So What?

The Devil as Fundamentalist

Image via Wikipedia

Ok, I can't resist commenting on de Mello's quote in my last post. Two points:

The obvious application is to fundamentalist interpretations of scripture. I'm not saying all fundamentalists make this error but it must be difficult to avoid it.  If you believe in the truth of something sight unseen then it follows you cannot possibly understand it.  However, I think this cuts both ways and also undermines the position of those atheists who insist on proving the existence of God.  Faith is something that is lived and their absolute dependence upon proof substitutes proof for life.  It is of a piece with the insistence on the priority of method over people, I mentioned only yesterday.

Second, I had a phone call the other day.  Would I be able to prepare a topic for our local interfaith group on the theme of spirituality?  Yes, I said warming to the idea of an in-depth exploration of John Wesley's spirituality.  So, you'll do the spirituality of Jesus, then?

Ahhhh ...  My first thought was I didn't think Jesus had a spirituality.  My second thought was to revisit my dissertation study of Matthew's account of the temptations, 4:1 - 11.

As I considered this, I noticed something I hadn't noticed before, after many years of reflection on that text.  Isn't it fascinating that the first story of the adult Jesus in the first book of the New Testament totally debunks a fundamentalist approach to scripture?

Here comes the devil (who is not the hammer horror character of some overwrought imaginations but an angel who is a stickler for doing things right).  His job is to help Jesus face up to his responsibilities as the Messiah.  He does this by reference to Scripture.  Each time Jesus has to fend off his fundamentalist interpretation (based on Israel's contemporary expectations) with his own radical interpretation. 

Jesus does not walk away from that encounter with a scripture based plan - he has rejected all the standard messianic expectations and trusts to what happens on the road.  He trusts as it were to living his life.

If we have to believe in a devil, the devil as fundamentalist fits the bill nicely.

Related articles

• Mission and Spiritual Direction (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)
• Re-thinking Full Visible Unity (chrississons.typepad.co.uk)

What have they done with Jesus?

What have they done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History - why we can trust the Bible is a book by Ben Witherington III.  I've just finished reading it; it is worth a look if you are interested in the authority of the New Testament.

This book could have been written from a conservative perspective, as its aim is to defend the authenticity of scripture.  Witherington argues those closest to Jesus (his mother, his brothers, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the beloved disciple and Paul), knew him well and the New Testament can be traced to their witness. They are the texts written closest to Jesus' time and so our most reliable sources.  Witherington uses modern critical approaches and I think he makes a persuasive case.  

Certainly, I have grown impatient with much modern critical work on Scripture, not because I disagree with it particularly bu it seems too often to start with presuppositions that themselves need examination.  

So, Witherington argues there are no grounds for the distinction between the Jesus of History and Christ of Faith, many claim to find in the New Testament.  These early witnesses experienced both.  They saw no distinction between them.  Jesus was both a man they had known and the Son of God.

This of course does not apply to Paul, who never knew Jesus the man.  But Witherington shows there is no significant difference between Paul and the others.  Where there were differences they were over incidental matters, such as circumcision.  James was not one of those who insisted on the Gentiles adhering fully to the Torah and agreed with Paul, the relatively mild injunctions to have nothing to do with pagan temples.

(I suspect these injunctions to keep away from pagan temples are an unfortunate source of Christian homophobia.  What seem to be condemnations of homosexuality are actually condemnations of pagan religion.)

One last thing, Witherington presents a fascinating theory as to the identity of the beloved disciple.  I've no idea whether he is right but it is an interesting proposal and there seems to be substantial evidence in its favour.

Is the Theology of Christ Discriminatory?

John Vincent is reviewing his life's writings and this year a few of us are meeting with him to review his books.  Last Saturday, we were looking at Secular Christ .  This book was one of those  I chose for this year's Lent sequence.

On page 70, Vincent writes:

The theology of Christ is thus unashamedly discriminatory.  By choosing to come as a man, Jesus excluded womanhood (hence, of course, the divinization of Mary).  By coming as a Galilean, Jesus excluded the Torah-obedient traditionalism of the rabbis.  By belonging to the "pious poor" of the land, Jesus excluded the middle class and the beggars.  By being a carpenter, Jesus excludes the rich and wise.  By preaching in Galilee, Jesus excluded the Judeans, let alone the Samaritans.  By being a bachelor, Jesus excluded the insights of love and family.  And so on.

This Saturday, I questioned the premise that this was discrimination.  It seems to me we can argue discrimination was deliberate (I don't think this is what Vincent meant), or unconscious - the accidental consequences of a certain strategy.  A third possibility is that Jesus accepted all whom he met but chose to take paths that meant he encountered only certain people.  The exceptions, such as the Centurion with a sick slave or the Syro-Phoenician woman, are instructive.  Jesus insists he is there for Israel only and then helps them anyway.

In Secular Christ, Vincent makes the point that these instances of discrimination are accidentals.  I argued from Matthew's account of the temptations in the wilderness , which shows us Jesus abandoning all expectations of what it means to be a Messiah.  So, the image we get is one of stepping out without a clear goal.  Jesus was a man with a mission but no idea where his mission was leading. 

We live in a society that favours targets.  Jesus had a vision but no targets.  His approach was to put people at the centre of his ministry and the way he dealt with them set his feet upon the road to Jerusalem.    Would he have been able to achieve what he did had he been a woman?  Possibly not.  Does this mean he is no example to women?  Probably not.

