Misquoting Jesus: the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Ehrman is an evangelically trained (Moody Bible Institute) professor and author who is one of the more respected experts in the ancient languages that compose our earliest fragments of the Bible. Ehrman manages in this book to effectively mask precisely his own religious convictions, which will be discomforting for many who want to know more precisely where his scholarship has taken his beliefs. Regardless of his profession of faith (or lack thereof), Ehrman’s treatment of the Bible itself is respectful, serious and scholarly. He is never diminutive either in his treatment of the evidence or the theological claims whose tenuous existence rides on select passages he sees fit to point out deserve to be viewed with suspicion.
Having long ago left Moody for Wheaton (B.A.) and Princeton Theological Seminary (M.Div. and Ph.D.), he now holds the Chair for the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill. Known primarily for his book The Lost Christianities: the Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Ehrman has most recently written an easily accessible guide to how the Bible came into the form it now did. The book will not be accepted by literalists who hold to a view of inerrancy, or even to most within the more moderately minded Emergent movement because his logic and the persuasive power of his examples force us to adopt a critical method of interpreting what in the Bible is original and what has been added in. Because much of what is added in to the Bible can be explicitly traced to claims as to Jesus’ divinity, the theological importance given the Trinity will outweigh any textual evidence scholars such as Ehrman can contribute.
The great sigh of relief that will come for many readers will be in their ability to give feet to suspicions they have as to texts that seem oddly disjointed, conveniently placed or simply dead wrong. A great example of this that Ehrman does not explore which I would have enjoyed hearing him comment on is Paul’s advice to the church about getting married. Paul believed that Jesus was to return to earth within his lifetime and that because of this imminence, it was better for people to remain unmarried so they could be about the “business of the kingdom”. Whether this was sincere, a deeper problem as to Paul’s sexuality, or his own inability to be in a relationship due to his view as to his own apostolic significance we have only conjecture. However, what we do not have to conjecture over is that Paul was simply and profoundly wrong. It takes the tricks and sleights of hand of theologians who stretch this passage beyond any recognition of what it actually says to make Paul’s words mean something other than what they obviously do. Why is this done? Because these theologians begin not from the perspective of employing reason to elucidate, but from the point of blind belief that the Bible must be in some form or fashion literally true, and then work backwards into a convoluted and confused explanation as to why Paul did not mean what his recorded words obviously mean. What is at risk is the heart of the faith itself: if Paul was wrong about this, then what else was he wrong about? If he can not be trusted to be a prophet, then can we trust him when he talks of his miraculous conversion experience, alludes to personal revelations as to the divinity of Jesus, or makes claims as to miracles he has worked? Are we to be suspect of his own claims as to the Resurrection itself? It is for each of these questions that Paul must not have meant what he obviously did, and theologians across time-past and world-round have attempted to pervert the clear meaning of these words in order to avoid the implication that we must weigh what is claimed as Paul’s words against the greater damage that could be done to orthodox Christianity if we were to acknowledge that one of its earliest proponents was no more functioning under divine revelation than those who profess to do so today. And most problematically still in this line of reasoning is that if Paul bears any resemblance to the modern-day prophets of Christianity who are so consistently wrong, was Paul of the same character and caliber? Getting answers to these questions is in part what is refreshing about Ehrman’s scholarship: to be able to encounter someone who takes seriously the Bible, but who is unwilling to allow it to stand on its own ground separated from reason and criticism.
In Ehrman’s book, the paucity of evidence for his claims is not the problem, rather the implications to theology if they are taken seriously. Ehrman avoids adopting the more extreme forms of textual criticism and instead focuses primarily on showing how manuscripts evolved and how, during particular crises in the church, copy can be shown to have mysteriously made its way into the canon in order to support those making singular claims as to orthodoxy. This is a serious book but because it is written for the conventional reader, it will be largely overlooked by the evangelical anti-intellectual quasi-scholarship that is prevalent today. For those evangelicals who still dispute the documentary hypothesis, no amount of textual criticism can be accommodated because it forces upon the reader an act of selective interpretation which emphasizes reason above faith, dogma and revelation. Ehrman’s voice is representative of the majority of scholars, but because it is unaccepted within evangelical circles, its weight may be marginalized.
previous post: The Festering Wound
next post: A Double Dose of Doubt
23 Responses to “Misquoting Jesus: the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”
Leave a Reply
About MysteriousFaith
“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm.”
