Jesus, that non-Christian
Andrew Sullivan was kind enough to link to my last post on the Wedding at Cana.
After quoting one paragraph on what I (semi-humorously) called the feminist overtones of the story, he adds:
And this, of course, makes the modern Catholic church’s refusal to grant women the full equality Jesus did all the more pernicious and un-Christian.
I’m not sure what to say other than to disassociate myself from these comments.
I’m not even sure what Mr Sullivan is referring to here. Women in the priesthood? Contraception? Abortion?
Suffice it to say that while I appreciate that Mr Sullivan apparently thinks he is more qualified to decide what is “un-Christian” than the Catholic Church I don’t believe the Church is pernicious or not Christian. And I don’t want anyone (if there is a single person alive who cares) to infer otherwise from Mr Sullivan’s post.
Just like you apparently think you’re more qualified to decide what is un-Biblical? Like I said in the other thread, my Bible says that women are not allowed to teach men, or take authority over them.
That strikes me as a pretty critical flaw in your argument of the Bible as a feminist text. I know you think I’m “smug”, or something, but surely that objection is worth addressing? As it is you just seem to pretend that the Bible doesn’t say that. Maybe you could get over your apparent disgust with me and explain?
— Chet · Jan 26, 08:39 PM · #
To support Sullivan’s argument, wouldn’t Mary have had to change to water into wine herself, rather than approach Jesus and instruct the hosts to do what Jesus tells them to do?
— JohnMcG · Jan 26, 09:17 PM · #
I understand your dismay at his taking your words much farther than you intended them, but I do think you over-reach a bit here:
Mr Sullivan apparently thinks he is more qualified to decide what is “un-Christian” than the Catholic Church
I don’t think this is so remarkable — he joins most non-Catholic Christians in feeling that way, along with heterodox self-described Catholics.
— kenB · Jan 26, 10:26 PM · #
The antecedent of his “this” is not precisely clear to me.
— Julana · Jan 26, 10:32 PM · #
The problem with this post is the implication that calling the Catholic Church un-Christian is the same as calling Jesus un-Christian, which doesn’t follow.
— Freddie · Jan 26, 10:51 PM · #
kenB,
Do you have evidence for your claim that “most non-Catholic Christians” consider the Catholic Church un-Christian?
Freddie,
Can you provide a quotation for the part of this post where PEG implies that calling the Catholic Church un-Christian is the same thing as calling Jesus un-Christian?
I thought this was a pretty straightforward post. PEG wanted to disassociate himself from Sullivan’s remarks about the Catholic Church. The only implication of the post, in my reading, is that it’s a bit rich for Andrew Here Be Christianists Sullivan to make a statement which smacks of the fundamentalist certainty that he elsewhere deplores.
— Kate Marie · Jan 26, 11:11 PM · #
Freddie,
I apologize. I see now that you were referring to the title of the post.
— Kate Marie · Jan 26, 11:14 PM · #
I’m not the original poster, but I think the existence of the Protestant Reformation is evidence enough for that claim.
— DavidG · Jan 26, 11:57 PM · #
Nice try, DavidG. See, there’s this pesky thing called “history,” in which religious ideas tend to change over time. Or are you suggesting that most protestants believe exactly the same thing about Catholics today as they did, say, in 1500? That’s like trying to prove that the Catholic Church supports torture by referencing the Inquisition.
So, do you have any evidence that most modern-day non-Catholic Christians consider the Catholic Church un-Christian?
— Kate Marie · Jan 27, 12:15 AM · #
Sure, Kate. History is relevant here, of course, since the very fact of the existence of non-Catholic denominations means that, at the very least, the authority of the Catholic church to define “Christianity” is not recognized, which is the main point of interest here. Otherwise, they’d just all be Catholics. (The unrelated question – whether protestants consider Catholics to be “un-Christian” – varies wildly, depends on who you ask. But even if most say “no”, that still doesn’t mean they accept the Catholic definition of Christianity.)
— DavidG · Jan 27, 12:30 AM · #
In any case, though I don’t have a poll in hand, I think it’s logically safe to conclude that non-Catholics don’t see Jesus and the Pope as equal authorities on Christianity. And it’s somewhat disingenuous of the author to suggest otherwise, that anyone questioning the Catholic Church’s credentials on Christianity has no authority to do so. That is, after all, what the Protestant Reformation was all about, and that’s what just about all Protestant theology has in common. And, in general, even for those of us working outside of religious institutions, we have at least as much authority to define for ourselves what these things mean for us – we reject the implicit command of the Catholic Church in this regard. The relationship between a believer and scripture and his/her faith is a deeply personal matter, not necessarily under the jurisdiction of the Church, and in fact, it is the believer’s responsibility to speak truth to power when injustice is perceived.
— DavidG · Jan 27, 12:56 AM · #
But, David G, the “unrelated question” (whether most non-Catholic Christians consider Catholics to be un-Christian) is the one you chose to answer with the “evidence” of the Reformation.
I don’t think PEG made any claims about the authority of the Catholic Church to define Christianity, except to imply (in my reading) that the Catholic Church probably has at least as much authority to define Christianity (and who qualifies as Christian or un-Christian) as Andrew Sullivan.
— Kate Marie · Jan 27, 12:56 AM · #
The overwhelming majority of the people who call themselves Christian in the world today, and the overwhelming majority of all the people who have called themselves Christian in the history of the world, do not share and have not shared Andrew Sullivan’s views on the ordination of women, gay marriage, or a host of other issues. (The handful of American churches which do share his views are hemorrhaging members.)
