Allowing that the gospels contain “stories which we may reasonably suspect of being metaphysical fables”, Swinburne insists that they are “a basically reliable source of information about the life of Jesus”. Of course, Jesus did not go about saying, “I am God”, yet “the historical evidence of the actions as well as the words of Jesus are such as we would expect if Jesus did teach that he was divine”.
Thus, Jesus was not revealed to be divine only at the Resurrection, or in the Easter experience of the disciples, as some theologians would maintain. Without quoting any of them, Swinburne obviously aligns himself with the small, though perhaps increasing, number of New Testament scholars who would conclude from the evidence that Jesus knew all along that he was divine.
Much more adventurously, in an intellectual climate in which Christian fundamentalism and militant atheism often seem the loudest voices, Richard Swinburne argues, against both, that the key doctrines about Jesus – that he was God Incarnate, atoned for our sins, rose from the dead, and founded the Church – each is at least “moderately probable”, in terms of sheer logic. It is an exercise in what Catholics used to call natural theology that would have taken St Thomas’ breath away.
One slight objection: the title ought to be “[i]Is[/i] Jesus God?”
Swinburne, the author says, works in probabilities: It’s likely there’s a God, and if there’s a God, it’s likely he’s like the Christian God, etc., etc.
The trouble is, when you pile probabilities upon probabilities like that, what you end up with is increasingly improbable. Suppose we have three possible events A, B, and C. Suppose the probability that any one of them will occur is 0.6, that is, three out of five. The probability that all three will occur is 0.6 to the third power, which is just under 22%.
(A simpler illustration is flipping three fair coins — the probability that any one will turn up heads is 1/2, but that all three will turn up heads is 1/8; this can be verified by brute-force counting of the possible combinations.)
———
If we’re to take Luke’s account in Acts at face value, the first apostles acted as though they believed Jesus to have been the Messiah — it seems not to have even crossed their minds that he might be God.
According to my Messianic Jewish friends, the Jews from 2nd century BC to mid-1st century AD had taken the view of the “redeeming Messiah” to the point where He was comprable with God. Implicit in this theology was the Greek version of Isaiah, that called the Messiah born of a virgin (the Greek was strong in this point, using parthenos) and would be called “wonderful counsellor, everlasting Father, prince of Peace” names reserved for God alone, as well as the Suffering Servant Messiah of Is. 52-53.
Later generations of Jews, innundated with Christian assertions of the diety of Messiah Y’Shua, revised the idea of Messiah to be a human warrior redeemer, taking the suffering servant idea to refer to Israel’s trials.
good sources:
“Y’Shua: the Jewish way to say Jesus” by Moishe Rosen
“The Gospel in the Feasts of Israel” by Dr. Victor Buksbazen
Oh, the conclusion:
The apostles, raised in this ideology, would not have had a conflict accepting Jesus as the Messiah [b][i]and[/b][/i] the Son of God (as in Peter’s confession “You are the Messiah, the son of the Living God” Jesus’ response: “Blessed are you Simon….for this was revealed to you by MY FATHER IN HEAVEN”), divine (Thomas’ confession “My Lord and My God” Jesus response — ‘Blessed are you, Thomas, for you have seen and believed!”)
[blockquote]If we’re to take Luke’s account in Acts at face value, the first apostles acted as though they believed Jesus to have been the Messiah — it seems not to have even crossed their minds that he might be God. [/blockquote]
It seems pretty plain that the apostles came slowly to their understanding of who Jesus was. Nevertheless, to say that it never crossed their minds we’d really have to ignore some of what we read in the New Testament, for instance Thomas’ declaration in John 20.28. Maybe he was just blaspheming, as some have suggested, but that seems like a stretch to me. John, in fact, seems sold on the idea, and quotes Jesus as using the divine name [i]ego eimi[/i] several times. As for Luke’s account, surely no Greek-educated physician would have missed the implication of his own words in chapter 1, verses 34-35.
Following up on #3, try Matt 14:33
[blockquote]Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”[/blockquote]
Well, sons of something are species wise, that thing, in this case a god. In a monotheism, you can make that God.
I would note that #1’s cited article doesn’t deal with this part of Gospel very much.
Re #2: Swinburne devotes the appendix of his book *The Resurrection of God Incarnate* to the topic of probability, with special attention to Baye’s theorem, upon which he bases his argument. He believes that he has formulated his argument in such a way as to be immune to the principle of dwindling probabilities, as cited by Toedt.
LibraryJim [#3] writes:
I read neither Hebrew nor (apart from a few words here and there) Greek. In every Isaiah translation I’ve ever read, it’s immediately obvious that the suffering servant refers either to Israel or to the book’s author, depending on which parts you’re reading.
———–
Tom Roberts [#6] and others: As to “son of God” and its variants, Jesus reportedly said that peacemakers will be called sons of God: Does that mean that, say, Nelson Mandela is also God?
And of course we can’t forget the various other NT uses of “son of” as sort of an adjectival phrase, for example:
• James and John were “sons of thunder”;
• Joseph the Levite was called Barnabas, which means “son of encouragement”;
• those who love their enemies are “sons of your Father in heaven”;
• those who put their trust in the light are “sons of the light”;
• the good seed in the parable of the sower is a symbol of “sons of the kingdom” while the weeds symbolize “sons of the evil one”;
• certain other Jews in the Gospels are referred to as “son of Abraham” or “son of Israel.”
(Copied from another piece I wrote, Shortening the Nicene Creed.)
LibraryJim [#4] and Laocoon [#5], I don’t put much credence in the more fantastic claims of the Fourth Gospel, for reasons I’ve written about in this posting, where I suggested among other things that:
#8 apparently you have an issue with reading my whole citation, especially the “worshiped him” bit. I doubt if Jesus worshipped such peacemakers, Nelson Mandela or not. Obviously, there is a difference between simile and reality that would not escape any theologian, but which has apparently escaped someone who relies on semantics.
It’s quite possible (though I think mistaken) to argue against the truth of the church’s credal faith and it’s quite possible to interpret the Scriptures other than the orthodox tradition does (as Joseph Smith shows quite well). Again I think the orthodox range of interpretations, interprets better (unsurprisingly since I think it was guided by the Holy Spirit).
Nevertheless, I just want to remind folks, that even in TEC baptism demands individual affirmation of the truth of the church’s credal faith. One is quite at liberty not so to affirm but then, I suggest, one ought to step back from the font.
Tom Roberts [#10], according to my interlinear NT and my NT Greek lexicon, the Greek verb translated as “worshiped” in Mt. 14.33 (which you quote) is also used:
• in Acts 10.25, which has Cornelius “worshiping” Peter;
• in Mt. 18.26, which has the unforgiving servant “worshiping” his master;
• in Rev. 3.9, which has the letter to the church at Philadelphia saying that those of the synagogue of Satan will be made to “come and worship before your feet.”
So perhaps in Mt. 14.33 the phrase “they worshiped him” doesn’t have quite the connotations of deity that some Christians have built up in their minds; perhaps “they did obeisance to him” might be a better rendering?
The astonishing thing to be accounted for is the Jewish disciples’ perception that Jesus should be worshiped. It’s a perception shared by the author of Luke Acts BTW. The very earliest texts we have about Jesus (Paul’s letters) show Jewish (and Gentile) Christians worshiping Jesus. Perhaps John is not so far from Luke after all?
1. Indeed – Cornelius is a Gentile and Peter corrects him.
2. Look at BDAG and see the range of meanings of the Greek word – but when Jesus is being worshiped in the context of ritual (as clearly in Paul) – we can be sure that something more than servants doing obeisance before their master is being implied.
3. Their relationship to Christ is hardly incidental to the vision is it?
Driver8 [#11] writes: “… even in TEC baptism demands individual affirmation of the truth of the church’s credal faith. One is quite at liberty not so to affirm but then, I suggest, one ought to step back from the font.”
The facts are what they are; the First Commandment calls us to face them as best we can, and doesn’t allow us to pretend that they’re other than as God wrought them. Even the pre-1979 baptismal vows didn’t require the baptized person to put his or her critical faculties into hibernation.