Themes
Now Reading
Search
Favorites
Personal Writing
Theology
Categories
Meta Data
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 am
Wow Ben! Your new found despising of all things Christian allows you to find books and authors whose life work is to trump the faith passed down thru the ages. I could remind you that this method has been tried and retried and found wanting thru 2 millenia - so I actually welcome the attempts. I still find it amazing that your reason or Ehrman’s reason, or Sam Harris or Karen Armstrong, can sweep in after 2,000 years of Christian tradition and save us all from our delusional misfortune of following Jesus. You still seem to all carry the modern assumption that your foundation or starting point is not based in any way on faith. That your reason is purely objective and unbiased, not culturally driven by Enlightment ideas that Descartes and others held before you. You can continue to argue that your foundation of reason and science is better than the Christian’s foundation of Scripture and tradition and yet arrive nowhere. Or you could realize that everyone on the planet has a point of origin or web of belief where we all begin with different doctrines and beliefs that we take by faith or simply assume. Why is your starting line the best? Haven’t people began where you are beginning for hundreds of years? Has it ever shown any shred of evidence to bring healing to the tearing of the insides? The question then becomes which web of belief makes the most sense - is most coherent and tied to day to day realities that affect our day to day interactions - which web of belief has better equilibrium and can be reparied after being breached or having a core belief questioned or shown to have faulty foundations - which web has the most interconnected and interrelated interactions between core doctrines and beliefs (and tangible doctrines as you go further to the edge of the web) that mix with our day to day living? And what I find so unreasonable with what you are saying is the fact that you think with a couple touches of some buttons on your keypad you could discount a 2,000 yr. old way of life and vision that has been accepted and embraced from all parts of the world and races of man from the poor to the rich and beyond? Reason has left us all with a cold chill up the spine and laying in the gutter of our own ridiculous concepts that have left our insides empty and searching and inventing new concepts to fill the gap in the whole of the heart. Reason and our minds created the modern experiment that has landed us in 2006 calling out to the divine for guidance weary of our own voices. At a time in history where a good portion of the known world is coming back to spirituality and the embrace of the divine and hugging mystery - you run back to the one thing we know can not bring peace, confidence, assurance and hope. The church even accepted your idea for awhile and look where she arrived? After accepting the principles of Reason and Enlightenment rationalism, we find ourselves more fractured and more cold to the needs of society than ever before. So if anyone should rejoice in the fact that there seems to be a wholistic renewal in the church back to faith, mystery, the Great Tradition of the early church, Trinitarian and Incarnational Theology, it should be you. You care so much for the poor and politics and international policy and relief to the nations - Trinitarian thinking leads to a recovery of community and caring and serving and being in dance with the other! Good Trinitarian thinking leads to an embrace of all and not exclusion as demonstrated in the embrace of the Father of all humanity in Jesus through the Spirit. So the very thing you so forcefully despise could from another angle bring shalom to the cosmos? Your faith seems to reside in your intellect and the power of what you (or Karen or Sam or Ehrman)can know at any given moment in time? I simply ask you - is this good faith? Is the best starting point for looking at life? Will this lead to the restoration and renewal of the world? Or will it lead to the empty hallway of humanism, narcissism, pragmatism and a preoccpation with self that the American, selfish spirit already holds so dearly? I feel that if you could somehow separate the religious crap that was passed on to you by others, from Jesus own enlightened words of truth, your soul could find release from the shackles of you. At the end of the day, you trust you - and that is such a small god. - Shane
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:10 am
Shane - First, thank you for dropping by. Comments are always appreciated. I am more than a little troubled by the shrillness in your comments, frankly as you should be. You use words like “despise” and the invective “touches of some buttons on your keyboard” to attempt and make my questions and reasoning seem trite, perhaps accomplishing anything but that. If you wish to go back to the “religious crap” you want me to separate myself from so that I can believe as you do I would candidly respond the only peace I have ever found is what I now have - finally, for once in my life the “peace that passeth all understanding” to borrow and perchance misuse a phrase from the Christian lexicon. Shane, I have walked this path honorably - fasting, prayer, study, Bible reading as you well know. Do not pretend I simply can not get beyond fundamentalism - you know quite well that is deeply disingenuous. I have made a journey marked by sincerity and devotion, a journey of conviction. Of all things that could raise my ire, pretending I have not honestly wrestled with Christianity in its various forms is paramount.