Of course Andrew Sullivan is free to define his rather idiosyncratic beliefs as “true Christianity,” just as Lenin was free to define dictatorship by the Party as “true democracy,” but that is not a good faith use of language. And people like Sullivan who argue in bad faith and use language dishonestly are despicable, the equivalent in the intellectual sphere of the people who maintained the gulag and the killing fields.
— y81 · Jan 27, 01:39 AM · #
Not caring. Not Catholic. And, say some, not Christian. But I say I am, and I say Catholics are too. Bad Christians maybe, but who ain’t.
— Adam Greenwood · Jan 27, 02:35 AM · #
Also, I should have said this earlier, but feminist overtones? I mean, you have to be a feminist to not blow off your ma when she asks for a favor? That’s more like not-a-jerkist overtones.
— Adam Greenwood · Jan 27, 02:37 AM · #
Well, for what it’s worth, most American Catholics seem to be more on Sullivan’s side of these issues (women priests, contraception, abortion) than on the side of official church teachings (to which I assume Gobry assents).
See: http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/093005/093005a.php
— Jerry · Jan 27, 03:06 AM · #
Like I said in the other thread, my Bible says that women are not allowed to teach men, or take authority over them.
I question your interpretation of the texts, as clearly women do teach men, and to take authority over them in the early Church. Women leaders are mentioned in Acts as well as in Paul’s epistles.
— Keljeck · Jan 27, 03:18 AM · #
Kate Marie, you’re wildly misreading my comment. Let me start at the beginning:
The statement of PEG’s that I reacted to said:
“while I appreciate that Mr Sullivan apparently thinks he is more qualified to decide what is “un-Christian” than the Catholic Church“…
The implication is that it’s presumptuous of AS to think that he’s better-equipped than the Catholic church to judge what actions do and don’t fit with Christ’s message. Right?
My point, which DavidG was helpfully getting at as well, is that any Christian who disagrees with the position of the Catholic church on anything is effectively privileging his/her own opinion over that of the Catholic church on that topic. This set of people includes most non-Catholics and some Catholics.
Disagreeing with the Catholic church on some matters of the spirit is not at all the same thing as calling the Catholic church “un-Christian”. It’s just to say that many of us do in fact believe that we are better-equipped than the Catholic church to determine how Christ wants us to live. This really doesn’t seem particularly shocking or presumptuous to me.
— kenB · Jan 27, 03:43 AM · #
Oops, change “non-Catholics” to “non-Catholic Christians”…
— kenB · Jan 27, 03:45 AM · #
kenB,
The Catholic Church claims the authority of its teaching office in matters of faith and morals. In some cases these doctrines are held to be infallible. A lot of the divisive issues the Church takes strong stands on are built into an elaborate web of theology that the Church has been building up for hundreds of years. While the doctrines that most decline assent to may not be infallible, it is presumptuous, I think in the Catholic mindset, to tell the man sitting in the seat of Peter that every Pope for the past few hundred years, every Bishop, every Cardinal, most theologians, had it all wrong. Particularly when some of these criticisms are so recent.
I don’t want to pass judgment, after all I’m Protestant. I do believe that I am better equipped than the Catholic Church to know how Christ wants me to live. But if the Church claims certain authority, and you willingly assent to this authority (after all, isn’t this the point of the sacrament of Confirmation?) it should be taken seriously. Not that everyone should just do what the Pope thinks, but one should not be as flippant as to claim the Church takes “pernicious and un-Christian” action.
— Keljeck · Jan 27, 04:31 AM · #
Jesus wasn’t a christian. He was a Jew.
— cw · Jan 27, 06:03 AM · #
I think most non-Catholic Christians would agree that, even though they do not accept its authority, the Catholic Church is Christian, and even would agree that, in fact, even if they may disagree with it about a bunch of stuff, it knows more about what Christianity means than Andrew Sullivan. I think most Orthodox Christians would agree with that, as well as most high-church Protestants, and a good chunk of Evangelicals — while acknowledging that they think the Church’s magisterium is wrong about this, that and the other thing.
I’m not asserting that the Catholic Church is the only authority on deciding what is or isn’t Christian (the Church itself doesn’t think that non-Catholic Christians aren’t Christians), only that it’s a bigger authority than Andrew Sullivan.
Which seems pretty straightforward to me.
— PEG · Jan 27, 09:12 AM · #
“…it knows more about what Christianity means than Andrew Sullivan.”
I see your point and would tend to agree with it in the sense that you probably had in mind (after all, they’re all bunch of theologists and have 2000 years of tradition on their side), but it seems to me that one could still easily argue that the whole reason of existence of other Christian Churches is precisely in that they don’t think that the Catholic Church (or the Church, as you refer to it) is qualified to decide some of those questions or, more precisely, that it has disqualified itself by answering some of those questions incorrectly. And while those questions may seem to you fairly irrelevant, don’t forget that millions and millions have perished in religious wars and persecutions.
Plus, your argument ultimately rests on some kind of “institutional deference” – just because Church has been doing it for 2000 years and just because that’s part of their regular business, does not really make them more qualified in every sense. It is still possible that according to some “objective measure of Christianity” Sullivan is more right than Catholic Church, even if he might have merely stumbled upon the right answer.
— Marko · Jan 27, 10:02 AM · #
“The problem with this post is the implication that calling the Catholic Church un-Christian is the same as calling Jesus un-Christian, which doesn’t follow.”