Just let me add one book to my references:
“Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Diety” by Josh McDowell.
It is clear, both from the Scriptures and from the writings of the ante-nicene fathers, that the early church realized that Jesus was, indeed, God incarnate.
Paul, writing between 55 – 61 AD (less than 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection), quotes an even earlier hymn to Jesus in his letter to the Philipians:
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped (held on to?).
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance, he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
So such a short time as 20 – 30 years, and the theology was already there that Jesus was equal to God, held the nature of God and took on the nature of Man.
I think the Apostles understood this as well, and preached it, and wrote of it. And today we read those writings as our “New Testament”.
In the Name of the Risen LORD Jesus, the Messiah, Son of God incarnate, Savior — Peace
Jim E <><
Do I mean ante-nicene? The ones writing BEFORE the Nicene Council.
Driver8 [#14], I’m not sure you picked up on what I was saying; the point was that the Greek verb rendered as “worship” doesn’t necessarily imply a confession of divinity. I understand where you’re coming from in noting that Peter told the worshiping Cornelius to stand up because he too (Peter) was a man, but it certainly doesn’t establish that Cornelius had thought Peter was God Incarnate.
Time for bed ….
#15 I agree – the facts are indeed what they are. If one’s critical faculties lead one erroneously to think the Creeds are untrue one should quite rightly follow one’s conscience and not be baptized.
One is at liberty to think what one wants. The church is at liberty, as she does, to demand affirmation of her faith in baptism.
One more before bed: LibraryJim [#16] writes: “So such a short time as 20 – 30 years ….”
Stories have a well-known propensity to mutate, both in memory and even more so in the retelling. On that score, 20 to 30 years is a long, LONG time.
(Besides, even if, decades after the Crucifixion, some in the church concluded that Jesus must have been God Incarnate, that doesn’t automatically mean they were right, any more than the Heaven’s Gate suicides were right about the spaceship coming to pick them up.)
No – I did understand. I’m saying that meaning flows from context – if we find the same word used in ritual worship of the God of the Jews – in a context of ritualized worship and applied to Jesus – then we have a very good reason to say that Jesus is being worshiped as God.
If your argument is that Jews worshiped beings other than the living God – it happens to be an area of NT research with which I am familiar – and I am persuaded by arguments like Bauckham’s and Hurtado’s. Even were they to be mistaken and one were to be persuaded that some Jews viewed angels or the High Priest or Enoch or Adam (etc.) as worthy of worship, I think it works the other way round. Rather than showing that humans or angels could be worshiped – it shows that these figures, when they become, so to say, laden with glory of god, change identity and become like God.
#20 No of course it doesn’t mean they were right – though the church believes they were. If does mean they believed it – which you seemed to deny earlier in this thread.
So, for me, the credal trajectory is a Spirit inspired working out of things that were implicit from the beginning. In other words, theology is faith seeking understanding. Christians were attempting to find a shared language to speak about what they had done since their very earliest days – namely worshiped Jesus and experienced the power of the Holy Spirit.
DC
But it doesn’t mean they were WRONG. In fact, the evidence — historical and literary — is against your view and for theirs. 🙂
Adding one more thing to driver8’s comment:
If one does not believe the tenents of the Church one should either not join (and definately not be baptised and confirmed) or, after joining, follow their convictions and leave the membership going somewhere or nowhere else. Why be a hypocrite and stay?
I should add – I do think it is perfectly OK to affirm faith whilst not wholly understanding. Indeed in one way or another I think we all do so. Thus it is OK, indeed laudable, to trust that the church is Christ’s and affirm faith on that basis. However when one actively disbelieves I think one should recall from time to time that the church rightly requires trusting affirmation in its credal faith in baptism.
I enjoyed the essay. I have enjoyed Kerr’s book on Paul, and find Swineburne interesting.
[blockquote]Swinburne obviously aligns himself with the small, though perhaps increasing, number of New Testament scholars who would conclude from the evidence that Jesus knew all along that he was divine.[/blockquote]This “small” number presumably includes the current Pope, who argues that the New Testament writings allow us to reliably know Jesus, and that Jesus knew quite well what He was doing.
I believe that JESUS is GOD because my own FAITH experience, and because THE CHURCH has been teaching that from Peter I to Benedict XVI.
[i] 12. D. C. Toedt wrote:
Tom Roberts [#10], according to my interlinear NT and my NT Greek lexicon, the Greek verb translated as “worshiped†in Mt. 14.33 (which you quote) is also used:
• in Acts 10.25, which has Cornelius “worshiping†Peter;
• in Mt. 18.26, which has the unforgiving servant “worshiping†his master;
• in Rev. 3.9, which has the letter to the church at Philadelphia saying that those of the synagogue of Satan will be made to “come and worship before your feet.â€
So perhaps in Mt. 14.33 the phrase “they worshiped him†doesn’t have quite the connotations of deity that some Christians have built up in their minds; perhaps “they did obeisance to him†might be a better rendering? [/i]
Where to begin? You are correct that Cornelius worships Peter in Acts 10:26. But did you go on to read 10:27? The verse where Peter stops him, picks him up and says [i] I too am just a man.
[/i] Together, the two verses make the opposite point than the one you present.
The Matthew passage [i] a parable, not historical activity.
[/i] Do you present these straw men as debating points, or because you truly believe that the earliest followers of Jesus, the vast majority of whom paid with their lives, truly thought Jesus was other than the divine Son of God?
#12 you might be correct about the dual meaning of the original verb, but the context clearly indicates “why” in all these cases. One “worships” for some cogent reason.
In Matt 14 they worship Christ as the Son of God (upper case).
Acts 10 clearly says why Cornelius fell at Peter’s feet: “A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say”. This was just respecting a divine instruction and its subject.
Matt 18 has the servent worshipping his master as a servent is servile before his master. This might be a symbol of man’s servile nature before God, but it is only a symbol.
Rev 3 indicates that the downcast servants of Satan will worship the righteous, but not as gods. Again, a servile status, but not a theological one except in the symbolic sense.
Again, your parsing relies on semantics and ignores the realities.
Driver8 [#, 19, 23] writes: “If one’s critical faculties lead one erroneously to think the Creeds are untrue one should quite rightly follow one’s conscience and not be baptized. … However when one actively disbelieves I think one should recall from time to time that the church rightly requires trusting affirmation in its credal faith in baptism.”
Like probably most people reading this, I was baptized as an infant and confirmed as a sixth-grader. A few years later I concluded that I was unpersuaded of much that’s asserted in the Nicene Creed, and I was not willing to assent to those assertions merely on the church’s say-so. (I can profess the Apostles’ Creed because the potentially-troubling parts are vague enough to be taken as metaphors or figures of speech.)
But what you’re really asking, Driver8, is: If I don’t believe what the church teaches, why do I intrude on those of you who do? Let me reverse our roles and pose a proposition for debate, Oxford Union-style:
RESOLVED: No one may call himself a Christian if he seeks to require more, as a condition of church membership, than doing one’s best to follow the Summary of the Law; Jesus (reportedly) said in Luke 10, do this and you will live, and to purport to demand more would be to set one’s self above the Lord.
Disputed. Athanasian Creed; first four councils of the Church; 39 articles.
Christianity is based on accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and belonging to the community of faith — which includes belief in certain key precepts, namely Trinity, virgin birth/incarnation; atonement/sacrificial death & resurrection, etc. (Nicean creed); and the supremacy of the Scriptures as the written revelation of God’s word.
It may be simplistic, but I believe that Jesus is God (and knew Himself to be God) because he forgave sins. Who can forgive sin but God alone? As C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity (I am paraphrasing as I can’t lay my hands on my copy), Jesus either was and is God because he forgave sins, or he was a dangerous lunatic, on the order of someone who believes he is a poached egg, or he is the Devil.
Of course, Jesus is God.
The Name of Jesus in Hebrew is Yeshua. One spelling is (right to left):
heh-ayin-vav-shin-yod
This word means “salvation.” Type it into a computer Bible and do a search of the Hebrew Scriptures. You’ll find about 77 references. In some of them, one can personify “salvation” just as one can personify “wisdom” which is one of the other names of Jesus.