In a direct way, this peace answers your point more forcefully than any logic. What morality is it you wish to argue can be achieved w/ Christianity that cannot w/o it, or even more directly, w/o theism at all? Does religion make me more faithful to my wife as opposed to understanding what being selfish means to any enlightened view of a relationship? How does religion make me more selfless when the most selfless religion on the planet, Buddhism, is inherently non-theistic? Does religion make me less concerned as a citizen? Does my belief system make me any less capable of responding graciously to someone who hurls insults instead of reason at a legitimate series of questions I ask? If anything, my belief system makes me more focused on what I can and should do to make this world better, more egalitarian, where we attack poverty, illiteracy and animus. Has religion accomplished this? At times, in some ways, in some forms. Has reason accomplished this? At times, in some ways, in some forms. Both have come up short in their implementation given the frailties of human nature.
As I have written elsewhere and will state again - I have no animosity towards Christianity or Jesus or the idea of God. Having wrestled with each in an honest fashion, I have to say candidly that I disagree that they embody truth; however, I am willing to be proven wrong. Yes, I place enormous emphasis on reason as it is the only device I know how to use to navigate life. You say in your comments to begin with faith - that is a specious argument as you do no such thing. You have apologetics for your beliefs which is why you make so much of the 2,000 year tradition of Christianity. You no more begin your religion with faith than I; we simply diverge when reason reaches limitations and requires agnosticism where you end with reason and embrace revelation. It is a profound difference, but neither perspective is served by pretending faith is the foundation - it is what is reached for, not what is built upon. If Jesus was God, and we have a soul, and live in an afterlife then it is quite literally no problem with me. But believing in any of these things in no way, shape or form changes how I live in this world. Perhaps for you they are mediating metaphors you need, and I respect that.
One last comment - early in your comments you began with the 2,000 year tradition of Christianity in an attempt to be diminutive towards what I suggest are alternative explanations of the origins of Christianity. Rather than respond in kind, I will only say again - tradition is not an efficacious apologetic. If it were, it would equally be an apologetic for the 4k year old Judaism, the 4k year old Buddhism, the 4k old Hinduism, the 4k old Chinese Upper Kingdom, the 1.4k old Islam and the approx. 150 year old Mormon theology. All have traditions - beliefs built upon what others say they saw, experienced and were transformed by. It is the serious attempt to wrestle with these and find explanations that many of us struggle with. It is again reason that we all employ to embrace these questions, a point not lost on those of us who stick with the horse that carried us thus far - our minds. If that makes me my own god using your words, then so be it. Your god has seen fit to leave me with this worldview being the one that gives me the most peace and makes the most sense.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:25 am
Oh, Ben. Surely you know Shane better than the tone of your response implies. I’m nowhere near the intellect that you and Shane possess on these topics, so I’m not going to get involved in the debate itself. I would implore you, though, to re-read Shane’s comment. As a less emotionally-involved reader than yourself, I don’t see that his words are quite so pointed as you took them to be. I know his heart, and I know his love and concern for you. You say that you have a “peace that passeth understanding.” Maybe I shouldn’t comment on that since I haven’t talked to you personally since our meal together before Chase was born, but from what I’ve heard from Rich & Shane you are more in a constant state of struggle than in a state of rest or peace. You ask if “religion” makes you more faithful, more selfless, etc. Surely, you know enough to see that it is not religion that Shane and I (and others) are calling you to, but a relationship. You say you have no animosity toward our faith, but I’m not sure that is the case. You seem to feel abandoned by and disenchanted with God; how could that not lead to at least a tinge of animosity (understandably so, David felt the same at times)? You say that Shane begins with apologetics rather than faith. While that may be true of many Christians, I think you know him better than that. The faith came first, he only learned of the arguments of apologetics as he studied further. And I wouldn’t say that he leans mostly on those arguments at this point, either. Logic and arguments are just words and will come and go with time, but a true conversion of the heart and a strong faith in the one who truly brings peace will not be so easily shaken. You say, “Does my belief system make me any less capable of responding graciously to someone who hurls insults instead of reason at a legitimate series of questions I ask?” and then accuse Shane of shrillness? I wouldn’t exactly call that comment gracious. Know that we sincerely love you and are praying for you and your wife, Ben. I hope you find the peace that you think you’ve already found.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Cary - What a pleasant surprise! I do appreciate your comments. Most of what you say has been echoed by family and friends who are Christians and believe that my current beliefs have to reflect some deep seated frustration with God. In the limited sense that I had to struggle to get where I am, they are correct. In the broader sense that I have had to fight for my life because of my ridiculous past, people will always have the luxury of trivializing my beliefs by characterizing them as responses to “wrong theology” or bad experiences. But to characterize my past struggles and my ongoing efforts - because of my nature - to test the beliefs and ensure I am not using doubt or bad experiences as a crutch - is going to by its very nature come across to some as a struggle with God. From their perspective it is; from mine it is the struggle of honestly attempting to reconcile what I believe with what I see as reality.
