Marcus Borg is a naturalist and a Christian. He describes God as super, natural. The comma is quite significant as it indicates that God is natural and real, just currently beyond our ability to detect directly.
Borg is also one of those odd Christian-types who questions the notion of Jesus’ virgin birth, resurrection, and divinity.
It’s be interesting to see if Theologue would consider him, or other members of the Jesus Seminar, as doing veritable Christian Theology.
The definition of historicity is the same. Something either happened or it didn’t. There may be differences in whether something should be interpreted historically or allegorically but there are no degrees of historicity.
Not really. You can find arguments to support whatever you want, but genuine reasearch and evidemce is another kettle of fish.
This “atheist scholar” of yours is a strawman. The personal beliefs of a scholar have no bearing on the efficacy of his/her method of scholarship and criticism. The method is either valid or it isn’t.
There is also no such thing as “atheist scholarship.” There is no school or vein of scholarship which is out to disprove the existence of God. There are scholars who apply normal scientific standards to the analysis of the bible but those standards are not in themselves “atheistic.”
I would agree with this characterization but I disagree that a priori “atheism” drives any movement to the left.
Well, what you call the “far left” happens to be the majority so I don’t see how you can deny it is the mainstream.
The real radical “left” would be the growing minority of “mythicists” who argue that Jesus never existed at all (for the record, I am not a mythicist) or even the so-called “Dutch Radical” movement and its descendants who deny even the historicity of Paul.
The majority, as you said, currently favors a (non-supernatural) Historical Jesus who has been mythicized virtually beyond historical recovery. The overwhelming majority reject traditional dates and authors for the Gospels and it is generally recognized that there are no first hand accounts of Jesus in any extant Christian literature.
Pannenberg is a theologian, not a critical scholar. His belief in the resurrection is a priori, not a result of scholarship or methodology.
If the pendulum is moving at all (and I read a lot about this. I follow it pretty closely, it’s an obsession of mine) , I think it’s moving towards mythicism, largely beacuse of the complete dearth of evidence to confirm the existence of Jesus. It’s still a minority view but it’s grown in recent years and it’s no longer regarded as being so patently fringe and goofy as it once was.
There is no such academic philosophy as “naturalism.” What you’re talking about is empirical method and yes, in order to do legitimate historical scholarship it is necessary to make a default assumption that the universe operates by normal laws of physics until proven otherwise. A claim which is prima facie impossible (i.e. a claim which violates the laws of physics) cannot be accepted as historical without proof. There is nothing irrational or unfair about this. It is simply imperative that a default assumption be made that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It would not be possible to apply empirical methodology any other way.
I disagree that Christians can’t do research on the bible, by the way. Most of the best research has been done by Christians (and Jews, for that matter). There is nothing preventing a believing Christian from applying the same methodology as a non-Christian as long as they recognize that some of their assumptions will be outside the province of that research (and it’s the same with atheism).
People do drugs, alchohol, sex, just anything looking for a “turn-on.”
They know they are lacking something, but don’t know what it is.
What they are lacking is God, once they have a real transcendent experience with God, all the other “junk” has no appeal. Their lives are changed forever, and that’s how you know whether it was a real experience or not. Simple to understand.
I agree with virtually everything you’ve said here, but I rather thought the preeminent scholarship of folks like Willard Van Orman Quine, and his exceedingly radical empiricism, made more-or-less “legitmate” a branch of philosphy that could be called “naturalism”. I suppose this would distinguish “naturalism” as another branch of “empiricism” (e.g. an alternative to “logical positivism”), as being an approach putting the scientific method squarely above all other means of guaging validity, to the point that even mathematical logic should be subject to scrutiny by means of observation. I guess that would suggest there are no “first principles” other than the scientific method, and no more valid means to make so-called truth statements. I don’t know how I feel about that myself, but it’s an interesting point of view.
I readily admit I may be screwing up philosphical taxonomy, as well as the gist of W.V. Quine’s assertions here, but I figured it might be worthwhile to mention the matter for the purpose of clarity.
I guess I meant that there is no academic or methodological philosophy of “naturalism” in the sense of being consciously opposed to the supernatural. The strawman “atheist/materialist” scholar of apologist rhetoric who has an a priori goal of disproving the bible and is willing to spin or distort the evidence to that end is not a real creature of academia - or if they do exist, they are spit out by peer review.
Without going into a major hijack of Theologue’s thread, let me observe that there is a presumption brought to Biblical criticism, a reasonable one in my opinion, that in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, the “natural” explanation is to be preferred.