Another spelling is (right to left): heh-vav-shin-heh-yod. That is the 4-letter Name of God YHVH, with an added “shin” which is symbol of divine fire or energy.
Anytime that YHVH speaks to a prophet or priest in the Hebrew Scripture can be taken as the Word of a pre-incarnate Jesus. (Of course, one avoids any hint of modalism in any discussion of this aspect of the Holy Trinity.)
from Matthew 11:
25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
26″Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.
27″All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. “
LibraryJim [#31], merely citing Athanasius, the church councils, etc., isn’t enough; my proposed Oxford Union-style resolution applies as much to them as to anyone.
———–
LibraryJim writes: “Christianity is based on accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and belonging to the community of faith—which includes belief in certain key precepts ….”
Those who have come to believe those precepts cannot be faulted for where their faculties and their consciences have led them. But I would disavow membership in any “community of faith” that goes beyond this, insisting that its answers are the final ones and that those who don’t share their view must either assent anyway or leave. Folks like that are like idolators, pridefully setting up their own conceptions above the reality that God has wrought. (Hard experience has taught us that we don’t know everything about that reality, and that what we do “know” is necessarily provisional.) Fortunately, most of the Episcopal Church isn’t like that.
If the question is, Did the first-generation monotheistic Jewish disciples of the risen Christ believe that he was God? then perhaps the answer is strictly no. An affirmative answer to this question requires a revolution in our understanding of monotheism, a revolution that took several centuries to achieve. For the Jew the one God is the God of Israel, the one Jesus named Father, and Jesus is certainly clear that he too worships and serves this God: “Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone.”
But it is also clear that none of the traditional categories can quite capture the mystery of Jesus himself. Even in the earliest evidentiary strata, these categories are constantly being challenged and reforged. Clearly good first-century Jews could not simply say that Jesus is God, which would contradict, at least apparently, the most fundamental of all Jewish convictions; nor could they even say that he is divine or divinity incarnate, which would seem to make him into just another pagan demigod. And yet they were not content to remain within their inherited theological framework. The reality of Jesus, crucified and risen, compelled them to revolutionize their understanding of deity and to create new language to speak of the divine mystery they first encountered in Jesus of Nazareth and continued to encounter in the life of the Church.
Many years ago I posed this question to DC:
[blockquote] 32. DC, this is a follow on to my # 16:
For you to believe you have set a standard of proof so high that 2,000-year-old evidence will never, ever under any circumstances satisfy. Maybe you can tell us what standard of proof you would accept and whether any evidence existing today, or ever, would meet that standard?
Comment by Br. Michael, FOCD — 11/7/2004 @ 7:59 pm[/blockquote]
I recieved this reply:
[blockquote] 37. Br. Michael (# 32), unfortunately I can’t speculate as to what it would take to convince me of any of the following, which I understand to be key elements of what the orthodox insist one must believe to be a Christian:
(1) that Adam and Eve ever existed;
(2) that Adam and Eve were perfect and “sinlessâ€;
(3) that because of Adam and Eve’s individual disobedience, God decided to punish their descendants by making them subject to pain and death;
(4) that man’s sinfulness was so great that only the death and resurrection of a God-made-man would suffice to overcome it;
(5) that Jesus of Nazareth was born without a biological human father;
(6) that Jesus was God Incarnate;
(7) that the actual Jesus, restored to life after his crucifixion, appeared to his followers singly and en masse, in the latter case with the followers seeing and hearing the same things at the same times;
(8) that Jesus will return as ruler of the world to usher in God’s reign.
I try live my life unafraid of the truth, whatever it turns out to be, and whatever consequences might result. For good or ill, I cannot for the life of me grasp how any of the above points (among others) could be true. I’ve never been able to adopt the mindset of whoever said “I believe because it is absurd.â€
Comment by D. C. — 11/8/2004 @ 7:23 pm[/blockquote]
So is DC a creedal Christian or not? Let the reader decide.
#20. Do stories mutate in 20 years. Now, they do, because we do not place a demand on our memories for accurate recollection. This is clearly not true in Jesus time, or surely long before, because so many could not or did not write that accuracy was of the first order in memorization. This is hardly open to question. AS a matter of probability and history therefore, your attempt to denigrate the accuracy of a “story” of that day and age does not stand the test of examination. Your intent and agenda again outrun the substance of your argument. LM
Does Swinburne’s method eliminate the need for faith? Is believing that Jesus is the Son of God based upon probabilities the same as believing that Jesus is the Son of God based upon faith? I tend to think that an act of faith is an encounter with God while a measuring of probabilities is human judgement. Reason leads us to faith, but it’s not a replacement. I’ll stick with the Angelic Doctor.
#30 let me say it again – you are quite at liberty not to affirm the church’s faith or the church’s authoritative interpretation of Scripture that is embedded in the Creeds. But I let me say again that the church is also quite at liberty to have a view. Indeed the baptismal liturgy should remind one that, in fact, the church does have a view and, more that she regularly requires those who wish to share in the sacraments, to state publicly as individuals that they affirm the faith of the church.
Hello DCT (#35). You write:
And indeed that’s what your discussion partners in this thread are asking you: You say that you would disavow membership in any such church — so disavow already! You firmly declare that you don’t want to be a member of a church for which creedal identity is a defining mark — but you are still sticking around. Why?
Here’s my guess. Please let me know if I am right. My guess is that you’d say: well I am part of The Episcopal Church, and belief in the Nicene Creed is not something that defines us.
And here I think you would have a point (if that’s your view). There’s a case to be made that the true TEC of today is no longer a creedal church, and that in practice everyone knows that. Everyone can see that there are books by Spong and Borg and Crossan in most parish bookstores. And thus you are right in staying a member of TEC — the true TEC no longer really asserts a belief in the Creed and what we do in worship (reciting the NC) is closer to a piece of beautiful theater than an actual assertion of propositional claims.
But I think there’s a case to be made for transparency and openness and honesty too. So would you argue that in the next BCP, TEC should redesign it so that it much more clearly identifies the creeds as nonbinding? Perhaps they should be placed in the Historical Documents section?
Larry read Ben Witherington, [i] What have they done with Jesus[/i] and Richard Baucckham, [i] Jesus and the Eyewitnesses[/i]. Both argue that the Gospels represent eyewitness testimony that is recorded in the finest tradition of ANE historiography. They go on to argue that the Gospels were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and there was ample time for those witnesses to correct the record. They also argue that, in many cases, the persons named in the Gospels comprise those eyewitnesses and the source of the material.
But remember there is no quantum of proof or level of evidence that will ever be sufficient to convence someone like DC.
FrKimel [#36] writes: “If the question is, Did the first-generation monotheistic Jewish disciples of the risen Christ believe that he was God? then perhaps the answer is strictly no.”
Nice to see you, Al, and I’m glad you’re willing to concede this possibility.
The question then becomes: Why should we exalt the views of Jesus’ later followers who concluded that he was God? Why not say to them (so to speak), your guess is as good as mine — and vice versa?
—————
Br. Michael [#37], as you know, I’ve never claimed here to be a creedal Christian. There are those who insist there is no other kind, but I’ve come to believe that those folks are thereby disqualifying themselves from the basic title.
—————-
Jon [#41] writes: “You firmly declare that you don’t want to be a member of a church for which creedal identity is a defining mark—but you are still sticking around. Why? Here’s my guess. Please let me know if I am right. My guess is that you’d say: well I am part of The Episcopal Church, and belief in the Nicene Creed is not something that defines us.”
That would seem to sum it up nicely. Another comment on that point: To me, belonging to the church is quite different from belonging to, say, the American Bar Association. I could resign from the ABA without a second thought (and have sometimes considered doing so because of the liberal political views it regularly endorses). The church, on the other hand, is much more like extended family, and at least to my way of thinking, one doesn’t walk away from family just because of a disagreement of views.