Some thoughts about reading the Bible 5: Truth and Meaning

What is the relationship between truth and meaning?  Just how important is it that every word of scripture is true?  Do we really have to be certain everything really happened exactly as stated?  Do our beliefs, our experience of God, really depend upon such flimsy evidence?

Truth, in the sense of events happening exactly as stated, has nothing to do with the meaning of a text.  Why should it matter whether the events in the book of Jonah happened just as it says?  Believe this about Jonah if you wish but so far, the story has not spoken to you.  How much of your life do you wish to spend demonstrating to doubters a fish can swallow a grown man and then spew him up alive? 

Isn't this like Jonah, who would do anything rather than what God called him to do.  And what of the people who listen to you, find God through your ministry and then refuse to believe the Book of Jonah is true?  Are you going to complain to God, these people you converted are not true believers? 

The most believable thing in the Book of Jonah, is where God ordains a worm, for the education of Jonah.  I am happy to believe God ordains worms for all of us.

Some thoughts about reading the Bible 4: Stories

Have you ever read the Bible and wondered why these stories were chosen and others were not?  The reasons will vary.  Sometimes it was to support a particular view and often these are balanced by others, from a different perspective.  But out of the thousands of stories circulating at the time, why were these chosen for inclusion?

And why were they written in the way they were written?  Any storyteller adapts the story to their purpose and this must be true of the writers who first wrote down these stories.

And why did these stories survive?  Why were they made canon by church authorities? 

Ultimately, they are stories, letters and prophecies the people found helpful.  Of course, power was at play and some things might have been imposed but without the consent of the people they wouldn't be there at all.

Does this leave God out of the equation?  Not really.  God speaks through the text.  The text moves us towards God, by challenging our assumptions.  The canon exists because generations have found it helpful.

Some thoughts about reading the Bible 3: Contradictions

So, you think the truth of the Bible matters?  You read it and come to a claim science views as false.  By your interpretation, the Bible says the world was created by God in 7 days.  So, either the text is false or the world is false (fossils were put there by God as a joke).  Why God couldn't equally place a false claim in the Bible as a joke remains unclear.

The problem is, God is made out to be a liar either in the text or in the world.

When this happens, either your understanding of the text, or God, or both is at fault.  You're not interpreting the text in your context, you're imposing a reading from another context onto it.  If you live in the twenty first century, science is part of your context.  Of course, there will be tensions between science and scripture, it would be a miracle if there weren't.  Our task is to find interpretations that transcend these tensions.  God does not play false in the texts or the world, so if we see a contradiction, we need to search for the right interpretation and be patient until we find it.

Some thoughts about reading the Bible 2: Misleading Claims

When someone claims the Bible is inerrant, what are they doing?  Leave aside the question as to whether they are right or wrong making this assertion, what are they doing?

To claim inerrancy, is to step outside the text.  To assert the literal truth of the text is to say something about the text, not about its meaning.

So, the text becomes a political football.  It is no longer seen as a source of inspiration but as a source of power.

If you think the text's historical or scientific claims are important, you're barking up entirely the wrong lamppost.

Some thoughts about reading the Bible 1: Incarnation

The Bible is not in heaven.  This means there is no reading of the Bible that can be described as God's.  God's followers must interpret it for themselves.

This does not mean there are not better and worse ways to read the Bible .  Of course there are.  The thing is, how do we tell good from bad readings?

Through endless debate, of course.

The Christian faith is an experience, guided but not determined by the Bible.  Each context will generate its own readings and some of these will lead people in that context to God.

This is the nature of the adventure we embark upon when we read these texts in earnest.

Easter 47: John

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.  What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.  (From: John 1:1 - 5, NRSV)

This is the passage with which I first started blogging  over a year ago.  I prefer this account of the creation to the Genesis version because it implies God is not alone.  (Actually, God has company in the Genesis account but that's another story.)  Logos, the Greek word translated here as Word can as easily be translated as conversation.  This makes sense because a word on its own is absurd; words imply conversation.  I continue to explore this theme in my other blog, Exploring Ecumenism .

In my other blog, I argue ecumenism, or perhaps it's better to use the Greek Oikoumene, is a conversation that aims to reconcile, not only the various Christian traditions, but the whole of creation to God.  This is the idea I have chosen to end this Lent sequence (which is by now an Easter sequence).  The thrilling idea is that we all have a role, as co-creators with God, in bringing this reconciliation into reality.  A good place to start is four recent posts about evolution and cosmology, starting here .

Passiontide 46: Luke

Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.  He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on.  He replied, "Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound."  Then he became angry and refused to go in.  His father came out and began to plead with him.  But he answered his father, "Listen!  For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends.  But when this son of yours comes back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!"  Then the father said to him, "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.  But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours is dead and has come to life; and has been found."  (From: Luke 15:25 - 32, NRSV)

Luke is the master of parables, although we often struggle to interpret them.  This parable suffers as it is too often treated as a parable of two halves.  It is the first half that gets all the attention, which means when read in church this second half is omitted.  But it is not a parable of two halves; it is a single parable.  To redress the balance I omit the first half!

It's a lovely story, isn't it?  How the father (obviously God) forgives and welcomes the younger son.  Rubbish!  The older brother is the point of this story.  He raises a raft of issues around forgiveness; our inability to forgive, the impact on others when we do forgive.  We are left with the tension between father and son unresolved.  What conclusion are we being led towards?  How are we tempted to hold to the elder brother's viewpoint?