This is precisely what we Catholics are called to believe. That the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ and that we assent to its teaching authority just as we assent to the teaching authority of Christ in the Gospel.
— Lasorda · Jan 27, 12:06 PM · #
PEG: Ah, I hadn’t read your comment as denigrating the theological wisdom of Andrew Sullivan in particular, as opposed to believers in general. All clear now, sorry for the distraction.
— kenB · Jan 27, 02:18 PM · #
I can only speak for the conservative evangelicals I know, but believe me when I tell you – they’re convinced your church is Satanic. They don’t see you as fellow Christian travelers, they see you as idolaters. Veneration of the saints? Intercessory prayer? Transubstantiation? These aren’t hilarious dogmas to evangelical Christians; these are incredibly troubling heresies that, to an evangelical, detract and divert attention and majesty from the glory of God.
You need to read a Jack Chick tract sometime. (When you’re done with the one that calls your religion a cult, read the one about Dungeons and Dragons. Great for a laugh.)
Doubtless, and as Sullivan is Catholic it’s a fair point. But it’s a little unreasonable to expect anyone else to agree, don’t you think?
I don’t see how it’s a matter of interpretation. 1st Timothy 2:12 is quite clear: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Now, you raise a thorny point – when the Bible shows us by example something it explicitly says not to do, how do we react to the contradiction? Are we to do as the Bible does, or as it says? (Of course, as an atheist, I resolve the dilemma quite simply.)
— Chet · Jan 27, 06:58 PM · #
Is Sullivan’s lack of theological rigor supposed to be self-evident? (I don’t know, maybe it is. I find Sullivan to be, ah, unessential to my daily diet, and I do not read him.)
I remain confused about PEG’s definition of feminism, and doubly confused about why I keep talking about it. After all, I’m awfully nice to my dog — doting, devoted, and generous — but I won’t let him sit at the table when the rest of us are eating.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 27, 11:38 PM · #
Chet,
1st Timothy is a letter, probably not even written by Paul. But regardless it is intended to troubleshoot a specific problem. In this case, it helps to look at the context, both in the letter and socially. Paul wishes that women dress modestly and learn in quietness and submission. They are not to talk over a man. Why dress modestly? What kind of women is he talking about?
Furthermore, submission to whom? The english makes it sound like it’s submission to the man, but the greek doesn’t seem to indicate that. Furthermore, the greek makes it clear that these are temporary injunctions. He does not intend for this to be the ultimate state of affairs, he intends it to be a temporary corrective. The overall thrust of the Gospel, after all, is clear. As Paul said there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, jew nor gentile, ect.
So it would seem reasonable to interpret this to mean that he was having trouble with some women coming in dressed extravagantly thinking that they didn’t need to learn. This is the point of the end of the chapter where he talks about Eve being the one deceived, though Adam wasn’t. In the story of Adam and Eve, if you read carefully, you notice that Eve was never instructed in what to do with the fruit. In fact, she says it is not to be touched which is absurd. Because of this lack of instruction she is easily deceived, even though Adam is right there and could have put an end to it.
So we have extravagantly dressed women, who don’t want to learn the Christian ways in the way “Paul” would like, and he expresses the importance of proper instruction. Who are these people? Perhaps prophetesses or priestesses from the pagan temples, or something. Either way, it seems to be a specific problem requiring a specific and temporary solution.
Don’t be so quick to look for a contradiction. If the early Church had a bunch of women leaders, how does it make sense that the same Church would cling to books that told them… not to have women leaders?
— Keljeck · Jan 28, 02:58 AM · #
Yeah, but aren’t we just complicating a nullity? The Bible comes from the same kind of assholes that, today, we’d be sure to cross the street to avoid on our way to our nice and tidy, workaday lives.
Unless God has talked to you personally, the smart bet is to doubt it.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 28, 05:13 AM · #
True, but it’s Scripture, and all Scripture is “God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2nd Timothy 3:16) The Bible is quite clear that we can’t dismiss portions of it simply because they’re letters, or what have you.
That problem would seem to be “women teaching and holding authority over men.” The fact that that’s perceived as a problem in need of a solution strikes me as a pretty substantial argument against the New Testament as a feminist text.
I don’t speak or read Greek, so I can only note that every English translation I examined – when I look up these passages, I get them in like 20 different translations – doesn’t seem to include any evidence of these being temporary injunctions whose time has past.
I’m with you on the first and last two, but I find absolutely no message in the Gospel that says there is no male and female aside from that single passage of Paul’s. And taken in context of his and the Bible’s other remarks – the ones that decry homosexuality, are against marriage or any romantic, sexual pairing, the ones that define a woman’s place in marriage as analogous to a man’s place before God, and so on – it’s clear that this line doesn’t mean that gender distinctions are irrelevant, or that the New Testament doesn’t outline a pretty clearly defined and limited role for women.
I’m sorry but that’s a pretty tortured reading of a passage that is quite clear. Paul doesn’t say “I do not allow these women to teach because they’re chatty know-it-alls”, he says “I do not allow a woman” – literally, any woman – “to teach or to have authority over a man” – any man. Why? “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” It’s pretty clear that the invocation of the chronological primacy of Adam is meant to support an argument that women are below men. Just as Eve was second to Adam, all women are meant to be second to all men. Just as Eve screwed us all with the fruit thing, women have to be put in their place or we’re all doomed.
Your reading just doesn’t hold up when you read the Bible. I think the proof of this is the diminished status of women in cultures and Churches that are the most fundamentalist and conservative – that is, most likely to read the Bible as its actually written.