—————-
Jon [#41] writes: “So would you argue that in the next BCP, TEC should redesign it so that it much more clearly identifies the creeds as nonbinding? Perhaps they should be placed in the Historical Documents section? “
I have no problem with others reciting the Nicene Creed during the service. (I remain silent for most of it, as I do for most of the Gloria as well.) I would indeed like to see it prefaced in the BCP with something like “The following may be said:“
Larry Morse [#38] writes: “Do stories mutate in 20 years. Now, they do, because we do not place a demand on our memories for accurate recollection. This is clearly not true in Jesus time, or surely long before, because so many could not or did not write that accuracy was of the first order in memorization. This is hardly open to question.”
Larry, it is indeed open to question. Writing was hardly unknown back then — Jesus was literate, and so too were at least some of the apostles — so the need for accurate memorization is not immediately obvious. Moreover, your sweeping generalization that the oral accounts circulating in first-century Palestine were reliable are like the old economist joke whose punch line is, let’s assume we have a can-opener.
• Recall that Luke’s preface makes a point of how, even though many other accounts were extant, he himself had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning.” If the extant accounts were so trustworthy, it’s not clear why he took the trouble to do a careful investigation, instead of just retelling the other accounts in his own words.
• Recall that Paul railed against those spreading gospels contrary to his view, and indicated in 2 Thess. 2.2 and 3.17 that others had been forging letters in his name. This gives us still more reason to be skeptical of claims that the early Christians dutifully memorized and passed on exactly what they had been told, with no embellishments, omissions, or spin of their own.
It is INDEED immediately obvious. Ancestral lines, lineages, family histories, are matter of the utmost importance then. Was it important that they be memorized with particular care? Or do you wish me to believe they were all written down? And yet gain, family stories that are not strictly geneological, how important were they, and was it not important for the identity of family, tribe, clan, that these stories be memorized exactly? The Jews had men who memorized in the smallest detail whole section of the Talmud; they were walking OED’s, so to speak. Writing must have been in fact fairly UNcommon, and the pressure to write was clearly different since Christ wrote nothing, as Socrates did not and Confucius did not. I might add, t here was a book recently published – a year ago? – in which the case for the oral history was made. Does anyone here remember the author and title? Mr Toedt need some clarification. The oral history had to be memorized with great correctness precisely because it HAD to be trustworthy. LM
Hey DC. Thanks for your quick reply.
I was delighted to hear you say that you strongly favored explicit language in the next TEC BCP which would say that the rector may omit the recitation of the NC in worship. (Presumably you’d like a parallel claim made about the use of the Apostles’ Creed,e.g. during Morning Prayer and Baptismal Services.)
I am always delighted to hear people openly and honestly state that they believe TEC as a whole no longer believes the creeds — I vastly prefer that sort of forthright integrity and clarity to people who say that they or that TEC leadership do believe the Creeds — but they just “interpret” them differently. Gimme a break. Give me a frank honest freethinker any day — if you don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, say so, but don’t recite the NC and claim that you are reinterpreting what “virgin” and “birth” mean! So thanks for your directness and your integrity.
I’d actually like TEC go a bit further for the next BCP and place the Creeds in the Historical Documents section, and do a significant rethink of the vows at baptism and for the ordination of clergy and bishops. I really feel like the idea of reciting the Creeds is simply wrong at TEC services. It’s not because a person can’t be a good Episcopalian and believe the NC in full. Like you said, you feel like it’s fine if a particular individual believes in it. But that’s not what the act of corporate recitation implies. That act (WE BELIEVE…) implies that most of us believe this entire creed, and that such belief is an essential normative part of our identity. If a layman has doubts we won’t kick him out, to be sure: he’s absolutely welcome to stay with us in the service. But his doubts don’t in any way alter the fact that this is what WE BELIEVE as Episcopalians.
I agree with you that over the last several decades that has gradually ceased to be true in PECUSA then ECUSA now TEC. Exactly when the shift occured is debatable, but it is certain that WE BELIEVE is in 2008 no longer the case. Now it is ONLY A LARGE MINORITY OF US BELIEVE IN THIS AND EVEN WE DON’T WANT TO PUSH IT ON ANYONE — that would be the proper preface to each article of the NC or AC. In other words, whether we realize it consciously or not, we view the NC and AC the same way we rightly view many of the 39 Articles — not part of our defining doctrinal identity.
Because of this I would urge the next BCP Revision committee to think about deleting them completely from worship services. The deletion doesn’t imply that an individual Episcopalian can’t still believe in them, but it does honestly reflect that we now regard these creeds as treasured parts of our history (Historical Documents) rather than as things that are part of our normative identity now.
The question then becomes: Why should we exalt the views of Jesus’ later followers who concluded that he was God? Why not say to them (so to speak), your guess is as good as mine — and vice versa
Because there is no way to objectively disentangle the gospel “facts” about Jesus from the gospel “interpretation” of Jesus. 99% of what we know, or think we know, about Jesus of Nazareth is mediated to us through the testimony of the Apostles and the New Testament writers. If they got Jesus wrong, there is no good reason for us to believe that we can get Jesus right.
At no point are we able to objectively identify a primitive historical witness that is uncontaminated by belief in Jesus’ messianic-divine identity. All such reconstructions are subjective and arbitrary and reveal more about the reconstructor and his preconceptions than about the historical figure of Christ. This is why the “critical” renderings of the past 200 years have varied so dramatically and continue to vary so dramatically. Once liberated from the apostolic interpretive framework the “facts” disappear and all we have are speculative reconstructions presented to us in a scholarly idiom. Just pick up and compare the major books written about Jesus during the past twenty years–Wright, Crossan, Meier, Borg, Fredricksen, Chilton, Witherington (to name just a few). The portraits are so different, one wonders how many Jesus’s there really were. Will the real Jesus please stand up?
It is, of course, possible for a person to read through the gospels and filter out all of the supernatural and miraculous content, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that such a reading brings us any closer to the “real” Jesus than the gospels, and there is in fact every reason to believe that such a reading grossly misrepresents what Jesus said and did. There is certainly no good and compelling reason, D.C., to latch on to “love of God and neighbor” as being at the heart of Jesus’ teaching and self-understanding. That simply reduces Jesus to a moralist and rabbi. Such an interpretation may be more palatable to enlightened rationalistic sensibilities, but requires the arbitrary exclusion of a large proportion of the data.
So are we back to “my guess is as good as yours”? If we are, then let’s just say so and get out of the Christianity business. Who wants to stake his life on conjecture?
Very helpful post by FrKimel. Incidentally if anyone want to read a lovely immensely readable book, which fleshes out with great clarity what Father Kimel just said, take a look at Luke Timothy Johnson’s THE REAL JESUS.
Larry Morse [#45] writes: “Ancestral lines, lineages, family histories, are matter of the utmost importance then.”
Oh — that explains why Matthew and Luke give such different versions of Jesus’ ancestry and of his family history during his infancy. The usual excuses for the discrepancies come across as still more chewing gum and baling wire, frantically applied by reasserters desperate to keep their christological house of cards from collapsing. (A mixed metaphor, I know.)
Face it, Larry: People can reasonably decline to accept that Jesus was divine, because the available evidence simply isn’t sufficient to overcome reasonable doubts. Reasserters may think they’re honoring God by tenaciously pretending otherwise (like the cheering townspeople in the story of the emperor’s new clothes), but really they’re not.
FrKimel [#47] writes:
I would not disagree. The proper attitude about Jesus, I submit, is respectful agnosticism: We don’t have all that much reliable information about him, and we’re unlikely ever to change that, at least not in this lifetime. OK, so be it; that’s certainly a more defensible stance than, say, Lewis’s liar-lunatic-or-Lord false trichotomy.
—————-
FrKimel writes:
Jesus was what he was (or if you insist, he is what he is). If he was (or is) is God, then my saying otherwise won’t change that fact. If he was “merely” a rabbi, then reasserters’ calling him God does him no honor.
I don’t “latch onto” the Summary of the Law because it’s something Jesus said it. It’s the other way around: I’ve become persuaded that the Summary of the Law captures something truly fundamental about the fabric of the Creation, and I admire Jesus in part because he put his finger on it.
