Here are my thoughts for this week, which relate to what
Bertrand Russell said in 1927 at the beginning of his lecture Why I Am Not a Christian, and it still
applies to today: “Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make
out what one means by the word Christian.
It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people
mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life… I think that you must have a certain
amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian.
The word does not have quite a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times
of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said he was
Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds
which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those
creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.”
Since biblical times, Christianity has split into an
expansive array of differing denominations, and it is even more diverse now
than in 1927. These denominations have somehow come to disagree with one
another, despite reading the same Holy Bible. This is because so much of the
Scriptures are open to interpretation. If I were to ask someone today whether
they consider themselves to be a Christian, and they reply with yes, then there
are still many succeeding questions to be answered: How old do you believe the
earth is? Do you believe in the Seven Day creation? Do you believe stories of
Genesis such as the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark are historical events or figurative
literature?
Do you believe in Purgatory, praying to saints, and conducting
seven sacraments (i.e. are you Catholic?) or do you believe in a ‘faith alone’
personal relationship of prayer and repent with the Lord (i.e. are you
Protestant?)? Do you believe in an eternal fire-burning Hell ruled by a devil
named Satan or a vague eternal separation from God? Do you anticipate such
events as the Rapture, Second Coming of Christ, Tribulation, and Last Judgment and
that they will occur in your lifetime? Do you believe Jesus Christ performed
miracles and resurrected from the grave or simply view Him as a great figure?
Modern Christianity has opted to neglect many of the
remarkable claims of the Scriptures or to take them figuratively. Considering the Holy Bible is claimed to be
the inspired Word of God and the reality of our origin, purpose, and afterlife,
I don’t see how it could not be taken
fundamentally and literally. The Old Testament has generally become obsolete in
our superiorly moral culture (we no longer follow Yahweh’s guidelines on the
treatment of slaves, homosexuals, nonbelievers, etc.). And that is to say, fundamentalism has become obsolete.
The modern church presents that all you have to do to
earn salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. However,
in order to believe in such a thing, you must accept the Bible in its entirety
as the true context of His purpose,
so I would think you must believe in the Bible word for word. The following are
six major criteria that I would say must be met in order to accept His gift of
salvation:
1 You
believe God created man/all life/the earth/the entire universe about 6,000
years ago (or at the least that “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of
the ground” (Genesis 2:7) about 6,000 years ago) and that evolution (now
considered a scientific fact)is a
myth
2 You
believe the original sin of the Garden of Eden and the global flood of Noah’s
Ark are historical events that condemned us with the inheritance of a sinful
nature
3 You
maintain a personal relationship with the Holy Trinity through prayer and
repent and believe that the power of prayer affects our course of events through God's grace or wrath
4 You
believe there is an eternal fire-burning realm referred to in the New Testament
as Hell, the ‘Lake of Fire’, ‘eternal punishment’, ‘everlasting destruction’,
etc. ruled by a devil named Satan, and that is where nonbelievers go after
physical death on earth
5 You
believe there will be some form of a Rapture, a Second Coming of Christ, a Great
Tribulation, and/or a Last Judgment (during which I would be punished) as
foretold prevalently in the New Testament
6 Most
importantly, you MUST believe that Jesus Christ was in fact divine, performed
miracles, and resurrected from the grave
(I did not include anything on Heaven because I doubt
there is a single Christian that does not believe in it)
To me, these remarkable
claims sound a lot more like mythology than reality.
Do you agree or disagree that this is a fair list of criteria to
accept the context of Jesus’ sacrifice?
I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
ReplyDeletemaker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
with the Father;
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic,
and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection
of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
That is our creed it might help with what exactly we believe, also this is what is necessary to profess as a christian
Yes, that goes along with my point. I'm well aware of what you present. You describe the appealing side of the coin, which is what Christians generally prefer to focus on. But in order to believe what you describe, I would think that you must believe in the entire context of the Holy Bible. Are you saying that you do not believe in the criteria I have listed? If you do not, you would be proving my point. Have I been fair in my interpretations?
ReplyDeleteWell, in all fairness, you did express a belief in 3, 5, and 6, which seem to be the most common. But that still leaves the more controversial claims of 1, 2, and 4.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify--are you trying to nail down a definition of propositions all must assent to 'count' as 'Christian' in general, or is this specifically for fundamentalists? (I am having trouble distinguishing exactly which one you're trying to get at, or if both)
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, though, that the entire question as Russell asks it (and therefore as you ask it) is built around a Modern understanding of the definitions of and distinction between 'faith' and 'life'. This basic understanding is essentially: faith is a set of propositions about distinctly 'religious' matters which are separate from other matters. This Modern dualism (which everyone, whether rightly or not, always attributes to Descartes) is the philosophical 'worldview' the underpins Christian fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and (ironically) atheism as you seem to preach it. The influence of the Modern philosophical project bears heavily upon most of us who have (ever) been raised in America/the dominant Western world. It is this system and pattern of thought which causes us to think of 'Christianity' as some set of doctrines to which a particular group of people assent to in some sort of formalized setting.