We’re not talking about the Church, we’re talking about the Bible. Was the early Church a more feminist enterprise? Yes, that’s probably true (to the extent it was even possible in antiquity.) But it’s quite clear that by the time the Bible was actually being written, a backlash against even that limited equality had occurred, and that’s the perspective the Bible was written to privilege and maintain.
— Chet · Jan 28, 05:30 PM · #
The test is whether it’s possible to derive a robust feminism — what we would recognize as feminism — from the actual text of the bible. It is not.
Once a proper feminism exists, then yes, post facto correlations are possible. But unless you already have a feminist theory in hand, unless you already know what to look for, there is no way on earth one can read the bible and, without more, conclude that women should be considered political, cultural, and economic equals. The most you can say is that the bible is neutral on the subject: it doesn’t pave the way for feminism, but it doesn’t foreclose the possibility of it either.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 28, 06:19 PM · #
Chet,
Forgive me if I’m misreading you, but is your point basically that, if one insists on a literal and fairly ahistorical interpretation of the New Testament, it can’t be viewed a feminist text? Okay, but so what? The Big Bad Catholic Church doesn’t endorse the “fudamentalist” reading of the New Testament that you insist upon. What if PEG had said that Christianity is essentially “feminist” while the Bible, though divinely inspired, is inevitably influenced by the historical moment in which it was written? If the diminished status of women in cultures that take a more fundamentalist approach to the Bible is proof of the Bible’s anti-feminism or misogyny, can the generally higher status of women in societies and states that have their origins in the culture of Christian Europe be considered proof of the “feminism” of Christianity?
FWIW, if I’m remembering my reading of Elaine Pagels correctly, she makes a good case that the famous “misogynistic” passages of the Pauline texts were not written by Paul. That doesn’t exonerate the Bible, but it does redeem Paul a bit.
— Kate Marie · Jan 28, 06:35 PM · #
It’s ironic that the two categories of people who are most likely to insist that “true” Christianity requires a simplistic literal interpretation of the Bible are fundamentalists and dogmatic atheists.
— kenB · Jan 28, 06:56 PM · #
Well, PEG called it the “world’s first feminist text.” “First” is hyperbole, I’m sure; surely he’s not unaware of all the earlier and and more egalitarian texts. But the use of the term “first” certainly indicates that PEG is implying that the Bible was a work of feminism – a text meant to promote an ethic of gender egalitarianism – when it was written, not as we interpret it in our own culture, today.
I would disagree, and make a different argument in doing so. What’s your point?
Ken – what’s “simplistic” about noting that the Bible simply doesn’t say what Keljeck says it does? The Timothy author (since I take Kate’s point, maybe it’s not Paul) doesn’t say “you know, for the next couple of years, we need these specific women not to teach or hold authority, but to keep quiet in church and not dress like harlots.” No plain reading of the Bible can support that interpretation. What it actually says is that women should not teach men, nor hold authority over them, nor speak in church, nor dress provocatively. “Women” as in all women. Not “women” as in “some local troublemakers.” The Bible quite clearly views the involvement of women leaders in the early Church as a complete mistake.
I’m not arguing in favor of “simplistic” readings. Just pointing out that the only way to construct a modern ethos of freedom, equality, and tolerance from the Bible is to torture the hell out of it. The Bible says some things and not others. It can’t be all things to all people at all times.
Anyway, there’s nothing “ironic” about it; fundamentalists and atheists are usually the only people who have actually read the whole Bible. When “moderate” Christians actually sit down to do so, it’s impossible for them to emerge as anything but a fundamentalist or an atheist (even if they won’t admit to being either.)
— Chet · Jan 28, 11:55 PM · #
The other thing I guess I don’t get – and it’s a serious question, maybe somebody could shed some light on it for me – in what sense could there be Christianity without the Bible? Someone would say they are a Christian because they follow Jesus and his teachings – that’s what the word “Christian” means – but, once you’ve dismissed the Bible, exactly what are you following? What source have you for the teachings and philosophy of Jesus once you’ve relegated the Bible and its derivatives to obsolete historical holdovers from a more brutal and less civilized time?
I mean what else is there in Christianity if you’re not taking the Bible at face value? The Popes?
— Chet · Jan 28, 11:59 PM · #
What’s your point?
Chet, I was just trying to formulate a statement about Christianity that wouldn’t raise your hackles, but apparently I failed. That’s okay. I’m just puzzled by the proselytizing tone (for lack of a better phrase) of your comments. I mean, what is it to you what PEG or I or anyone else believes about the Bible and Christianity? It’s neither here nor there to me that you’re an atheist. I don’t feel compelled, for instance, to hector you about the inconsistency of your apparent belief in things like “rights” with your atheism (I don’t want to start a long conversation about it either; if I’ve mischaracterized your beliefs, I apologize). Can you see why people might wonder about your “fundamentalist” tone here?
The Bible says some things and not others. It can’t be all things to all people at all times.
Amen, brother! ;)
Anyway, there’s nothing “ironic” about it; fundamentalists and atheists are usually the only people who have actually read the whole Bible.
Really? I think you need to get around more. There are some very serious Catholic theologians I’d like to introduce you to.
When “moderate” Christians actually sit down to do so, it’s impossible for them to emerge as anything but a fundamentalist or an atheist (even if they won’t admit to being either.)