Br. Michael, I don’t think anyone who reads this thinks DC is a Creedal or any other variety of Christian. What is really interesting is that he is a communicant in the Episcopal Church. Is there any (ANY?) thing he could say he does /doesn’t believe that could change this? I didn’t think so. What no one wants to ask is this: Does it mean anything more to say one is an Anglican than to say one isn’t? What difference is there other than sleeping late on Sunday mornings? If you are an Anglican layman, why are you in communion with DC?
So 51, is he a typical Epicopalian? I shudder to think that he has leadership positions in his Episcopal church. He was on the vestry at some point.
[blockquote] I don’t “latch onto†the Summary of the Law because it’s something Jesus said it. It’s the other way around: I’ve become persuaded that the Summary of the Law captures something truly fundamental about the fabric of the Creation, and I admire Jesus in part because he put his finger on it. [/blockquote]
Actually Jesus didn’t. This is quoted from the OT (Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18. And in one Gospel a lawyer quotes it. I truly don’t know why DC bothers.
Br. Michael [#53], you don’t think Jesus’ saying “do this and you will live [eternally]” (emphasis mine) counts as putting his finger on it?
By the way, of course I know the Summary of the Law is a compilation of two different verses in the OT; give me at least a little credit, wouldja?
DC why should you believe that? 1 that he even said it and 2 why it is even true?
Why should you pick this one thing, out of the whole tissue of lies to believe? Is it not better to accept that their is nothing beyond the decay of the grave?
Hey look DC can believe whatever he or she wants to. She or he is not compelled to affirm the truthfulness of the church’s faith. Any involvement in a church that made such truth claims would be, for me, intellectually and eventually ethically tiresome but I imagine one may disbelieve the core truth claims of a community and still maintain some interest on a sociological level.
DC at least shows the virtue of honesty if not of faith.
By the way, of course I know the Summary of the Law is a compilation of two different verses in the OT; give me at least a little credit, wouldja?
D.C., certainly the Jews did not need a Jesus to tell them to love God and neighbor and probably many of the Gentiles didn’t either. But in any case, once one has learned this moral truth, one does not need Jesus, just as one does not need Confucius once one has learned the Tao. But most importantly, the evidence stands against all such reductionism. Jesus did not get himself crucified because he taught love of God and neighbor. He did not scandalize his fellow Jews because he taught what all other rabbis were teaching. Your interpretation of Jesus contradicts the evidence and is therefore uncritical and unreasonable.
Well said, Fr. Kimel.
DC should be honest and leave the Christian church far behind (even one as lax on doctrine as TEC) and join the Unitarians.
By continuing in the Episcopal Church he is guilty of and contributing to the hypocracy of which he accuses others. In fact, if he participates in the renewal of Baptismal vows at Easter adn other feasts, he is not only practicing hypocracy, but is guilty of lying and makeing false vows he has no intention of living up to.
[blockquote][i]The the Celebrant asks the following questions of the candidates who can speak for themselves, and of the parents and godparents who speak on behalf of the infants and younger children[/i]
Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
Answer I do.
Question Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
Answer I do.
[i]The other Candidate(s) will now be presented. [/i]
Presenters I present these persons for Confirmation.
or I present these persons to be received into this Communion.
or I present these persons who desire to reaffirm their baptismal vows.
The Bishop asks the candidates
Do you reaffirm your renunciation of evil?
Candidate I do.
Bishop
Do you renew your commitment to Jesus Christ?
Candidate
I do, and with God’s grace I will follow him as my Savior and Lord.
[b]Renewal of Baptismal Vows a the Easter Vigil[/b]
Through the Paschal mystery, dear friends, we are buried with Christ by Baptism into his death, and raised with him to newness of life. I call upon you, therefore, now that our Lenten observance is ended, to renew the solemn promises and vows of Holy Baptism, by which we once renounced Satan and all his works, and promised to serve God faithfully in his holy Catholic Church.
The Renewal of Baptismal Vows
Celebrant Do you reaffirm your renunciation of evil and renew your commitment to Jesus Christ?
People I do.
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Father?
People I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
Celebrant Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
People I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?
People I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Celebrant Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People I will, with God’s help.
The Celebrant concludes the Renewal of Vows as follows
May Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given us a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and bestowed upon us the forgiveness of sins, keep us in eternal life by his grace, in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen. [/blockquote]
Yes, presumably he or she maintains a dignified silence when others in the church renew their baptismal vows or chips in as and when he or she deems appropriate.
Once you evacuate the church of its central truth claims presumably you might maintain an interest if you happened to like seeing folks in neo gothic costume on a Sunday morning, or just liked meeting the people in your parish, or enjoyed hearing Victorian hymn tunes, or your significant other insisted you attend, or you think the church is of some benefit in society even if it’s truth claims are false, or….
For my part, I would tend to think that an institution that was so mistaken and misleading would not be worthy of my time or energy.
FrKimel [#57] writes: “Jesus did not get himself crucified because he taught love of God and neighbor. He did not scandalize his fellow Jews because he taught what all other rabbis were teaching.”
My admiration of Jesus isn’t based on the fact that he was crucified, any more than my admiration of John McCain is based on the fact that he was captured and tortured. Each of these passions was an accident of history. My admiration is based instead on their faithfulness even in extremis.
Nor is my admiration of Jesus based on his putative claim to be the messiah, or that he would return very soon to usher in God’s reign. If indeed that’s what he thought — I’m not persuaded — the evidence is irrefutable that he was mistaken.
Driver8 and Br. Michael, and others, please don’t assume that everyone’s motives for participating in the church are necessarily what you imagine. Not that it’s any of your business, but just about every leadership position I’ve held in my very-large parish — from teaching high-school Sunday school; to serving on the stewardship committee; to serving on and then chairing the usher-captains guild; to running for and being elected to vestry; and other things — I undertook in each case because I was asked to do it. In each case I did what was asked, and was happy to do so, because I happen to believe it’s the duty of each of us to try to help out when opportunity offers.
In your eyes, it appears, my religious views should have caused me instead to stay home, or at least to refuse these requests and remain a passive and silent pew-sitter. I think our very-orthodox rector, who has been a good friend for almost 25 years now, would likely disagree with you.
DC, even pagans can do what is right. And you can go through the motions. But I must say that I find you statement in 63, in light of your clear statements of disbelief, even more appalling.
As to teaching, you are either teaching in contradiction to your own beliefs or you are subverting the Christian children entrusted into you care.
As an Episcopalian and Christian what you teach is every bit my concern.
My prayer is the you come to believe what you pray every Sunday, but,Yes, you should not be in a leadership or teaching position. You are not a believer however well you may fake it.
Br. Michael [#64] writes: “As to teaching, you are either teaching in contradiction to your own beliefs or you are subverting the Christian children entrusted into you care.”
Again, not that it’s any of your business, but I did neither. (Ever hear of the Socratic method?)
Besides, I’ll stack my defense of basic theism — something many high-schoolers badly need — against anything most reasserters would offer, .
——————-
Br. Michael writes: “As an Episcopalian and Christian what you teach is every bit my concern.”
Um, the canons say that a parish’s spiritual life is in the charge of its rector. I don’t remember your being called to that position in our parish; did I miss the memo?
——————
New question: Why is this suddenly about me, and trying to put me on the defensive? If I didn’t know better, I’d say you’re acting out your rage and frustration over your inability to defend your beliefs, and instead are trying to kill the messenger. But no one here would ever do that, would they?
“New question: Why is this suddenly about me…”
Never was for some of us. You just got distracted by the ancillary semantics, as usual. This thread was never about you; it is about Him.
D.C. I have repeatedly stated that you are at liberty to hold whatever views you wish. I have also stated that IMO the church clearly holds views too and that those views are expected to be affirmed by those who share in the goods of the church’s life. I have not intended to offend you, though I have wanted clearly to disagree, but if I have offended I sincerely apologise.