In other words, people do claim to have made prophecies about an event after the fact (speaking purely extra-Scripturally). So, bringing this over to Scripture, we have an allegation in a Gospel, whose dating is subject to dispute, that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. In the absence of proof that that prediction was recorded prior to AD 70, it’s fair to assume that something Jesus said was applied to the destruction of the Temple after that event happened. This does not presuppose whether or not Jesus in fact issued a predictive prophecy about the destruction of the Temple; it merely assumes that the writer, knowing after the fact about that event, applied Jesus’s statement to it as a putative prophecy of it.
To that extent, yes, “naturalism” is a element in the arsenal of Biblical critics – and ought to be. You know by now how much certitude I place in the historicity of the Gospel accounts after the special pleading of the Evangelists is accounted for. I would be remiss in my seeking for the truth of the matter if I let them stand at the same level of credulity as Weekly World News’s Virgin-Mary-image-on-a-taco-shell reportage. Only when the facts are held to the highest level of reasonable skepticism, and stand up under it, do they become evidence on something as important as the Incarnation and Atonement are supposed to be.
This I understand and agree with completely, and thank you for the thoughtful clarification.
If God is real, why do you place him as “beyond this system in which we are encased”? What is the boundary that He is across? If He is not in nature, where is He?
theologue: Many have said that Christianity is becoming primarily a third-world religion (demographically speaking), and I’d think you’re likely in a position to consider that at first hand.
-
Do you think this trend will continue?
-
If so, what do you think will be the ecclesiological, theological, and sociological ramifications of this?
Theologue -thank you for answering my questions. I was actually referring to the contemporary church, not the biblical era. From the outside looking in, conservative churches seem to not hold women in too high esteem, but perhaps I am reading too much into the emphasis on Eve and Jezebel etc.
The prosletizing comment was from the other thread that spawned this one-I wanted to know why evangelicals felt compelled to continue to witness and preach to others, despite being asked not to etc.
But from the tenor of the discussion, it’s pretty small beer-so never mind.
I require no tangible proof that Jesus was divine, and am comfortable with “taking it on faith”. But your other statement caught my eye-
Speaking as one who also thought that–what say you to loss of faith? Does that or would that condemn one to “the burning”? Surely, it is reasonable to expect that one’s faith can wax and wane throught a lifetime? I know my thoughts on this, and my pastor’s–but I am curious to hear the conservative perspective.
From my own perspective, the Bible and Jesus’ teachings cannot all be taken literally. The Bible is not just a testament of faith, but a political document, a work that reflects the current social mores and concerns of oppressed peoples, an attempt to explain natural phenomena and also a guidebook for beginners, to be flip about it.
So, why o why, is it treated like it (and all its myriad translations of translations) it is inerrant?
Theologue,
Two comments I hear a lot from Protestants trying to “witness” me:
–“Catholics got it wrong.”
–“Catholics aren’t really Christians.”
Without endorsing (or disavowing) either statement, can you shed some light on what they’re talking about, why they believe this, etc.? Is there something firmer than sectarian malice at work here?
furt, that is very true, and it will continue. We call the developing world the “2/3 world” as 2/3 of all Christians live there. I would not say, as some do, that Christianity is dying out in the West, but rather that it is diminishing in some places, stagnating in others, and reviving in some (France, for instance. Christianity Today had an interesting story on this a few issues ago.) (BTW, I recommend CT to those who want to get an idea of what is going on in moderate, particular American, Evangelicalism.)
Ramifications of this:
-Developing nations are changing from missionary-receivers to missionary-senders.
-Christians from those part of the world are demanding, and receiving, a bigger role in theology and planning.
-These Christians are generally conservative socially, like their home cultures. Most, however, are more liberal economically and have great concerns about social justice. Liberation theology lives on and has influence in many different circles
-Christians living in pluralists cultures are also having to develop a “theology of religions,” something that has largely been neglected by the West.
<b>eleanorigby</b>, thanks for your participation in this thread and for your good questions.
Regarding the proselytizing: I actually touch on this a bit in the OP. Many Christians believe they have found something precious, something beyond cost, and want others to experience the same. My faith is the most important aspect of my life; if I can share about the mundane, I should be able to share about this. A lot of people are interested and want to hear. Of course, if someone doesn’t want to hear, a simple “no thanks” should be sufficient. To push beyond this is bad manners.
On loss of faith: I am in no position to judge you; neither is anyone else. All I can say about anyone is “It’s not over yet.” That you have any questions and interest at all is evidence the Holy Spirit is with you.
Regarding inerrancy: I believe the desire to see the bible as inerrant springs from the desire for certainty. People don’t want to be 20, 40, 80, or even 99% certain about what they believe; they want 100%. Belief in an inerrant bible can bring this. The problem comes up when doubts arise. People then either close their minds or lose their faith. It’s really sad, actually, that some people teach that if you have doubts there’s something wrong with you or it’s simply because you don’t know the bible well enough. Faith, by definition, includes some uncertainty, and trust in what you cannot see.