That’s an astonishingly sweeping claim that, it seems to me, would require a rather long treatise to prove. But I do appreciate the cleverness of the way you’ve set up the claim here. Anyone who disagrees with you has either never read the Bible or simply refuses to admit her atheism and/or fundamentalism.
I appreciate the sincerity of the questions in your last comment, but do you really think the only two choices for Christians are “relegating the Bible and its derivatives to obsolete historical holdovers” and taking the Bible completely at face value?
— Kate Marie · Jan 29, 01:02 AM · #
I don’t know what you’re talking about. In your experience, what else does it sound like when two people with different religions talk about religion? Are these issues supposed to be something where we just say “you believe X, I believe Y, there’s no rhyme or reason to it so let’s agree to disagree?”
If you or PEG don’t think your beliefs are true what’s the point in having them? The modern reticence of the religious to defend their beliefs is something I find myself completely unable to understand.
Again, what’s “fundamentalist” about my tone? That I think I’m right and you and PEG are wrong? You both think the exact same thing about me, and I notice that nobody ever bandies about the term “fundamentalist” when we’re talking about, say, health care reform, even if people are no less confident in the correctness of their arguments.
I just don’t see how “fundamentalist” could possibly apply to me. A fundamentalist is someone who won’t even entertain the idea that their religion is wrong. I already think religions are wrong; it’s people like you and PEG who won’t entertain any perspective but your own.
You’re kidding, right? Catholics are notorious for not having read the Bible. I know when I went to Catholic mass we were actively discouraged from reading the Bible on our own. That was quite a few years ago.
Still, though, the interesting thing about the Catholic church is that the clergy is remarkably fundamentalist – surely you’ve noticed – and when Catholics are liberal, they’re invariably the laity. Kind of getting to my point – you can really only reconcile the Bible and liberalism by not really reading it.
I think those are the only two intellectually satisfying alternatives the Bible allows, yes. It’s pretty clear that you can’t pick and choose. The middle ground seems to be someone who says “well, I know the Bible says X, but Jesus didn’t really mean that.“ Well, great, but how do you know what he meant, when the Bible is literally the only source we have about Jesus’s life and philosophy?
— Chet · Jan 29, 05:28 AM · #
_ the Bible is literally the only source we have about Jesus’s life and philosophy?_
You sure about that?”:http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Feed/itunes.stanford.edu.1291405182.01291405187
Kind of a shame, really. I’m on your side in theory, but your practice needs honing. It’s like I tell my eight year old cousin…beware of absolutes.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 29, 06:01 AM · #
Formatting sucks grapenuts. Link is here.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 29, 06:03 AM · #
KVS I can’t tell what on Earth that’s supposed to be.
— Chet · Jan 29, 06:29 AM · #
I just want to elaborate on something I wasn’t very clear about. When I said:
with that caveat at the end, I guess I wasn’t trying to set up the unassailable argument you accused me of (but not without good reason.) What I had in mind, and this takes us off-topic quite a bit, but there’s a lot of people who call themselves “Christians” (or, in another culture, they might be Hindu or Muslim since that’s what everyone around them is) but, in practice, don’t really believe that God answers prayers supernaturally, don’t really believe that human beings are judged by any standards but their own, don’t really believe that any particular religion has the monopoly on divine revelation, don’t really expect divine intervention in their lives, and so on. May even explain that God is not a being, but a metaphor for human community, brotherhood, love, or some other abstract principle.
It’s that kind of “believer” that, as far as I can tell, doesn’t actually believe in God in any kind of practical sense. To that person God is no more a concrete reality in the universe than “fellowship” or “beauty” is. That’s the kind of person I was referring to when I meant “won’t admit to being atheist.” For all intents and purposes such a person is an atheist, but they call themselves “Christian” – or even just “spiritual” – as a kind of social fig leaf, to spare themselves the opprobrium levied against anyone who admits to atheism.
It’s fair enough that you caught me appearing to be too clever by half. I can only promise to try not to use it that way. If you catch me doing that I hope you’ll call me out on it.
— Chet · Jan 29, 08:02 AM · #
“I’m a Christian but I don’t read the Bible literally.”
Weasel words. (I know this isn’t a direct quote from this discussion.)
“See, there’s this pesky thing called “history,” in which religious ideas tend to change over time.”
But isn’t religion truth? Isn’t Christianity truth to Christians? How can truth change over time? How do you know when you’ve finally gotten to the truth?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand this position.
How do you decide which parts are true and which parts are myth? Which parts are literal and which are not?
To be a Christian, aren’t you required to believe that, literally, Jesus existed, was the son of God, was crucified, and rose from the dead? Literally. This part. As described.
I’m just wondering how you know to take THIS part literally but not some of the other parts.
Was there literally an ark and a flood? Or is that a myth?
Did a man literally live in the body of a fish, or is that a myth?
Which parts?
Where do you take you guidance on making these decisions? From the Pope?
How does he know? Did all of the Popes even agree with one another?? No? The truth is fluid? That’s weird.
Does each person decide on his or her own? Catholic leaders don’t like that one at all.
Either the Bible is true or it isn’t.
If you admit some of the Bible is mythology, aren’t you on a pretty slippery slope?
Can it really be partly true, partly not? Which parts? And what if you get it wrong? (Well, in the past, that gave us some nice stuff like torture.)
Even all of the sects of Christianity, often using the exact same Bible, can’t agree! That’s confusing.
Which sect has the truth? How can this position be coherent?
— Socrates · Jan 29, 03:25 PM · #
“See, there’s this pesky thing called “history,” in which religious ideas tend to change over time.”
Also, this is so good that I want to hit it again.
