Posted in Christianity, Uncategorized, tagged apostolic succession, biblical hermaneutics, Christianity, ecumenical dialogue, epistemology, historicity, hypocrisy, interreligious dialogue, Jesus, perception, presumptuousness, Religion, revelation, Theology on August 13, 2011|
Leave a Comment »
While it might seem easy, discerning saints from sinners can be rather difficult. Hence, we are urged not to judge, lest we, too, be judged. This lesson landed on me when I found my opinion on a seemingly-saintly elderly woman change dramatically.
The elderly Philipino woman whom I met seemed at first to be very pious, having an explicit desire to gain the attribute of holiness. The simplicity of her faith appealed to me. Yet when I made reference to one of her priests being–to put it nicely–more of an administrator than a pastor, she replied that her priest “was Jesus.” I replied that the priests are in the line of the Apostles, rather than instantiating Jesus. I cited apostolic succession, and she relented. Not content to be corrected, she asserted that the Bible is sufficient as a source of historical evidence. I replied that a faith narrative is neither written with the intention of recording historical facts nor of the genre of historical writings that is taken as proffering historical evidence. The woman disagreed, insisting that a faith narrative can be considered as a source of historical facts. I asked her whether she knows or believes the so-called facts. She readily replied that she knows them. “Well,” I observed, “then it would seem that you have no use for faith then.” My unexpected comment stopped her in her tracks. “What do you mean?” she asked. “We have faith in things we don’t know–things we are not certain of, such as whether we will be alive tomorrow,” I replied. “It doesn’t make sense to have faith in something we know because there is not uncertainty about it. So if the Bible gives you facts that you know, that tells me that it is not a matter of faith.” Taken back, she repeated that she knew that the Bible proves that certain historical events took place. “And you can’t be wrong about that?” I asked. “Yes, I can’t be wrong about it.” As if giving the conclusion of a syllogism, I remarked, “Then that means that not only is faith unnecessary for you, but it is based on arrogance–that of presuming that you cannot be wrong.” My pronouncement stunned her into speechlessness. She stood staring at the ground as if unable to move. There was no anger or resentment–just a wall that was blocking her view and not letting her pass.
If Jesus is a door, then a believer opens the door and walks through; one does not keep holding on to a front door once one has entered a house. The elderly woman was stuck holding on to a doornob as if it were attached to a wall. For myself, I was simply stunned that religion could so distort cognition so much and involve denial to the extent that a human being readily admits to not being able to be wrong about something that most of us would say involves belief rather than knowledge. It is as if the domain furtherest from certain knowledge were somehow the most capable of proffering evidence about which a person could not be wrong.
Perhaps this exchange reflects the saying, “Where God builds a church, Satan builds a chapel.” My question is: In preaching against arrogance, was I in the church or chapel?
Read Full Post »
Posted in Christianity, tagged Christianity, historical criticism, historicity, Jesus, mass wedding, messiah, Rev Moon, revelation, Unificatin Church on October 13, 2009|
I’m reading an article on MSBNC on the Rev. Moon of the Unification Church. He is set to marry off and bless 40,000 in a “massive global ceremony.” The following paragraph caught my eye:
“Moon, a self-proclaimed messiah who says he was 15 when Jesus Christ called upon him to carry out his unfinished work, has courted controversy and criticism since founding the Unification Church in Seoul in 1954.”
Such a claim is so fantastic and original that one might conclude that the line between religion and sanity has been breached here. However, how do we know? Furthermore, for all we know, the miracles and angels surrounding ancient revelations of a messiah were ex post facto accretions. What if Jesus was like Moon, claiming “I am the Messiah” to a skeptical world? Is Moon today like Jesus was in his time, and if so, how will the Unification Church view him in 60, 400, or 2000 years? We don’t get to go back and see what was really going on in Jesus’ day, so we don’t know how much of what we think we know about him really happened. Scholars tell us that the Gospel writers were not oriented to writing history; they had other purposes. Yet we presume historical veracity in their works. What if we are seeing how a new religious figure is “born”?…like using the Hubble telescope to see how the universe looked just after it began. In other words, what if the “beginnings” is more mundane than we think? It is possible…
Read Full Post »
Posted in Christianity, tagged Christianity, Christology, historicity, history, incarnation, literal, resurrection, revelation, soteriological on October 11, 2009|
I have been reading Karen Armstrong’s The Case for God. It is possible that Jesus rose from the dead and has since been a person or manifestation of God in the form of a resurrected body. That no one alive can say he or she has seen Jesus empirically means that it is very unlikely that any of us can know how much of what is said to have happened really happened. I suppose it is the likelihood that none of us can know for sure that bothers me in the theological debates because some assert the literal or historical dimension. We were all to agree on the meaning and let history be history and not religion, I think religion would not be so grievous.
I do not believe in the Passion Story literally as in historically the case, although I do believe that what the myth stands for. That is, that compassionate self-emptying is vindicated on account of its inherent strength and value even though it seems weak by the world’s standards. We seem to have lost the mythic meaning of the passion story, only to concentrate on its historicity and empirical “factness.” The evangelical Christian would rightly point out to me that I could be wrong on the resurrection being a historical fact. Neither of us can know the answer. Faith is by definition in the absence of knowledge (otherwise there would be no need for faith on the matter). For all I know, Jesus could have been knocking down the books to get my attention. Compassionate self-emptying would suggest or require that I remember my own limitations and that the “other” could be right…and to treat him or her in such terms. Too often, I think we presume that our opinions are truth, and that those who disagree with us are not only wrong, but erroneous. This is a ghost difficult to shake off, but ultimately necessary for constructive religious dialogue in line with the love taught by the world’s religions. If we could all just remember that we are all in the same boat as human beings in terms of knowing things in themselves we might get along a lot better and enjoy life more.
Read Full Post »