At times I wonder if they are as willing to use that same insightfulness and ask themselves whether what they believe about me and my beliefs is what they need to believe in order to not deal w/ the realization that someone sincerely searching can come to legitimately different conclusions? It is a similar question as wondering if they would be as willing to have me witness to them about my agnosticism? I wonder if people would like to see me bear down on them during private times about the holes in their theology?
It is hard to respond to someone who says you are not at peace when you are. Do I still ask questions? Certainly. But let us not mistake the nature of my restless mind - which manifests itself in every area of my intellect from philosophy to politics to religion to business - for a deeper lack of tranquility. I am by nature an explorer, a searcher, an extroverted introvert. Tranquility may change many things, but my restless nature is probably not one of them!
As to tone - I read his comments multiple times before responding. I actually grabbed b-fast and thought about it prior to responding. Tone is hard because so much of it is on the receiving end and to that point the error may very well have been mine. What I enjoy and want to be a part of is the type of combative but respectful dialogue between Wright and Borg. They strongly disagree but manage to be respectful both of the other’s scholarship but their differing opinions. It is not an easy balance to find and one I may not have risen to in my reply. If that is the case I do apologize.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Cary - One last thing popped in my mind (I have to pretend to get back to work on my Constitutional Law after this!): I appreciate that what Shane argues for is relational, and frankly that is precisely one of my biggest problems with theism in general. It does demark perhaps the single pivotal moment when my belief changed and I began to accept things and find peace. For so long I worked (or didn’t work instead employing the Brother Lawrence approach!) at a “relationship with Jesus.”
Everything in my life came into perspective when I recognized that two relationships in my life were never going to be - and one of them was with Jesus. The other was more personal and should not be explored in this forum. But suffice it to say that real peace came when I accepted that neither was capable of taking place. I could work, relax into, open myself to either but they would never be. It was not to be because it could not be. One because the person does not know how to love without hurting and the other. The other, and again I do not mean to be cavalier in saying this, but the relationship w/ Jesus was never going to happen because he wasn’t there to be related to.
I can’t wrestle w/ either any longer because trying to make either real, when neither was, distracted me from the realities of this life and this world. These decisions / realizations marked for me the peace I have written about. They are not without their travails and difficulties, but they are a profoundly better place for me than anywhere I have ever been before.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I say this carefully, because I know the heartache you and your wife have experienced in this arena. I know how deeply you two want children and that you have talked of adopting. I am always curious about how a child might change one’s perspective on life. Have you seriously considered what the ramifications of your beliefs on the life of a child might be? Do you know what you will say to your own little one, if you should get that honor, when he or she is seeking to fill that inborn sense of longing for something beyond this life? Also, I experienced a great loss in my own life (my younger brother, Benjamin, to cancer), and my faith sustained me through that horrid experience. If tragedy strikes, do you think your newfound system of belief will be able to sustain you as well? What kind of hope does it offer? I’m sincerely not trying to be attacking, I’m just wondering what sort of conclusions you have come to on these issues. As I mentioned before, I’m not nearly as well-studied on the areas of theology that you and Shane & Rich like to debate, but I’m more concerned with the issues of the heart right now. I’m sorry for taking this post so far off-topic here, but I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on these issues.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:04 pm
I appreciate the question and the delicacy with which you ask it. Yes, they are things I have wrestled with. In fairness, the ramifications to theism for children is not always positive as I can readily attest. Seen in a less negative light, not every child is comforted by Christian belief - I was not. At a very, very young age Christianity stopped making sense, but I could not admit that because of the environment I was in. God / Jesus / heaven stopped being solace to me at a very young age. I had to continue trying to make them give me comfort, but they never have and never did.
