so he knows better), and went from there.
This goes along with the meme that Jesus’ early followers didn’t believe that he was divine, but his later followers attributed it to him. But that is easily refuted by the works of Paul and Luke. Even if you question Paul’s authorship of all 13 epistles, the ones we agree on were all written before 65 A.D., when he was executed by the Romans. Also, it is believed by some that because the Acts of the Apostles, written by Paul’s follower Luke, did not include an account of his death, it and Luke’s gospel were also written before 65. The first written account of Christian theology is from Galatians, Romans, and 1&2 Corinthians, written from 48-56. It is quite clear that the early followers believed, and the Apostles taught, Jesus’ divinity.
Beyond that, if Jesus wasn’t divine, there is no reason to follow him. That means there was no resurrection, which means there is no power in the blood, no point to the crucifixion. It means there is no hope in him, and that we have no revelation of God. If he’s not divine, what’s the point in following his teachings? What’s the reward?
I try to live a moral life out of gratitude for the gift of salvation. If Jesus wasn’t divine, there was no gift given, only a philosophy. And frankly, there are more logical philosophies out there. But that fact doesn’t bother me, because I believe that Jesus is God. And I believe what Paul says in 1 Corinthians:
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel�not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.1 Cor. 1:17-25
Now that you’ve read the whole thing, let that bold text ring in your ears. The wisdom of man, which is foolishness to God, robs the cross of its power. Paul is telling us that people are going to say and teach all sorts of things that redirect the attention and the emphasis and the glory from Christ and his work on the cross.
Qoheleth would tell us that if Jesus wasn’t divine, all of the good works we do in his name, and the people we bring to his teachings, and the wisdom we amass about him and about our world, are meaningless. Where then would our hope be?
“‘Vanity of vanities!’ says the Preacher. ‘Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.’”
Related: On Conversation..., I Don’t Think I Want to Be Christian Anymore, To Err Is Human...Inerrancy Is Divine.
November 28th, 2006
I finally got the chance to look over PB Schori’s all-too-interesting interviews in NYT Magazine and on NPR. The woman amazes me. My favorite part is when she says that Episcopalians are smarter and more responsible than their breeding-obsessed Catholic and Mormon (as well as all conservative denominations, I presume) brethren:
How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?
About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.
Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?
No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.
Is she saying that you’ll have fewer kids if your smart? Is she implying that only undereducated people have many children? It certainly seems that way. She’s telling us that if we want to have a big family, we’re being poor stewards…essentially that we’re going against God’s will. And what do “portions” have to do with this topic anyway? Apparently each couple is allotted a certain amount of the worlds resources, and should breed accordingly. If you have more than two kids you’re stealing someone else’s food…and air. She’s saying that the leaders of the Episcopal church are better Christians and better teachers than those of Catholics, Mormons, and “some other denominations” (i.e. Baptists and Pentecostals). I don’t even know why Mormons are included, since they don’t believe that Jesus was God. I will stop referring to them.
Her arrogance is incredible! As is the arrogance of her PR staff, but I’ll get to that later. Bp. Schori is incredibly skilled at manipulating language, using loaded terms, and making action that she wants to take seem like inaction, thereby convincing her opponents that they are fussing over nothing. This is evident in her NPR interview.
RY: Now, well, when you were elected Primate, that is, head of the U.S. Episcopal Church, you were quoted as saying “We’re not here to argue about matters of sexuality, we’re here to build a holy community”.. but as you know, there are people arguing about sexuality…what are you going to do to heal that?
KJS: Well, we’re going to keep conversing, we’re going to continue to ask people to met gay and lesbian Christians, and to begin seeing some of the fruits of their ministry.. uh, we’re going to continue to wrestle with these issues’they are the issues of our day, and the issues of recent generations have been about the place of women in the church, and the place of african-americans in the church, and the place of immigrants in the church, and I simply see this as our current ..uh.. our current growth into a larger.. communion.
See what she does? She slyly acuses the other side of “arguing” while saying she wants to “converse”. Well, a conversation between people who disagree is basically an argument. And at the same time she’s saying basically that we want to show people “the fruits of their (gay and lesbian Christians) ministry.” She is basically making the case that this is the way it already is, and if you disagree, you’re the one proposing the change, not her.
She also compares GLBT Christians to the Gentiles, when disagreement arose about whether they had to become Jews to be Christians. But the two issues are fundamentally different. We aren’t dealing with circumcision and food laws. When the controversy was settled, it was obvious based on Jesus teachings about the food laws (”It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean…”) and evangelism (”make disciples from all nations, baptizing them…”) that the Gentiles did not need to become Jews.