It IS pesky. Very. For Christians!
— Socrates · Jan 29, 03:27 PM · #
Socrates,
Very briefly: The Bible is not a book, it is a library of books, comprising a variety of genres and literary forms including biography, historiography, epistolary, homiletics, apocalyptic, poetry, wisdom literature, legend, and mythology. In the words of an important 20th century Church document, Dei Verbum:
To offer an initial scratch of the surface.
— SDG · Jan 29, 05:28 PM · #
Chet, it was a link to Standford’s online course on the historical Jesus. To alert you that there is indeed extra-biblical documentation of Yeshua of Nazareth, his life and deeds.
So it’s possible to believe in Jesus-as-whatever — have, in fact, an entire theology built around him — while maintaining that the Bible, particularly the Gospel of John and everything thereafter, is wrong and stupid and whathaveyou.
Since I love being snooty and citing Nietzsche, here’s my man Friedrich backing me up:
Lesson, then: temperance in all things is good*, particularly in language and truth-claims.
[*] Except for alcohol and women, of course.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 29, 06:01 PM · #
You’re kidding, right? Catholics are notorious for not having read the Bible. I know when I went to Catholic mass we were actively discouraged from reading the Bible on our own. That was quite a few years ago.
Chet, you do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, right? As for the Catholic clergy being fundamentalist — well, no, as a matter of fact, I hadn’t noticed that. I grew up in and have lived most of my life in Los Angeles, where in many parishes the clergy is more liberal than the laity. I do find it a little odd that you — whom I have previously presumed to be a champion of empiricism and science — seem to be offering your personal experience as proof of your claims. You said that fundamentalists and atheists are usually the only people who have read the whole Bible. I’m not sure how it’s possible to prove that claim, but what I was trying to get at with my response was not simply that I disagree, but that it might complicate/enrich your view of this issue if you were to read some serious Catholic theology.
I just don’t see how “fundamentalist” could possibly apply to me. A fundamentalist is someone who won’t even entertain the idea that their religion is wrong. I already think religions are wrong; it’s people like you and PEG who won’t entertain any perspective but your own.
I might expand the definition of fundamentalism to include “someone who won’t even entertain the idea that their views and beliefs are wrong, but to be honest, I think we’re both stretching the traditional definition of fundamentalism, as least with respect to religion. I have been under the impression that “fundamentalist” commonly refers to someone who adheres to a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible or other holy book. But I’m willing to entertain the notion that I’m wrong. :)
What have I ever said, by the way, that makes you think I am unwilling to entertain any perspective about my religious beliefs but my own? You say you think religion is wrong; are you willing to entertain any perspective but your own? I’m asking sincerely.
If you or PEG don’t think your beliefs are true what’s the point in having them? The modern reticence of the religious to defend their beliefs is something I find myself completely unable to understand.
I do think my beliefs are true, Chet, just as you think your beliefs are true. I’m perfectly willing to discuss them with you if you’ll explain to me which of my beliefs I’m supposed to be defending. I’ve already agreed with you that the Bible isn’t a “feminist” text. But that doesn’t contradict anything about my beliefs. If you want to argue that a proper reading of the Bible requires either atheist or fundamentalist conclusions, it just seems to me that that’s a discussion that’s beyond the scope of the comments section at TAS. But, heck, maybe I’m wrong.
— Kate Marie · Jan 29, 06:05 PM · #
Since we’re offering quotations, I’ll offer one I like from Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, just for the heck of it. It ain’t as snooty as citing Nietzsche, but it’s nice, anyway:
But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.
— Kate Marie · Jan 29, 06:19 PM · #
Chet,
Are you being serious? We’re having some difficulties here that I’m not sure how to solve. But since I’m a moron I’ll try.
When reading a text, it’s important to recognize the genre of the text. The hermeneutic you employ is much like reading a cookbook for the plot. What is 1st Timothy? It’s an epistle, or letter, most likely written pseudonymously, intended to troubleshoot problems in a specific faith community. Do you have an issue with this identification?
Secondly, when interpreting a text it is important to know its language. The Bible wasn’t written in english, it was written in Greek, no? Greek does a lot of crazy things. A lot of crazy things that cannot be implied succinctly in english. Usually clarification is placed in footnotes or commentaries. But to say, “but it says this in english!” is asinine. I understand what point you’re trying to get at, if the english translators didn’t adequately add that mood then why should I believe it’s there? But this is common in greek translation, because there are so many moods, tenses, and whatnot that to translate it faithfully it would be a horrible read. Take the Gospel of Mark for instance, moods and tenses change so freely translators ignore it because the common reader would get confused and not care.
So what you are doing is trying to read a letter in greek meant to troubleshoot a socio-cultural problem in the first century as the Ten Commandments. Is 1st Timothy nevertheless scripture? Of course! But just like Psalm 137 doesn’t condone the killing of babies, this text doesn’t condone the modern subjugation of women. It’s much like saying slavery in the south was ok, because Torah is fine with slavery… when they weren’t even doing it “right!”
Christian fundamentalism will survive in some form as long as there are atheists who think all of Christianity is Christian fundamentalism. You’re trying to set up a false dichotomy between “Bible Believin’ Christians!” who must be conservative, anti-feminist, and fundamentalist. And on the other side, “Effete Liberal ‘Christians’” who ignore their Bible and might as well not believe in God. Not to say both sides don’t exist, but it’s very simplistic to say those are the two options. You’re not making an argument as much as a narrative, something that I and others have to be shoved into somehow.
