As many Loyal Readers are already aware, I am a flat atheist and do not believe in any deity, divinity, or supernatural being, whether that being is responsible for the creation of the universe, the creation of man, whether that being is falliable, infalliable, benign, malevolent, passive, or active. However, that does not mean that I am blind to the effects and power of religion, particularly Christianity, in particular the prominent position of the Roman Catholic Church within the sphere of Christianity. I am fascinated by religion of all sorts, and I follow news from the world of religion as avidly as I do news from the world of politics.
To non-Christians, the Roman Catholic Church embodies Christianity, and Protestants and Orthodox Christians are factions that have minor theological or historical disputes with the Vatican. This only makes sense. Most westerners do not really understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam, and most Christians do not ever take the time to learn about and understand the difference between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism, even though Judaism plays a prominent role in western civilization as well as Christianity. So those who are not Christians tend to regard the Roman Catholic Church as the focal point of Christianity, and the Pope as its singular leader.
So with a new Pope just put in power, I've been wondering what we might expect to see from the Church by way of trying to guide the world, or at least the Christian world, through troubled times. Recently, I learned of our first real look today at what Pope Benedict XIV's papacy will be like. Several British bishops have issued a document called The Gift of Scripture, in which it cautions the faithful that not every word of the Bible is literally true.
Well, I'm glad we got that issue resolved. And here I thought I only had a few intellectual bedfellows on that point. But it does appear that the Church has finally changed its tone on the role of science and reason in the world.
Obviously, this in no way diminishes the powerful moral lessons of the Bible, nor does it diminish the faith that Christians have in the passion and resurrection of Jesus, which events are the very focus and essence of Christianity. Nor does it provide incentive for those of us who lack or have lost that faith to re-subscribe to it. I will not join the chorus of Pope-haters who will make the cheap shot that "Catholics claim to be christians but reject the Bible." That's not what this document says. It says that portions of the Bible are not literally true and acknowledges that the passage of time, translations, and effects of politics have had their effect on those literal words, and that true Christians should look deeper than the words themselves to reflect upon the moral meaning and importance of the Bible's teachings.
Many Protestants believe this to be true also and the fires of my criticism are not aimed at them. But in a very real sense, this document is saying that understanding the true meaning of the Bible is not as easy as reading a detective novel.
It also confirms that the Church no longer subscribes to geocentricity, among other facially ridiculous beliefs of some Biblical literalists. This will throw down the gauntlet to fundamentalist Christians who do insist that the Bible, and every word in it, is the literal truth, divinely handed down to man by God himself. This will widen, not narrow, the schism between Roman Catholics and their Protestant counterparts, particularly in the United States.
This is pretty much what I expected from Benedict; while the document is not written by him, nor does it bear the Papal seal, it does come with at least the tacit approval of the Vatican. Both his background serving under the previous Pope and his choise of name indicated that he views his mission in the papacy to "clean house" and make sure the Church's theological and moral standards are in order. He would prefer to preside over a smaller but purer church to larger and more diverse one. So with The Gift of Scripture, the Church is saying two things. First of all, he's saying, you're either a Christian or you're something else, and ultimately, Biblical literalists are something else. Secondly, he's saying, that faith does not require blinding oneself to truth. True Christians do not view any truth, whether it derives from science, logic and reason, or empirical observation, as a barrier to faith and morally correct behavior.
Now, this does not inspire me to rejoin the Church; that would require a belief in the divine which I lack. It does, however, inspire some admiration in me. If the Church shares my disdain for religious teachings that require unreasonable beliefs, and is willing to take the inevitable cheap shot criticisms of "not believing in the Bible anymore" in the name of establishing a more meaningful faith, then hopefully it can better bear its legacy of moral leadership in the Western world.
Posts
5 comments:
Fascinating how someone who is by his own admission not a Christian and in fact an athiest, should presume to tell Christians what they should or shouldn't believe.
The Bible is the infallible word of God every letter written is true. (taking into account some minor errors of translation from the original manuscripts.)
I would contend anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Christ no matter what banner they'd like to put themselves under. If any part of God's word is subjective than it is all up for debate, a real Christian will not give in to that view at all.