My response to a child will be predicated on what type of child I have. I believe much of belief is predicated on personality - not to go too far off-topic, but the Myers-Briggs for my particular personality shows a particular incompatibility with religious belief which is one of the tensions in my upbringing - my inherent personality and my culture were badly out of sync (and still were until recently). There are no doubt times when children need answers and when they need to walk their own path. That is probably a lot of what being a good parent is about - understanding your child’s make-up and directing them based on what they need (even if it is not what you found satisfying).
I do not believe that we all have an “inborn sense of longing for something beyond this life.” Again, I had an “inborn longing” for a relationship in my life that will never be anything more than inherently destructive. What I might wish for is not what is, and coming to terms with that is the only peace I can know w/ respect to that which I can not change. We all seek meaning, but this is a word loaded with its own meaning, not all of which deserves to be seen within the context of religious spirituality. Billions of people every day live w/o this hope or with a form of the hope that a Christian would find very unfulfilling (Asian and Hindu cultures being two good examples of this).
I have had my very own very intense and very real personal nightmare over the last year - a hell I am not quick to want to live through again. I saw profoundly in that crisis a different ability to navigate without the baggage of theism. Not feeling obligated to talk to somebody who didn’t talk back freed me enormously to attempt and think clearly about my options. It put the responsibility on my life, my decisions, the changes I needed to make in my life. If any God who cared wanted to involve himself he could have easily done so and he did not. He was silent - but then again, he always has been. You are right that I have wanted - desperately so - a relationship w/ God. But nothing remotely satisfying in all my searching has given me any solace or succor. It’s hard to read that when your experience has been so different, which is again perhaps where personality and belief come together to form different needs for each of us.
I would be willing to say that while I might hope for a life after this, I might hope for many things that will never transpire or that I should make secondary to the more practical considerations of life. Again, if the claims of Christianity are true that’s fine with me. I can’t say they make sense to me which means I can’t say I believe them, which means I can’t resort to them as comfort just because they would be convenient. Trust me, being a believer would make a lot of things a lot easier for me. But I can’t keep pretending I believe what I just don’t.
How will I deal with the question of trajedy, loss and death - either my own or anothers? Certainly I am no stoic and would not hold myself out as one - I tend to feel things quite deeply. It can be hard for someone raised on tales of God, the devil and heaven to believe that some people are content to not make affirmative statements about what happens when we die. I don’t know and my assertion is that neither does anyone. Because we don’t know, we should focus on living well and loving fully. I will mourn my own passing and that of those I love, but I have many good memories and look forward to making many more. For me, that is enough, that sustains me, and that will have to sustain my family.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Ben -
Though i find your initial topic interesting, i’m writing about your responses in this section, which almost immediatley brought to my mind a quote from “Fight Club”.
“Our fathers were our models for God, if our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God.”
Until you free yourself from your father’s god, you’re a slave to a system you have no connection to. Many people find this dependance to be easier than dealing with reality, so let me say i respect your search. But don’t sell yourself short and miss out on the next stage of freedom’s path. Feeling free after abandoning fundamentalism, is absolutley understandable and expected. But that’s not the end.
There’s a story by Chang Tzu, a taoist priest and a man Thomas Merton held in great regard. It’s called “Fasting of the Heart”. Read it, i think you’d like it. I know what you’re saying, i relate to it, i feel for your search. Here’s an excerpt, the best part in my opinion:
“Yen Hui: What is fasting of the heart? Confucius: The goal of fasting is inner unity. This means hearing, but not with the ear; hearing, but not with the understanding; hearing with the spirit, with your whole being… The hearing of the spirit is not limited to any one faculty, to the ear, or to the mind. Hence it demands the emptiness of all the faculties. And when the faculties are empty, then the whole being listens. There is then a direct grasp of what is right there before you that can never be heard with the ear or understood with the mind. Fasting of the heart empties the faculties, frees you from limitation and from preoccupation. Fasting of the heart begets unity and freedom. Yen Hui: I see. What was standing in my way was my own self-awareness. If I can begin this fasting of the heart, self awareness will vanish.”