I don’t have any problems with telling my students “I don’t know,” “I’m not sure,” or “I’m pulling this out of my hat.” Many are surprised, thinking I have some secret bible with all the answers in it. I don’t.
The same things could be said about those who believe in papal infallibility or the infallibility of church tradition. Perfection is an attribute that belongs to God and no one and nothing else.
Salve, Krokodil,
To answer your second question first: most Protestants view Roman Catholics as Christians. Although we disagree on many theological issues, this is generally recognized. This is in contrast to how they see Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, for example; generally, they are not viewed as Christian.
A quick aside: Why is it, though, if you ask many Catholics, “Are you a Christian?” the response often is “I’m a Catholic” (or even sometimes, “No, I’m a Catholic” ) , rather than “Yes. . .” ?
The first question: there are many, many theological differences, going back to the Reformation of the 16C. The main split was over the issue of justification by faith. Although I agree more with the Protestant view, personally I feel Luther and Calvin overstated their case.
Another issue was over authority in faith. Protestants see the Bible as their final authority; Roman Catholics put church tradition and teaching at the same level. When that is done, often tradition trumps Scripture. Traditional Roman Catholics will assert, “You have left the true church. We have the teachings from original times.” Protestants will counter, “But we have even earlier teachings, direct from the apostles, in the Bible.” For example, Peter was married, and it talks about bishops having wives; why then the celibacy of the clergy?
The primacy of Rome is also a difference. “Catholic” means “worldwide” or “universal.” How can that which is universalized also be particularized in one particular city, language, or people?
The mass is another issue. Catholics see it as a sacrifice of Christ afresh. Protestant believe the sacrifice of Christ was once for all (Heb.7:27), and that the Eucharist is a memorial (1 Cor. 11:24-26).
Finally, the exalted role of Mary, the veneration of saints, and the use of images are also major concerns for Protestants. I think the message of the OT could be summed up as “idols = bad.” Roman Catholics respond that they are not idols and that they do not worship them. That’s not what it looks like, particularly in parts of the developing world. Also, the scriptural prohibition is against the making of images at all. The whole practice seems spiritually dangerous.
Again, let me stress that most Protestants do see Catholics as Christians; however, these are not small issues. The good news is that a lot of the malice is dying out, and some progress has been made in dialogue the last few decades; I hope that it can continue with the new pope.
Theologue, just as a point of reference, where did you go to school? Again, duck that if you like.
I’d never heard of that term before, but googling was very interesting. Do you know of any good popular introductions?
Primarily because for nearly 200 years in the States and, to a lesser extent, in Britain, “Christian” was a code word for Protestant. There was a certain amount of mobility among the Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, etc., that permitted “Christian” to be used to identify oneself regardless which (Protestant) church one’s family happened to be attending at the time, but Catholics were always Catholics. Housing and other real estate, bank loans, and jobs that were closed to Catholics generally had language that included “Christians” and, eventually, Catholics got in the habit of using the popular nomenclature.
Only in recent years have I become aware that some fundamentalist groups don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. I don’t think that we can generalize about how most Protestants view either of these groups.
This may be true, but can you provide a cite please?
I’ve seen paintings and images in stained glass in Protestant churches. I’ve even seen carvings. Since Catholics don’t worship the images in their churches any more than Protestants worship the stained glass windows, I don’t understand this concern. (By the way, I am a Protestant and was raised in the church.) How sad to be concerned about the way something “looks” as opposed to what it really is.
As a child, I took the Bible quite literally and made a place to pray in my closet. I had a picture of Jesus on the wall and that’s where I knelt to pray. I guess it might have looked like I was worshipping the picture, but it wasn’t anyone else’s place to judge how it looked.
You might also want to know that the Pope is not considered to be infallible as a human being. No one is making that claim.
I was given a lot of misinformation about the Catholic Church when I was growing up. You have been very courteous and responsive here in general, but as a fellow Protestant, I can tell you honestly that you need to read some unbiased sources of information.
Just to hijack a wee bit, Zoe, it’s not just fund’ists but the moderate-liberal National Council of Churches also finds LDS theology to be so outside of historic C’tian faith as to exclude the LDS Church from membership (I’m not sure how the Swedenborgian Church of the New Jerusalem got OK’d tho).
Also. while in the US/West, there is little real problem with Catholic icono-dulia slipping into idolatry, the folk Catholicism in many 3rd-world cultures does more easily lapse into that. A lot of the Protty-Catholic tensions we consider settled in the developed democratic-capitalist world are still sore spots in the developing & undeveloped cultures.
I learned something today!