Since you don’t bother to provide an argument against my interpretation (well, beyond “just sayin’ what the Bible says” which is funny because that’s what I’m doing), I’ll just assume you have none. But I do want to note this lunacy:
We’re not talking about the Church, we’re talking about the Bible.
What does that mean? Who do you think wrote the friggin’ Bible? Space aliens? The Denver Broncos? Steve Jobs?
I think this answers your question before, whether Christianity can be divorced from the Bible. The Christian Bible, with the NT, is a product of Christianity. For a good two hundred years Christianity existed Bibleless. They were preaching out of the Hebrew Bible and using different texts to help them, texts which would later constitute the NT. Lest you think I’m an effete liberal “christian” I’m not at all suggesting the Bible is dispensable. Those who think that (which is quite a minority) are dead wrong. You are right, there is no way to get back to the real teachings of Jesus without the use of the Gospels. But it is important to understand what the Bible contains. And I think you are creating a faux problem by demanding the Bible must always be read in a certain way, when that is not how Christianity has always viewed the Bible.
— Keljeck · Jan 29, 07:26 PM · #
I didn’t see that in your link, I guess. Maybe you could elaborate?
— Chet · Jan 30, 02:15 AM · #
I’m all ears for reading suggestions, then. What makes theology “Catholic”? That the theologian is Catholic?
I usually use the term “Biblican literalist” for that view. But I can appreciate that “fundamentalist” is such an imprecise and loaded term. Maybe it’s best not to throw it around?
The fact that we’re having the conversation we’re having. I came in here asking questions about a religion you and PEG share; your reply was to complain about my tone. That strikes me as a pretty defensive reaction on your part – PEG’s certainly was, in the thread preceding this one. His sole response to a few questions I had was to call me “smug” and “incurious.” Right, it’s the guy who’s asking questions who is “incurious”, not the guy who refuses to answer them.
I asked the questions because I was curious. If it helps any, I think the fact that you’re still talking to me means you’re more prepared to question your own beliefs than PEG is. Perhaps I was mistaken to lump the two of you in together in that way. I apologize.
Sure! That’s where all the questions come from. It’s all meant to get at a pretty basic question – why should I believe that God exists? None of the theists who contribute to TAS have ever been able to answer that question. In fact they’ve been downright rude every time I’ve brought it up. It was actually what brought me here in the first place, trackbacks to Alan Jacobs’ completely unsatisfying and evasive replies to atheist blogger Jerry Coyne.
I’d say I’m doing some pretty heavy lifting in terms of trying to expose myself to intelligent people who can provide intelligent defense for the proposition that God exists. But so far no theist has even tried to do so. I get the same thing from every encounter: “Well, I don’t believe in God because of intellect, but if i had to, I’m sure an intellectual justification exists. I’m not the one who knows it, though. Why don’t you go talk to that theist, instead?”
Every theist simply passes me off to the theist to the left. (I fully expect, one day, to be passed off to Alan Jacobs, and thus have come full circle.)
All that is to say – yes, if you can provide the same level of evidence that I would accept for any other extraordinary existential claim, I’ll believe in God.
I guess I was speaking in the general. There’s probably nothing in this paragraph I disagree with.
— Chet · Jan 30, 02:30 AM · #
Uh, yes, a pretty substantial issue. The genre of the Bible is “scripture”, and the Bible says “all Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” So, right there, we see that while it’s certainly the case that 1st Timothy was written and sent as a letter to a specific church, it’s message is meant to apply to all Christians.
Sure. If you can show me that the passage, as written in Greek, uses a tense, mood, or case that implies contingent, local scope of the prohibition, that would be incredibly helpful. My understanding though is that Greek includes no such implict language feature – the meaning “these women” would be distinguished explicitly from “a woman”, meant in the general sense.
But you speak Greek, right? I mean you must, since you’re telling me what the passage says in Greek.
Not just “the English translators”; no English translator. Not a single English translation translates that passage the way you say it’s meant to be read. I mean I looked at 15 different English translations of the exact same passage and none of them translate it the way that you say it’s meant to be. What’s the explanation for that? You’re the only guy whose ever read the Bible and gotten it right?
That strikes me as a pretty bad example. The Psalm reads “… he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” It’s clear they’re referring to someone who will visit on the Babylonians what the Israelites were forced to suffer; they’re not talking about doing that themselves. But Paul says “I do not allow a woman to teach, or to take authority over a man.” That’s neither contingent nor limited in scope to any particular group of women. And it’s certainly meant to imply “and neither should you, reader.”
I don’t think all of it is Christian fundamentalism. That obviously makes no sense. I think a substantial portion of it is superstition, another substantial portion is “club dues”, and a not inconsiderable portion is flat-out atheism, ways for nominally-atheist theologians (and the moderates who read them) to find language and loopholes that allow them to be in the Christian “club” without actually believing in the reality of the Christian God.
The only thing the Bible supports, though, is a literalist reading. I’ve already explained why this is apparently the case.
Well, but that’s not what you’re doing. I can read. You’re telling me the Bible doesn’t contain the words I read it as containing; you’re saying it says something else. “Who are you gonna believe, Chet, me or your lying eyes?” The eyes have it, Keljeck. The reason I don’t believe you is that when I open my Bible and read it, I doesn’t say what you say it does. None of them do. I’m supposed to believe your command of Greek is so much better than the professionals who have been translating the Bibles for all of western history that you’re the only one who knows what it actually says?