Several years ago, after two years of not hearing from a God i had pursued for so long, i came to a breaking point. I knew i had two choices: question his existence, or question my own. I decided to go on faith that he existed, and question myself instead.
Almost instantly He made Himself more real than anything ever had been, in small ways i would have passed off before as insignificant. There’s just something about submission. But that’s my personal experience. I’m just throwing in some thoughts. As long as you’re truly seeking, you’ll eventually find what you’re looking for. I’m sure you’ve heard all this from your family and friends, and being neither, i don’t mean to be intrusive into your search.
It does seem like you’re letting a few clouds into your pursuit of clear skies. Regarding your quote from Marcus Aurelius: I respect the first part, but almost completely disagree with the second. First off, the Truth is deadly in most cases. Thousands of men and women have been killed, or worse, for simply saying the Truth. Perhaps the greatest irony is how many christians have died for the Truth and how many men claiming to follow Christ’s teachings have killed others for speaking it. Christ himself died for the Truth, so that it might set us free.
Also, “persistence in self-delusion and ignorance” are ways Marx described religion, which he declared to be the best tool for peacabley controlling the masses. The indifferent man lives in a state of constant inaction, never confronting or being confronted. This is a common definition of peace but an equal number of men and women have died to free others from indifference.
The truth is painful, offensive, and dangerous to the enemies cause and the Truth-sayers well being. Christ’s life, death and victory proved this with resounding response. He offered the finality of Truth, the culmination of thousands of years of pursuit by humanity. True freedom from any circumstance only comes through Him, not because of blind devotion and following, but because of the pain and suffering we experience for Him, like he felt for us.
From reading your posts, i am sure that you have done this to the nth degree, but it’s always inspired me, so i thought i’d throw in this quote from Oswald Chambers.
“Always make a practice of provoking your own mind to think out what it accepts easily. Our position is not ours until we make it ours by suffering. The author who benefits you most is not the one who tells you something you did not know before, but the one who gives expression to the truth that has been dumbly struggling in you for utterance.”
Never forget the immortal words of Elliott Smith, who (although not a follower of Christ), put it so eloquently: “They say that God makes problems, just to see what you can stand, before you do as the devil pleases and give up the thing you love.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:19 am
Benny - Ben - Ben - Sorry, my comments created a “shrilling” effect in your life. By now, you should know that I just like to chime in every now and then and “stir the shit” with you. I was serious with what I said and could not disagree with you more, and yet, I love you. God has given you a great mind and you seem to find pleasure in using it. Please note: none of my comments attacked you, your character, or the authenticity of your search.
Here is where I stumble on much of what you write: (and quite frankly I feel you never answer me on - although, you feel the same way towards the questions you pitch at me)if postmodernity has given us anything, it seems to have made us all aware of the limitations of human knowledge. There is an ever increasing gap between what we subjectively know and what is objectively true. It seems as embodied humans with our brains (as wondrous as they are - especially yours)only comprehending a tiny fraction of real reality, that absolute certainty is not a gift wrapped for us under the tree at Christmas. At best, we gain a speck of insight here or there that keeps us on the bread trail. Reason seems to allows us sit at the table with a portion of certainty at times, which means, there is a large portion of uncertainty left over. I bring this up because it is my assumption that to live in this life requires the embrace of faith whether we we admit it or not. Faith is the river running through everything we claim to know. Without some measure of faith and some plausibility structure from which to spring into the waters of life, we are going nowhere. My fear is that sometimes (and knowing you causes me to think you don’t do this on purpose)you mock faith as if it is second string. What I see as a bird with the ability to fly beyond the outer rim of the infinite sky, you see as an ugly duckling. What if True Truth, actually towers over over our puny attempts at grasping infinity and eternality like the Grand Canyon’s shadow over a soup bowl? Would we be righteous enough in that moment to look up from our clay creations that we have molded and shaped in our image to see prostrating beauty that colors outside the lines of the fences in our mind? The question becomes: will we fly on the back of the bird to the outer limits, or stay in the pond content to float with the ducks. (Don’t know what is up with the bird fondness tonight) I guess I feel that your new found peace is actually complacency in disguise. It is easier to reason with reason than to have your mind blown to bits by new discoveries led by faith as you unpack what it means to