However, in light of Postmodern (Rorty, Nietzsche, MacIntyre etc), Poststructural (Derrida etc), even Existentialist (Kierkegaard, Sartre etc) criticisms it has become increasingly clear that this entire thought project is fundamentally flawed. The foundationalist epistemology has been entirely rejected, the conversation in ethics has entirely changed, and minds have been integrated back into bodies. We have found that nothing fits neatly into the airtight categories we had once thought they did. Boundaries have been transgressed, and (almost) all constructions (which turns out to be almost everything) have been deconstructed. What is emerging in the wake of this great post-modern deconstruction is where the current philosophical and theological discussions are--post-structuralism, postmodernism, postcolonialism, existentialism etc. But even my usage of the "-isms" to describe these new patterns of thought is a bit of a misnomer, since, in virtue of the very criticisms these people are making, there are no such categories, at least not in the rigid sense we once thought of 'categories' (i.e. Kant's fact/value distinction and so forth).
As such, the conversation surrounding what was traditionally categorized as 'religion' has progressed as well. Or, rather, its boundaries have radically been transgressed. Nothing stays put anymore. The criticisms you are drawing are great criticisms from Modern atheism to Modern Christianity, but both projects have been all but abandoned in mainstream academia.
ReplyDeleteNow, it is probably still helpful for you to proceed with this sort of thing, since there are a great many people out there who are very much locked into Modern Christian patterns of thought, and therefore in need of liberation. However, insofar as Atheism is also participatory in these patterns of thought, it lies precisely on the other side of the coin as Modern Christianity.
It is becoming something of a commonplace that Modernity did no favors for Christianity, and the same seems to be true for atheism as well. At the very least, modernity did no favors to the 2/3rds world. What I take to be the primary problem with the project of Modern thought (and most of the analytic philosophical tradition falls into this category, i.e. Russell etc), is not the fundamental flaws in its thought structure (though these are certainly problematic for those who care about this sort of thing, you can read Nietzsche, Rorty, MacIntyre, or pretty much anyone if you're interested in this sort of 'truth'), but the oppressive patterns of life it perpetuates. It is, in essence, white male dominance distilled into a school of thought, allowing the domination of women, minorities, and "the poor" (even the categories we use to describe people this way have been criticized by sociologists as inherently oppressive) in the name of almighty Reason. MacIntyre's "Whose Justice? Whose Rationality?" is a good criticism of this sort of thing, though there are a great many others. Still, I am instantly a hypocrite, since I still so often find myself unable to resist modern-sounding discussions such as these, surrounding the philosophy of religion (arguments for the existence of god etc. etc.) and that sort of thing (part of the problem is that I have a considerable deal of experience with analytic philosophy, and I find the thought puzzles to be fun sometimes). So, I often find myself defending things I don't really want to be defending (sometimes evangelical Christianity, sometimes Descartes etc). Anyway, Christian fundamentalism (and all other forms of fundamentalism as well) is just as malicious a harm as any, so far be it from me to defend it! (If that is what this post of yours in particular is about, but if its about Christianity in general, then I suppose there's more discussion of it to be had, especially in light of the above postmodern critiques (i.e. what would it mean to delineate a group as 'Christian' in a postmodern world, or, more importantly, is the desire to delineate groups a thoroughly colonial/imperial desire? In my opinion, it seems that it is, but that's a live discussion people are having)).
Also, I should add a disclaimer to anyone reading: I'm sorry if postmodern philosophy ruins your life (but feel free to email me if it does), read at your own discretion. (Or if your life becomes increasingly less comfortable)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I should probably clarify what I mean by "mainstream academia" in "both projects have been all but abandoned in mainstream academia." What I really mean by "mainstream" is "academia that I think is worth caring about." Unfortunately, there are entirely too many Modern philosophers/theologians/businesspeople still kicking.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that, in order to be considered a genuine Christian, you must be a fundamentalist. Why would you not believe in the Bible in its entirety? Yes, I think "faith is a set of propositions about distinctly 'religious' matters which are separate from other matters", and that is what I'm addressing.
ReplyDeleteOur main disconnect is that I am taking the stance of common sense and appealing to the wide audience of common believers, which I think is more effective. Most believers do not go in depth with the various philosophies that you describe. Because yes, many people are still locked into the Modern Christianity patterns of thought. Maybe Modern Atheism is locked into the same patterns of thought because we go off of what Modern Christians say and refute from there? And I'm still unsure of what you mean by that. I don't know a thing about postmodernism, so I won't even try to reply to that haha.
I agree with you that 'religion' has progressed, and that supports my point that fundamentalism is obsolete.
That's about all I can say haha.