Frankly Roman Catholics have twisted scripture and added man made tradition and have completely obliterated the true gospel. They do not represent Christianity at all, though I agree most non-Christians think they are the focal point there of. And liberal denominations that have backed away from the authority of scripture likewise do not represent true Christianity.
Liberals think it's a good idea for Christians to "realize" that the Bible isn't perfect and true because if we did that would make millions more comfortable in your sin. Why? Because if the Bible isn't wholly true then it might be Ok to have sex outside the marriage covenant, or to be homosexual, or to put yourself before others, or to lie, or basically just do whatever makes them happy. No restrictions or standards.
There is an absolute truth, and it's standard is God's word. All are born into sin, and need the atoning sacrifice of Jesus' life, death and ressurection to save us from our sin. This comes by one way and one way only... faith in Jesus Christ and Him alone to be all you need and the only one who can save you.
I suggest caution next time before you tell Christians what they ought to believe.
Psalm 14:1,
"The fool says in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good."
The whole point of conversation is to tell others what we think is correct behavior. Your claim that we should not comment about a group unless we are a member of that group is illogical. We should tell other people what to believe because we should all express our opinions. This is why the government should not tell us what to believe because the government can make us do it, which is wrong.
What we actually believe is no ones business, but we should express what we think is right.
A literal interpretation of the bible is impossible because it is self contradictory. That is Buddhism is the only correct religion.
Hmmm ... good to see that your blog is attracting a diverse audience.
Christianity -- specifically, Roman Catholicism -- is part of your cultural and intellectual heritage, regardless of whether you're not a devotee of the institution or the belief system. The fact that you're not "in the club" doesn't invalidate your well-informed, carefully considered opinions regarding the effects of Christianity on society.
I'm curious as to why this is happening now, because it's not a new position for the Church. When I was in Catholic school 20 years ago, studying the old and new testaments, our teachers focused heavily on the history of various Biblican writings and the meaning behind the language. Let me assure you, this nonliteralist view absolutely did not make them any more comfortable with sin, talking in class, minor dress code violations, or late homework.
The reason that the RC Church embodies Christianity for a lot of people probably has a lot to do with Hollywood. If a movie-maker has a choice of Christian religions, he'll usually pick Catholic -- rather than, say, Lutheran or Methodist. (The other option is a fire-breathing fundamentalist.) When Protestants went and "purified" the churches, it made them a lot less camera-friendly. The costumes, fixtures, and pageantry simply make for more colorful movies. The concept of celibate clergy is also a useful plot device.
Risen Soul, I dispute your characterization of my statements. I did not, and do not, presume to tell you what you should believe and I thought I went out of my way to praise the holy books of Christianity as a source of important moral guidance which holds relevant and importance despite being written millenia ago.
I commented on a document issued by officials of the Roman Catholic church, one with which I have some intellectual sympathy, if not exactly agreement. That I no longer count myself a member of the Roman Catholic faith in no way disqualifies me from opining about its affairs, or that of Christianity in general.
I am willing to bet that the teachings of Islam or the teachings of the Bagvhad Gita do not make a lot of sense to you. This does not mean you should blind yourself to what Muslims think or dismiss Hindus as irrelevant to life in today's world.
I will tell you that a lot of Biblical teachings do not make the remotest bit of sense to me. No amount of evangelizing will change my mind about this matter which I have given considerable reflection. But with that said, dialogue is often useful for both parties and I welcome yours.
I am not trying to tell you what you should believe; rather, I am proclaiming what I believe. I believe that the central teachings of the Bible are profound, that they speak to conditions of human existence which are universal and eternal, and that the Bible is a good place to look for moral guidance even in today's complex world. I am sure that you will agree with all that. But there's no way you're going to convince me some guy stayed alive inside a whale's stomach for three days and lived to tell the tale (after being regurgitated). How'd he get past the baleen?
Erik, thanks for sharing your veiw of things! It appears that you have provided a challenge for "risen soul". Food for thought can never be bad. I definitely agree with Brad. Censoring someone's beliefs is never the answer. There are many times that I disagree with what someone else believes, but I still think that it is important to listen and consider their opinion. After you hear what someone has to say, you still might not agree, but it will always benefit you in some way or another.
Post a Comment