And the New Testament is also very clear about homosexuality. When it comes to civil rights, there isn’t much question. In a pluralistic society like ours, we have little argument for preventing homosexuals from receiving the same benefits as heterosexuals. But the church is another story. Here we have little argument for disagreeing with the text when it comes to issues of sexuality.
An easy way to say it is this: sin is the misuse of God’s perfect creation. I think everyone can agree with that. It is clear, biologically speaking, that God intended sexuality to be between a man and a woman. But if that isn’t enough evidence for you, then look into Genesis. Man is to leave his father’s home and be joined to his wife. If homosexuality were a proper use of God’s creation, there would be more evidence than the orientation/preference of 4% of the population.
Anyway, I should make it clear that God loves and welcomes all people. He’s calling so that everyone will hear. That means gays and lesbians, too. I think that homosexuals should be fully included in the communion, in the congregation, and in fellowship. But the church needs to hold on to its teachings. God’s plan for sexuality is clear, and misuse of it is sin.
Related: On the Narrow, On the Narrow (Pt. 2), Across the Board, You Call That Protection?, GetReligion: Honest Weblog Headline of the Day
More of Schori’s quotes:
“We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”
We’re not saying he can’t, we’re just saying he doesn’t. How do we know? He said so (this argument is intended for Christians, it is not meant to convince those who don’t believe the Bible).
Uhh…human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh..that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
This is the wordsmithing I was talking about. She manipulates the language. This is just a long yes. Why didn’t she just say “yes”, instead of pretending it’s too nuanced and compicated for such a simple answer? What she’s saying is that people get to God through whatever “faith tradition” (PC for “religion”) they like most. The problem with that is, it makes God a liar, or Christianity, and everything it stands on, wrong.
Christianity stands on the fact that the man Yeshua of Nazareth was God. If what Schori says is true, then this man who was God lied to us. That’s the crux of the matter. There’s some nuance and a few details, but that’s the gist. I will never understand how someone who claims Christianity can so clearly reject its teachings.
I’ll also never understand how Christians can treat the Bible as just another piece of literature. They pick through it like Kierkegaard or Socrates. That’s fine if you don’t believe in Jesus, but if you’re a Christian, your faith teaches that all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching. Not just the ones that talk about love and make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Also the ones that talk about righteousness, and holiness, and God’s judgment. It’s a package deal.
November 27th, 2006
I just became aware of the interview Episcopal Presiding Bishop Schori gave with the New York Times, and another on public radio. I haven’t gone over the full text of either yet, but what I have seen doesn’t surprise me with it’s substance, but amazes me because of how far she’s willing to go. Saddle up, she’s got a nine year term.
In Praise of Quirky News Interviews
I’m sure I’ll have more to say about this.
Related: Already Making Waves (Revisited), A Spoiled Kid In A Weird Hat
November 27th, 2006
You’d think people would be sick of crying “Wolf!” by now. The world hasn’t ended yet, despite all your posturing and hoping and warning, and I don’t think it’s going to any time soon. Of course, I could be wrong, and if I am, that’s okay, but in the mean time, you’re making anyone who takes any word in the Bible literally look foolish.
Okay, sorry. That was just a little rant targeted at all those biblical prophecy nuts who are trying to convince the world that the apocalypse is coming. On my way to work today I heard a commercial on the radio about a seminar that will be held this Saturday, and it made me a little queasy. It bothers me for two reasons: First, the Bible says that no one knows the day or the hour that Christ will return. Which, to me, means that you can’t predict it. Which brings me to the second reason…why try? There’s no legitimate point in building this case about the prophecy, other than trying to become rich and feed your ego. You’ll only convince people who already believed it, and you begin to look foolish.
There is one defense of it, and that’s that Jesus taught about the end times, he told people to watch the “signs of the times”, and Revelation is in the Bible to be read and understood, just like the rest. But are we going to continue to start up the bandwagon every time someone takes a shot at Israel? That just doesn’t make sense, since they’ve been fighting with at least one of their neighbors every day for 60 years. Give it a rest!
We should be focusing our energy in places where it will make a difference: counseling, benevolence, service, teaching Biblical examples of the Christian life. We should be helping people interact with the lost, so that they can be found. We should be telling people that God loves them and wants healing for them and wants them to lead the holy, peaceful life he intended. Not shouting that they’ll die painfully, then go to Hell.
Blogs4God