Hmmm 'to be a genuine Christian you must be a fundamentalist," the fundamentalists certainly think so! Does that make you a fundamentalist? Lol. I think even thoroughly Christians with a thoroughly Modern 'common' sense are aware of the distinction between 'believing the Bible' and 'taking the Bible literally.' Specific to the field of biblical studies, you can read Brueggeman on this he writes a nice introduction ("Struggling With Scripture"). Modern sermons seem to be typically preached this way as well, using what's called the "Modern historical-critical method." And it is this Modern method that has shaped the minds of a (I think) majority of American Christians. The Modern method is distinct from the fundamentalist approach to Scripture in that it's goal is to get at the author's intent. Thus, texts are analyzed according to their context, genre, etc. For example, when one understands that Genesis is written as a hymn in the tradition of Hebrew poetical and wisdom literature, one feels no need to interpret it literally--since it was never intended literally in the first place. If you see things this way, the tables are turned and you come to see that to be a Christian one might be anything *but* a fundamentalist.
ReplyDeleteThe intent of many of the philosophers I mentioned above is to understand what people think and why they think what they think. Modernism is the school of thought currently still dominant in the Western world which began with the Enlightenment and has probably defined what you take to be 'common' sense.
However, the critiques of postmodernism are leveled at precisely the errors in this sort of 'common' sense. I would tend to see the thought of Modern Christians and Modern atheists as both responding to the world as they see it through the lens of the Enlightenment (but the way you describe it is probably true in a great many cases as well). However, even since the time of the Enlightenment there have already been very important criticisms of this way of seeing the world (e.g. David Hume) which you many be interested in, since they are made in the pursuit of 'truth' (a pursuit you seem to have found yourself engaged in as well :) ).
whoops 4th sentence should read "even Christians with a thoroughly Modern..." too many 'thoroughly's !
ReplyDeleteYes, that does make me a fundamentalist haha. In terms of my interpretation of the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteI have heard Christians claim that Genesis can be taken figuratively/poetically, but I figured that to be a view of modernism. I mean that it seems like many educated Christians opt to take young-Earth creation/Garden of Eden/Noah’s Ark as figurative because we now know how ridiculous those claims are in our modern understanding. And that is what bothers me; it is only neglect of God’s Word. Genesis is the story of creation and original sin, which are absolutely key to the context of the rest of the Bible’s supernatural claims. And the church generally teaches these stories as true events (e.g. ‘we failed God when Eve ate from the tree’ does not indicate any view of fiction).
But yes, your claim of the author’s intent as a hymn of Hebrew tradition presents a more valid reason to take it figuratively/poetically. I find that hard to believe, though, because of such passages as Genesis 5, which states the lineage from Adam to Noah as though it is historical. Also, more significantly, since Moses is claimed to have written the entire Torah, you would also have to say the rest of its books are figurative as well. From what I can tell, nearly all devout Christians view Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as history. That is where my frustration stems from; Christians are inconsistent in their interpretations of various chapters. I mean to say that I think a genuine Christian should be a fundamentalist because that is the only consistent means of interpretation.
I will continue to use modernism because we have developed understandings that allow us to more thoroughly evaluate the remarkable claims of the Bible. I think the methods of thought that arose from the Enlightenment are very effective and reliable, since that is apparently the way my mind works. I don’t think I’ll be able to change that (at least anytime soon). I think we should embrace our developed understandings of science, philosophy, and morality in order to examine claims such as creation and the actions/commands/endorsements of Yahweh. We should attribute these claims to the historical context to some degree, but there is plenty of room for modernism. I would have to look into David Hume to understand your criticisms.
Heh heh it's funny that you bring up the genealogies as an example, because there are even fundamentalists who recognize that the purpose of genealogies is not to teach literal/chronological history. Rather, genealogies in biblical and near-eastern texts are almost always to make a literary point (if you google the purpose of genealogies you find a very diverse group of people who talk about this, even fundamentalists!). In other words, it seems like Genesis is a story and meant to be read and told as a story. So, for something to be "true" doesn't imply "true" historically (the same goes for Noah's flood etc), since it isn't written as a history text. For example, you would really frustrate a comedian if he started a sentence with "A priest, a rabbi, and a pastor walk into a bar..." and you took him literally. Especially if, when he explained that it was a joke, you defended yourself by saying "but I took you more seriously!"
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the idea that "Christians opt to take..[whatever passage]..as figurative because [science]" is that it assumes we are trying to take as much of the Bible literally as possible, just giving up ground when we have to. The problem here though is it still puts us in a position of control. Rather than trying to hear the text, it has us trying to control it as much as possible. (Imagine if we did this in our daily lives, we would essentially all be Amelia Bedelia, with only a few scientific exceptions).
Similarly, I think the inference that "you would also have to say the rest of its books are figurative as well" is problematic too. I can only imagine mayhem would ensue if we only let people speak/write in one genre (like if the comedian switched to speaking seriously about a death in his family, and then you laughed after, since he was telling jokes before, anyway, you get the idea).
And you're right that it is "a view of modernism"! That's the weird thing, but it is also why you might find yourself convinced by what I just said above because it is another way of understanding the text while remaining in the modern paradigm. History of biblical interpretation is really weird if you ever look into it (for example, *all* interpretation was allegorical at the time of Origen and Augustine--even texts we would think are obviously literal...which is something that's actually come full circle in postmodernity with literary critics like Stanley Fish (but that's something we should probably talk about later)). Whatcha think now?