I hear your kindness, your service to the church and your intellectual integrity and value all of them. Nevertheless, my own story is rather different that yours and pulls me in a different direction. I am a convert. I was once an atheist and am no longer. I belong to the church because I trust the truth claims she makes are indeed truthful. If I believed the central truth claims of the church were not to be trusted I could not participate as a leader of the church.
In other words, I became not just a theist, or a deist, or an admirer of Jesus of Nazareth, I became a member of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and in order to do so the church demanded that I affirm her faith and I was glad to do so.
Think of it this way. If I were asked to assist on the board or as a youth teacher of the local unitarians I would decline not because I deem them lacking in civic virtue, nor I hope because of my own lack of charity, but because I would not in conscience support an institution I believe to be teaching untruths about God.
[blockquote]26. Katherine wrote:
This “small†number presumably includes the current Pope, who argues that the New Testament writings allow us to reliably know Jesus, and that Jesus knew quite well what He was doing.[/blockquote]
Correct. I had coffee with Fr. Fergus in June, and he talked a bit about a recent conference in the UK on Benedict’s book. He found interesting which confessional communities and academic disciplines welcomed Benedict’s argument and which ones did not. He suggested that seeing a unity between the Jesus of Faith and the Jesus of History did not commit a person to thinking that Jesus had the Nicene creed in his head (or perhaps Jn. 1), which I suppose is a tendency for many traditional Christians including myself.
[i]The Tablet[/i] is a surprising venue for Kerr to publish his review of Swinburne, though encouraging theologians and others to read analytic philosophers is one of his concerns and perhaps a partial explanation. He reviewed Charles Taylor’s [i]A Secular Age[/i] about this time last year in the Tablet. Incidently, Kerr also wrote a laudatory review of Benedict’s book in [url=http://www.thetablet.co.uk/reviews/343][i]The Tablet[/i][/url] last year.
DC is showing (and very well, too; let the man speak!) that ECUSA allows many different religions to operate under it’s roof. Hard to find where the roof ends, isn’t it? What people are reacting to, gasping at, is that he really, realllly isn’t a believer! It still seems incredible to normal people that a non-christian would be so dishonest as to show up with believers and pretend he has intellectual honesty in “worshipping” with them — when he isn’t! He doesn’t realize he has a flaky clergyman if he has asked him to be part of his parish’s leadership. DC hasn’t got the ability to see flaky because he hasn’t ever believed, and has never seen normal. Reacting to his random thoughts about a religion he has nothing in common with is a waste of time. Like expecting Katherine Schori to all of a sudden believe the Creed. If you have heard either person say, yet again, that they don’t believe what Christians believe, sooner or later you should stop being surprised by it. Walk away.
re “69. nwlayman” and “DC Toedt”
Frustration with agnostics and skeptics is somewhat understandable. But from my viewpoint, being Christian is not reducible to holding certain beliefs (which is not to say such beliefs are dispensable) and your impatience with Mr. Toedt and disparagement of his rector does little to recommend those beliefs or anything else. Nothing says ‘Be reconciled to Christ’ quite as well as calling a person ‘dishonest’, someone he respects ‘flaky’, and his quibbles ‘random’ and ‘a waste of time’.
Mr. Toedt’s Oxford Union proposition is worth thinking about–what does affirming it imply about some of the greatest Christian minds in history? Were their critical faculties in hibernation? Are Chesterton and Benedict and Kerr and others dupes? No, they are probably as smart and well-read as any skeptic or agnostic.
On the other hand, if we give up the contents of the creed, why not also give up what the Lukan expert in the law (c. 10) desires and Jesus apparently allows–eternal life? For if there is no incarnation–no God becoming man–does that also imply that there is no beatitude–no man becoming as gods, no seeing God face to face? The parallel is advanced by several ancient Christian witnesses, and I think there is something to it. The alternative is that being a good or even perfect human (following the law) makes us deserving of transcendence. I doubt that just as I, sentimentality aside, doubt that my friends’ seemingly perfect Black Lab will ascend to God due to his perfect dogginess. Carving out an exception for good persons or good pets due to our deserts or God’s graciousness is just to let our critical faculties slip into hibernation, at least by the standard being employed elsewhere.
Suppose this line of reasoning is reasonable. If there is no descent of God to people or ascent of people to God, then what point remains to Christian worship? It’s like people standing around, praising the finest wine, when they never have and never will taste it and are skeptical about whether they even have any legitimate analogues to it. By all means, let the skeptics stick around, but I think they are missing out and pray that God will enable them to see for themselves (Jn. 4.39-42).
Driver8 [#67] writes:
Without more, I probably would agree with you, but I came (back) to the church via a different route. I started accompanying my then-girlfriend to church (now my wife of going-on 25 years) because it pleased her, and that pleased me. The rest seems to have ‘just happened.’ At different times over the years, two of our (very-orthodox) priests told me separately, in essence, that they felt the Holy Spirit was somehow at work in my faith journey; while I don’t share that view, I’m intrigued that some of you, who have never met me in person, are so sure you can categorically rule it out.
—————–
Newcollegegrad [#70] writes: “For if there is no incarnation–no God becoming man–does that also imply that there is no beatitude–no man becoming as gods, no seeing God face to face?”
That, I submit, is a variation of the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Suppose all the church were somehow to become persuaded that Paul got it wrong about the mechanism of “salvation” &mdsah; that eternal life does not result from faith in the saving merits of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Would it automatically follow that there is no such thing as salvation at all? As Paul himself might say: By no means.
—————–
Thanks to those chiming in with words of support.
Sorry, DC it is my business. I may not be able to do anything about it and for sure TEC will not do anything about it and it appears that your rector will not do anything about it. It just reinforces what a sick joke the TEC as a “unified” church is becoming.
1. On the whole I think it’s rather a good thing that wives encourage their husbands to come to church and I wish it was rather more common than it is. Bravo to your wife and bravo to you for listening to her.
2. The Holy Trinity is surely at work for you are created and sustained in being by the action of God.
3. I noted in my own story that without accepting the truthfulness of the faith of the church I could not in conscience be a leader in the church (and that so, even if my lovely Rector invited me to do so). I could see myself, for a variety of reasons, attending or supporting.
4. If I were to choose to attend (and it would perhaps be different if I chose not to) – I would not see it as polite to attempt to change church goers commitment to the faith of the church. It is rather like being welcomed as a guest into someone’s house and then trying to persuade the husband to leave his wife.
Driver8 writes: “I would not see it as polite to attempt to change church goers commitment to the faith of the church.”
For the record, I don’t do that in my parish; I doubt I’d be especially popular if I did, least of all with my orthodox wife 🙂 When appropriate to the discussion in a suitable setting, e.g., our bible-study group, sometimes I’ll point out facts — such as, for example, the “son of” citations I listed in a previous comments — and ask rhetorical questions. If asked, I’ll explain my own reasons for trusting in the Creator and choosing to try to follow Jesus. Otherwise I stay pretty much silent — or home.
It’s a different ball game here at T19, of course; here, I don’t hold back as much.
In my opinion, part of the reason this thread seems to be going back and forth in a confused way, or more simply that people are getting frustrated and talking at cross purposes, is because there are two very different issues at hand in this thread. DRIVER8 keeps trying to point this out, but perhaps without a lot of success. I’d like to pitch in and try to make the same distinction.
ISSUE 1: Is it right or appropriate for a person who’s beliefs are at fundamental odds with a group’s normative identity to hold leadership roles in this group?
ISSUE 2: Are DC’s beliefs true or false?
It’s important to see that we can talk about Issue #1 without deciding whether the beliefs of the group (or its dissident member) are true or not.
What Driver8 and many others are trying to say is largely related to Issue 1. We might say, for example, that it is wrong for a person to join the American Socialist Workers Party and then constantly be asking the group to read books by Milton Friedman or the Cato Institute, and otherwise handing out free market capitalist tracts. It’s especially wrong if the person has taken an official leadership role in the group. We can say this without having to decide whether socialist beliefs are better or truer than free market ones. Purely on the basis of personal honesty and integrity we can decide this — you don’t have to be a genius to know it, just a person with integrity and decency.