Some of them would. Many of them weren’t included in the Bible. I think it’s a very interesting philosophical question as to whether or not the Christianity of the early Church was, in fact, a completely different religion than Christianity as we understand it, today. The Bible as we understand it isn’t really a product of the early Church, no more than “Ice Ice Baby” was written by Queen.
— Chet · Jan 30, 02:57 AM · #
I think the totality of the institutions, traditions, practises and sacred writings of Christianity are clearly and profoundly anti-feminist and that people who claim otherwise are either ignorant, deluded or lying.
I agree with Sam Harris that religious moderates tend to support rather than undermine religious fundamentalists, by affirming their central belief that religious faith is a legitimate source of knowledge and moral guidance. If you argue that people are justified in believing through faith that God wants them to do something, then you are arguing that people are justified in believing through faith that God wants them to do anything, including hijacking airliners and flying them into tall buildings. Faith is the fundamental problem.
— Jerry · Jan 30, 03:49 AM · #
See what I mean, Kate? As soon as I ask the question, I’m talking to an empty room.
— Chet · Jan 30, 10:34 PM · #
Oh, good grief. Hello, Chet. I suspect that many people don’t want to devote a lot of time to this on the weekend (you know, families, kids, other obligations).
I’ll offer you some random thoughts and come back when I have time to sit down and write.
First, I don’t think you’ve understood Keljeck, and it doesn’t seem like you’re trying very hard, but that’s just my impression. I will say — since we haven’t been averse to invoking personal experience in this thread — that my experience, with both students and friends who are “Biblical literalists,” has been that they gravitate toward science, that they’re not very comfortable with literary complexity. The Bible isn’t just Scripture, Chet. As has already been pointed out, it contains a variety of genres and styles (mythology, historiography, poetry, biography, etc.) It can’t be read like a cookbook (to borrow Keljeck’s apt analogy), and it never has been, as Keljeck has pointed out. Let me ask you this, to help clarify things. Is it your position that Christians who aren’t deluding themselves must accept the creation story (or stories) as fact?
Second, why are you searching for answers in the comments section of TAS, or any other blog? If you’re “all ears” for reading suggestions, can it really be possible that you’ve done no research/reading of your own? I’ve read the Sam Harris book and the Hitchens book (well, part of the Hitchens book), and lots of philosophers who aren’t very friendly toward Christianity or theism. What have you already read?
Why should I believe that God exists?
Do or do not. There is no should. ;)
Now, I offer you a brotherly (or sisterly) embrace, though I have my reservations about whether you deserve the Alysosha Karamazov treatment, and I hope you enjoy your weekend.
— Kate Marie · Jan 30, 11:30 PM · #
Maybe, but he’s not working very hard to help me understand him. He keeps saying the Bible says X, but then I open it and it says Y. He keeps saying that Paul (or whoever) was referring to a specific group of mouthy broads Timothy’s church was having problems with – who kept dressing immodestly and teaching and holding authority over men and speaking, of all things! – but then I open about a dozen different Bibles and in every single one of them, Paul is talking about all women, everywhere and what he does or does not allow them to do.
I understand Keljack to be telling me the Bible says something that I can read – quite clearly – that it doesn’t say. It’s like he’s trying to tell me that Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Suggestions.
The Bible just doesn’t say what Keljack says it does, in any translation I have access to.
Sure, but that part of the epistle is clearly Paul talking about the place of women. And their place is as the lesser, to be silent, not to try to teach or hold authority over their betters. That’s the only conclusion supportable by text.
Would it surprise you that before I got into biochemistry, I was an English major? I have training to recognize and deal with literary complexity.
But this passage isn’t very complex. It’s quite simple. It’s not poetry, it’s not allegory, there’s no figurative language, it’s not about history, it’s not myth-making. It’s a pretty simple statement about the place of women in God’s church. There’s just no wiggle-room in this part of the text for saying it applies only to some specific group of women.
I’ve read Lewis, I’ve read Chesterton, I’ve read theologians and apologists from populists like John McDowell and from academics like John Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantiga. Plantiga was the biggest disappointment – Alan Jacobs insisted that I would find the intellectual justification for faith in God that I sought, but I read his work only to find that he does exactly what they all do – assumed the intellectual justification existed but asserted that he himself had no need of it, because he believes by faith, not by intellect.
And, look, you can’t talk to a book. You can’t press it on an argument they only poorly supported, and if someone like Polkinghorne, for instance, presents an argument for which I’ve already read the refutation in Dawkins, there’s no way to get Polkinghorne to address the rebuttal except to hope he notices and writes another book someday.
Not so much. It’s possible (if not scientifically accurate) to interpret Genesis as an allegory for evolution, or whatever. But where the Bible says “hey, these are the things you cannot do, like have gay sex, or eat ‘unclean’ animals, or allow a woman to have authority over a man”, I don’t understand from what basis a Christian feels they can “pick and choose” from their Holy Book. The Bible itself is pretty clear that you can’t do that.
Well, may the Force be with you, and have a good weekend! Looks like I wrote another novel.
— Chet · Jan 31, 01:41 AM · #
Re: the overwhelming majority of all the people who have called themselves Christian in the history of the world, do not share and have not shared Andrew Sullivan’s views on the ordination of women, gay marriage, or a host of other issues.
True, but then at on$e time the beliefs espoused by today’s Baptists (to use one example) would have gotten one burned at the stake.
And for that matter there are formal teachings in the RC today which would have made Innocent III flip his triple tiara.
— JonF · Feb 9, 03:36 AM · #