I've had time for personal development like art and religious studies. Here is one result, which is a work in progress:
To_______,
I was thinking today while I was working about what you said about ‘liberal’ theology, and what you said was very consistent with traditional Christianity. Changing the order of Bible stories is the capstone on a long history of logical development in Christian theology. It solves many problems.
I took two fantastic courses in my Master’s program from Dr. Bertram, a well known Lutheran theologian, who has since passed away. We studied much of the Patrilogia, which is the collection of Early Christian writings. What was preserved was the ‘winning’ arguments, but there were many other points of view in the early church. We know of the opposing viewpoints because most of the writings are arguments ‘against’ another person. They are usually titled “against so and so”.
These writings also evolve. You can see it right inside the New Testament. The apostle John in his letters, tells how he is not accepted in the changing Christian church. He talks of deceivers who deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This happened because Christianity absorbed more and more ‘gentiles’ who had been immersed in Greek culture. Hellenism, or Greek culture, especially Greek philosophy, found the flesh distasteful and prone to evil. Philosophers, particularly Plato, were fascinated with the mathematics underneath life. They felt that the body was something to escape from. The idea of having a God with a body was against all their philosophy.
Also, the early Christians were heavily persecuted. To avoid this, they sought common ground with the people around them through finding similarities with Greek Philosophy which was respected. As they did this, philosophy gradually became elevated to an almost equal level with scripture.
And until about 150 AD, there was no official cannon of scripture. There are about 70 years between writings of the Apostles and the beginning of a cannon. During that time we have a story of a reconciliation, and the writings of Justin Martyr. It was in 150 AD that we heard from Irenaus, the Bishop of Lyons, who proposed that there be 4 gospels because there are 4 corners of the earth, and that the policies of the Church in Rome be followed because Peter died there. There were no Apostles, and it was being debated which Bishop should lead.
It was about this time also that the Apostles Creed was written to define who was a true believer and who was involved in heresies. I think this creed still includes a physical resurrection when I read it. Christianity came from the Jews, and at least half of them still believed in a physical resurrection. Paul used that argument to get the Saducees and Pharisees to fight amongst themselves instead of focusing on him. In the middle ages, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides opens his ‘Mishnah Torah’ with the statement that many Jews believed in a Physical resurrection in old times.
Over the next centuries there were many Christian writers who argued about heresies concerning Christ and who he was. The main heretical group was the Arians, who said that Chirst ‘became’ fully God. The ‘orthodox’ or winning view said that Chirst was always equal to God. These arguments chronicle a developing view of who Christ was. And all the arguments were based on the rules of Rhetoric, or logic. You went from one point to the next point, until you came to a conclusion. Point by point, the view of Christ underwent a metamorphosis. Logic was equal to the Biblical record.
Then came the conversion of Constantine, who wanted to use Christianity to unite the Roman Empire. He gathered all the opposing parties to several councils, such as Nicea, and told them to agree on a single creed. What happened was typical of politics – a carefully worded document that was so broad and general that no parties could disagree with it.
Compare the Apostles Creed with the Nicene Creed sometime and you’ll see the changes I am talking about.
After that, when everyone supposedly agreed, and also enjoyed the protection of the state, they had to start explaining what the Nicene Creed really meant. That went on for about a century.
Right before the fall of the Roman Empire came St. Augustine, who ended the discussion. His works are so painstakingly and thoroughly logical that nobody has ever dared to refute his arguments. By all the rules of logic, he has sewn up the argument. He states outright that his goal is to disprove the scripture that man is created in the image of God. He concludes that man and God have no likeness at all in any way, except for sharing a sense of justice.
All traditional Christian theologians after him, Catholic and Protestant, have accepted his verdict. This has produced other problems to grapple with like free will and evil (and what actually did happen to the body of Jesus?). If God is so far above us and he created us out of nothing, then he created both good and bad people. Both came entirely from God. Hence came the doctrine of election, which was mostly taken up by John Calvin who was a great fan of St. Augustine. Lutherans sit on the fence about that.
Then came Modernity, which was the topic of my second class with Dr. Bertram, and the crisis between freedom of the human will and the traditional doctrine of a God that creates at His will. Who is in control? Man or God?
My Masters Thesis topic was based on that class, and in struggling with all of that I came to a few conclusions: If God is disembodied, and wholly different from us, then he is far away and not intimately involved in the affairs of men. But, if God is like us, and conversely in our image, then He can be involved in the affairs of men. God can involve himself in the material world because it will not defile Him. The material world is ‘good’ as it says in Genesis.
A disembodied God is a convenient god. He lets us worry about the material world. He makes no rules about it. When there are no rules, there is no breaking of rules. And the crux of that is that then there is no guilt. And isn’t that the uncomfortable thing we are all running away from?
But like I said earlier, that argument ended with St. Augustine. And your liberal theology professors are carrying Traditional Christianity to it’s logical conclusion.
It does not work with Traditional Christian logic to have a Christ that has a body after he dies. There must be a logical explanation found for the resurrection. The answer is Biblical Criticism – a fascinating study. Not all the Bible was written at the same time. So why not carry that a bit further and say that parts of the books of the Bible (which means library) were written at different times? They say the last part of the book of Mark was added later. Why not switch around the timing of the stories. It works. And it solves one of the gaping holes in Tradtional Christian logic – What happened to the body of Jesus. Wow. It means he never had one after his death.
No body, no sacred matter, no God who meddles in matter, no rules about it, no punishment – and no guilt!!!! It works.
Then I ask, what if you threw out the whole logic of Christian history and went back to the Bible as it is preserved? You would find witnesses of the resurrection of Christ - hundreds of witnesses. They saw him cook and eat and walk, they touched his wounds. Those wounds are the key. The witness who touched them no longer had faith, but knowledge. And think what that meant for how they viewed their own humanity. They knew that because Christ was resurrected that they would be too. Their bodies were not disposable.
How would someone feel about their body if it was not disposable? Would they see it as a temple, as Paul said? Would it be sacred? How would that change how they take care of it physically? How would they feel about defiling it with sin? Would they be accountable to God for what they did with it? Would there be laws about how to use it? Laws, consequences and the dirty word – guilt?
Lots to think about. It’s been fun putting it into words. Sorry I say so much, and not enough, in a long nutshell. Hope it makes some sense. Enjoy your classes!
Becky
PS – I could expand this by a further discussion of free will or how the Bible says to get rid of guilt. Too much…