What DC can say (and has said) in response to Issue 1 is that it’s actually HE that is in keeping with the true gestalt of today’s TEC, not traditionalist creedal Christians. If there is a doctrinal center to TEC of any kind, he has argued, he’s closer to it than his orthodox discussion partners on this thread. So the analogy of the free market capitalist trying to undermine the socialist from within isn’t appropriate in this case. And that’s true despite what we might recite officially in church — everyone knows that these are not widely believed doctrines anymore in TEC.
On the other hand, in Issue 2, we have something more like a removed intellectual discussion which does not presuppose that we are all creedal Christians. It’s the sort of discussion that I might have with an atheist or a Hindu or a Muslim. It’s the kind of debates that The Socratic Club in C.S. Lewis’s Oxford were supposed to be about.
We end up talking at cross purposes I think because a person thinks we are interested in one issue when we are really interested in the other. So, for example, DC is guessing that we are trying to engage him on Issue 2 and failing, and that this upsets us; but actually the reason we get upset is because of Issue 1 — because it feels like a person betraying a trust, not because we are dazzled and shamed by DC’s argumentation.
Perhaps it would help if people frankly stated what they want to talk about. I have no problem saying that I myself am totally uninterested in a debate about the creeds with a person who disbelieves in the creeds. Nothing against DC personally, just something I don’t need to talk about. To give a helpful analogy, it’s a bit like why most biologists or paleontologists don’t enjoy having detailed conversations with Creationists: they have heard their attacks on “creedal biology” many times before and don’t have an interest in revisiting them.
So Issue 2 is of no interest to me. Of great interest to me, however, is why people who disbelieve in most of the things that the great Christians of the past believed still go to church. In other words, why is this free market capitalist so eager to be a member of the American Socialist Workers party? I’d love to hear more about that.
[blockquote]71. D. C. Toedt wrote:
That, I submit, is a variation of the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Suppose all the church were somehow to become persuaded that Paul got it wrong about the mechanism of “salvation”–that eternal life does not result from faith in the saving merits of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Would it automatically follow that there is no such thing as salvation at all? As Paul himself might say: By no means.[/blockquote]
There may be a false dichotomy in my argument, but you did not locate it. You doubt the fact of the incarnation and perhaps its possibility. I point out that the Early Christian Fathers argued that God uniting with people was the pre-requisite for people being eventually united with God in this life and/or the next. My argument is a negative variation of this patristic teaching.
You may argue that an incarnation is unnecessary because: we can bootstrap ourselves into union with God by being really good humans (we then somehow deserve to be united with God); God can just zap humans into union with whatever God may be; we just die never actually uniting with God now or in some future time; etc. My reply is that any optimistic scenarios of beatitude without incarnation require you to put your critical faculties into hibernation. Optimistic scenarios should not survive any consistent application of the empiricist doubt you apply to the incarnation of the Son of God as Jesus. The incarnation is irrational and unwarranted–a fairy tale? Fine, so are any of your hopes for a life and afterlife in union with God.
On the pessimistic scenarios, perhaps our relationship to God is akin to that of clams to humans. We can be perfectly clammy clams but that does not mean we will be having substantial relations with all those talking, clam-digging bipeds. Neither does our perfect clamminess make us deserve to be friends with humans.
None of this demonstrates that the incarnation happened or is possible much less that there is a communion of saints and a life everlasting. I just think that if it is rationally acceptable to limit skepticism towards the latter that the same belief policy should apply to the former. I also think the incarnation is more plausible as a means of our being united with God compared with our just following the law. Perfect clams will not see God face to face, and neither will perfect humans. A perfect clam is still a clam and not a human, a perfect human is still a human and not a god.
Jon’s distinction is on point. Though I think problems with answering question #2 has a lot to do with why question #1 has arisen. J.A.T. Robinson’s [i]Honest to God[/i] did not spring forth from Zeus’ head.
1. Jon [#75] writes: “… actually the reason we get upset is because of Issue 1—because it feels like a person betraying a trust, not because we are dazzled and shamed by DC’s argumentation.”
You’re not? I’m crushed; you really know how to hurt a guy, Jon … 🙂
—————-
2. Jon writes: “Of great interest to me, however, is why people who disbelieve in most of the things that the great Christians of the past believed still go to church. In other words, why is this free market capitalist so eager to be a member of the American Socialist Workers party?”
I guess that’s a fair question. I can only speak for myself; to summarize a couple of my earlier comments: • I started going (back) to church because it pleased my wife, which pleased me. It feels meet and right to gather with family and friends each Sunday to remind ourselves of the importance of the Creator, and to express our appreciation of and gratitude for what he has done. • I try not to be obnoxious about my differing theological views, but neither have I ever hidden them; while that has led to one or two run-ins with some of our more-orthodox clergy, I have yet to be denied communion or otherwise shunned. • When I’m asked to help with things in the parish, I generally make an effort to do so, even if I don’t agree completely with the requester’s beliefs; I think we have a duty to try to work together as best we can in God’s service regardless of such differences.
[i]When I’m asked to help with things in the parish, I generally make an effort to do so, even if I don’t agree completely with the requester’s beliefs; I think we have a duty to try to work together as best we can in God’s service regardless of such differences. [/i]
Which is where we are in strong disagreement. Helping out at a covered dish supper is one thing, but leading a Sunday School class or serving at the altar is something that DOES require compliance and assent of the doctrine of the Church.
When I was in the process of being received in the church, the rector approached me and asked me if I’d be willing to be sent to seminary. This man did not know me all that well, apart from a few inquirer’s classes, and I felt he did not have the necessary basis from which to issue such an invitation. Plus I wasn’t even a member of the Episcopal Church yet. So I declined, even though (in looking back) it meant I was never to have another chance. I made the right decision, however, since becoming a priest should not be the equal of being invited to join a social club! It should be based on a) one’s holding to the doctrine and teaching of the church and b) having a true calling.
A similar thing happened when I was received (at the Reception reception afterwards): I was invited to be on the vestry (now this was because of my wife, who was a life-long member of that parish). They were not honoring my committment to the church, they were honoring my wife’s committment to the church in the invitation to ME. Misplaced, for sure.
Again, I declined because the invitation was issued for the wrong reasons.
If someone is invited to serve at a church, and the person does not have the right doctrine or attitude towards service, that person SHOULD decline the invitation. It is the only meet and right response.
Peace
Jim E. <><
That was a big help, DC. It sounds like a big reason you go is to please your wife; and then you made some close friends there and they are also a reason. This makes a lot of sense to me.
It also sounds like you are not a particularly “in your face” guy in the parish regarding your noncreedal beliefs. Sounds like you try largely to be quiet about them though gently raise questions if specifically asked. That also strikes me as ethical and respectful.
In both of those senses, I see now that you are probably not a good person to answer what puzzles so many of us. Which is why would a person choose to actively enter (or stay in) a group who’s guiding beliefs he disagrees with — and then to carry out a plan of attack on those beliefs? Here we are thinking about TEC priests and bishops and seminary profs who actively attempt to dismantle in the minds of their hearers traditional Christian belief. In an interview shortly before his death, the following Q and A occured with C.S. Lewis:
I suppose the only two things we as creedal Christians would find problematic about what you do is your taking of the Sacraments and your acceptance of the role of Sunday School teacher. I realize you don’t actively try to attack your students’ creedal beliefs (if such exist) as a teacher, but in truth more is expected. In the same way that we expect a college biology prof to do more than merely passively refrain from spreading error, we also expect him to teach and encourage a belief and understanding of canonical 21st century evolution and biology, which he simply can’t do if he is a Creationist. In the case of the Sacraments, we think that persons who disbelieve in the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ’s blood should not partake of it — to do so is from our perspective wrong.
On the other hand, I realize that TEC is actually morphing into a religion where such teaching and such open communion are in fact acceptable practice, so there is legitimate question as to whether you are doing nothing wrong at all, no more than you would if you engaged is any variety of ceremonies or teachings at my mother’s Unitarian church. There’s a legitimate question about whether we traditionalists have in practice a right to demand that TEC be what it is increasingly clearly not. Still, during this transitional period, I personally would counsel restraint on your part in these two areas. Maybe you could be a valuable guest speaker for the sunday school class regarding your arguments for theism? And perhaps there might be a way for you to quietly abstain from taking the Body and Blood?
Just a few thoughts. Best wishes, J.
1. Newcollegegrad [#76] writes: “… any optimistic scenarios of beatitude without incarnation require you to put your critical faculties into hibernation.”
No more so than beatitude with (or through) incarnation.
————–
2. Newcollegegrad [#76] writes: “The incarnation is irrational and unwarranted–a fairy tale? Fine, so are any of your hopes for a life and afterlife in union with God.”
I almost agree — my hopes of a life and afterlife in union with God are just barely this side of irrational and unwarranted. They’re based on the following chain of reasoning. It isn’t anything I’d want to argue in court, but oddly enough I’m willing to bet my immortal soul on it (assuming arguendo that there is such a thing), which might be another way of saying I simply prefer to pretend it might be right because the alternative is so bleak:
(A) The universe we perceive appears to be a cosmic construction project that has been in progress for at least some 13.7 billion years and continues to this day.
Think about it: The energy released at the so-called Big Bang turned into quarks, which turned into subatomic particles, which combined into into hydrogen and helium atoms, which coalesced into gas clouds. Some of those gas clouds collapsed under their own gravity and “ignited” as the first generation of stars. Millions of years later, some of those stars exploded as supernovae and created the heavier elements. The debris of those explosions came together to form planets — and eventually, us. That’s a pretty damned impressive for the Creator to have pulled off, if you ask me.
(B) In our infinitesimal corner of the universe, God seems to be using humanity as created co-creators, to use Lutheran theologian Philip Hefner’s phrase: In part through our (uneven) efforts, and not without sometimes catastrophic setbacks, overall life on Earth is more organized, and just plain better, at least by our lights, than it was a million years ago or even 100 years ago.
(If you doubt that, do Gregg Easterbrook’s thought experiement: Ask yourself whether you would agree to permanently trade places with a random person who lived X centuries ago. No penicillin, probably no food surpluses, quite possibly no security from invaders or predatory beasts. In Easterbrook’s view, with which I agree, anyone who claims life was better in the past isn’t thinking about how hard that life was.)
Now here comes the barely-rational part:
(C) If only oblivion awaited us after death, then given our track record of discovering things about the universe, it’s likely we’d figure that out eventually, perhaps thousands or even millions of years from now. But that would be demotivating, which would be counterproductive to our role as created co-creators.
(D) Given that the Creator seems to have planned and set in motion the physical processes that have created stars, planets, and eventually us, “he” has to be smart enough to plan for point C above.
That plan could well entail keeping us in the dark about the oblivion that awaits us after we die, never letting us discover that we’ll be discarded like so many used drill bits and saw blades.
But it’s no more unreasonable for us to hope — not know, by any means, but hope — that something better than oblivion awaits us on the other side of the grave.
There is an equivocation in your use of the word “better”.
1. Library Jim [#78] writes: “If someone is invited to serve at a church, and the person does not have the right doctrine or attitude towards service, that person SHOULD decline the invitation.”
Perhaps. On most of the occasions when I’ve been asked to serve, I trusted the judgment of the people who asked me, that is unless I had really strong feelings to the contrary.
—————-
2. Jon [#80] writes: “And perhaps there might be a way for you to quietly abstain from taking the Body and Blood?”
I see no reason to do that. If it offends the guy next to me at the rail that I’m partaking with the “wrong” attitude, he’s certainly free to avoid kneeling next to me.
Last summer, at a very informal Eucharist on a special occasion, the rector (who has long known all about my differing views) happened to be the one administering the bread. When he said “the Body of Christ” to me — to which I normally never respond — for some reason on that occasion I said “I wish I could say amen, but I can’t.” He immediately replied, “I’ll take that as a prayer,” and handed me the wafer as usual.
IN other words – I would want to ask not just about whether human life (so easily reduced in our thought to the sum of pleasure and pain) is “better” but whether it is truthful to suggest that humans will the good, by loving the good and hating sin, in a “better” way now than they did a century or ten centuries ago. If the answer may be “no” – then the relevant notion of “being better” may omit some highly significant facts about human beings.
D.C.
I think it clear that, in spite of your assertions to the contrary, your rector is NOT orthodox (or reasserter).
#84 I don’t know that I would say that. I would give the eucharist to anyone who came forward who was not excommunicated. On the other hand I might also have a conversation with D.C. – the details here matter. It would be about how is he preparing to receive, does he want to believe (even though he can’t at the moment), is he prepared to trust that what the church says is true, does he see himself as a member of the church. I might also want to speak gently about the spiritual danger of receiving unworthily. As I say, the details matter here and I don’t think a few exchanges on a blog could possibly let us know enough of them to make a judgement.
driver8
You are correct. I was not just going by this one statement, but rather everything else DC has said about his rector up to now.
I took my comment from the testimony, albeit circumstantial.
I’ve seen firsthand one Bishop’s (Diocese of Florida) account of himself as conservative, orthodox, and then seen his actions disprove those statements quite loudly.
But, again, you are correct. I do not have enough to make such a statement about the rector DC mentions.
Peace
Jim E. <><
Quick question to NewCollegeGrad. Are you really a graduate of New College? (Sarasota, FL)
I graduated from there in 1994.
Presumably this New College http://www.div.ed.ac.uk
Yup, the latter. I imagine that Sarasota has nicer weather, but Edinburgh has better beer. I am happy to be corrected on that point.
I was at SBL International in Edinburgh a few years ago (was it 3?) and a British New Testament Conference there a bit before that. Very pleasant.
Gentlemen DC has his own website (QuestioningChristian.com). I stumbled onto the site a few weeks ago. At first, I thought it was a Christian site. I found the topic, “Can You Still Be a Christian if You Don’t Believe Jesus was the Son of God?” As I read the story behind the question I found that this was a young teen, the daughter of a bible study member, who was coming to DC for advice.
Of course I was anticipating an answer that would have confirmed Jesus’ lineage and deity. However, I was shocked to see where he had told her it was okay to not believe Jesus was God’s Son.
I submitted a post encouraging him to direct this young lady to a “more learned theologian” to answer such critical questions.
We traded posts and I came to find that DC’s beliefs are mostly based on concrete tests with little faith. He doesn’t think the book of John is valid, nor does he accept other books that substantiate the writings of John, saying, “I think God’s gift of judgment compels us to view the Fourth Gospel as something like a historical novel, written by one or more anonymous authors with an obvious revisionist agenda.”
I pray for DC, but I am afraid he is one that is mentioned in 2Timothy 4:3-4 and 2Peter 3:3-7.
Well, you know, some historical novels are reasonably factual, revisionist or not.
Among the problems with Mr. Toedt’s apparent claim that good judgment compels something like his skepticism is: (1) it requires standards of evidence for which he does not argue (e.g., standard = it is not rational or legitimate to believe such and such about Jesus without having evidence that would convince a majority of members of the Royal Society or the Trial Bar) and if he did “compel[ling]” would not likely be the first description that came to mind; (2) it ignores ample evidence that attempts to distinguish the “revisionist” Jesus of faith from the objective, non-supernatural Jesus of history have reached no dramatic positive consensus about Jesus but often just reflect the scholar’s own interests (this objection to Toedt could be turned into another reason for skepticism, but see (1) above)–put differently, there is no argumentatively-useful, non-revisionist counterpart against which Toedt’s apparent charge of “revisionis[m]” could gain any traction; (3) there is little or no relevant difference in terms of objective, compelling evidence between Mr. Toedt’s metaphysical/theological beliefs about an afterlife and those for the Jesus of faith, and this deflates the impressiveness of his many objections to and quibbles about traditional Christian faith.
The way I see it, Mr. Toedt is just a traditional Christian in denial. He believes in true love but argues like mad against/can’t bring himself to believe this girl is the one. And it’s like, “Dude, she’s cool and she likes you. You should ask her out.” Except for in this case the girl is a dude, and what He proposes is a bit more radical than marriage and kids.