have Jesus as the Light of the cosmos. I know that you have not given up the ever-ending search, it just feels like what was difficult and stretching, you left behind. You tried Christianity and it was to hard of a task master, so now off to serve reason. I just wonder what will knock at your door after reason has over-stayed its welcome. Faith seems to be the only vehicle equipped appropriately to grip the terrain of forward momentum. I am trying to understand and examine the dogma that undergirds your rejection of Christian dogma. Every understanding of the human story relies heavily on a faith commitment, for we are not yet at the end of the book. But no human life progresses forward without some interpretation or idea of what the story means. No learning takes place except within a tradition whose authority is given permission to guide us. No coherent thought is possible without taking some things as a given. (like reason can actually land us in the fullness of truth) Life without presuppositions is not possible. In this enterprise of knowing anything, it seems to me that knowing has to begin with an act of faith. We have to trust the evidence of our eyes and ears or trust those who instruct us in the ways of life, but there is no other possible way to begin. And yes, we must doubt and use reason as we proceed along the path which means we might have to question and revise what we at first accepted. But we have no other way of starting. So while believing (faith) and doubt (reason)have a necessary role to play in this whole act of knowing, believing seems to me to be numero uno while doubt falls to a silver medal. The whole Modern Enlightenment enterprise rests on faith commitments which cannot themselves be proven by reason or science. Seeking in this life seems only serious if the one seeking is following some clue, or has some intuition of what he seeks and is willing to commit to following that clue. There is no knowing without believing, and believing seems to open the door for knowing. This is my humble attempt to wrestle with your comments to me about faith as foundation.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:31 am
Shane - I appreciate the response. I spoke w/ someone last evening and during the conversation he commented that in reading my blog he said “he’ll never get there” - essentially saying that if I had to understand something to believe in it then it would be impossible to get to a position of restfullness. It is hard to believe for people immersed in a tradition of faith that people who have moved beyond it can find a comfort faith did not give them.
In the most recent Penguin edition of David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (forgive me, I don’t have the copy w/ me so I’m going from memory), the scholar who wrote the contemporary preface shared a story about a theologian who went to interview Hume while Hume was preparing for death. The theologian was deeply rattled by a deist who had such a tranquil and symmetrical response to his questions - sufficient to shake the faith of the theologian in the sense that he had been forced to confront a thinker who was quite literally living proof that what the theologian believed was inherently essential to know peace was anything but for Hume. It’s echoed by the story of Voltaire dying and being asked to recant the devil and his minions by a priest and mumbling back that “now seems like such a poor time to begin making new enemies.”
It’s an important story and is one echoed by any number of philosophers AND by the untold billions of people around the world who confront death and illness without the needs Christianity superimposes on them.
You say that “no learning takes place except within a tradition whose authority is given permission to guide us.” That is true in a very limited sense: in science some theories go untested at a pedestrian level because the end goal of the student is practical and theory has limits - this is the separation between science and engineering. Engineering is application oriented to it assumes “tradition” is correct; however, you are wrong about what science assumes. Science assumes no such thing; in fact, true scientists are those who comprehensively understand the theories of the universe and do not take things for granted. The same can be said for law: law uses tradition (common law - going back to the 14th century in many cases), but only as a guidepost because the law recognizes that times change. This means that tradition may have been entirely wrong and needs to be changed. Both science and law, which to your point rely on tradition, aggressively test tradition with the only tool we navigate life with - reason.
Tradition in religion is invariably tied to faith because religion is unwilling to test with the tool of reason because it will make secondary that which religion makes primary. You say that the “whole Modern Enlightenment enterprise rests on faith commitments which cannot themselves be proven by reason or science.” I am not sure what that means - it seems to be a carte blanche attempt to extinguish the work of the minds who gave us modernity in all its forms (good and bad) - the scientific, the political, the philosophical. What in the Enlightenment cannot be proven? And why, even if the proof is not yet clear, why does that immediately suggest theism is the answer? Why not agnosticism?
And Shane, Christianity was not “too hard of a task master.” It just didn’t make any sense to me; it gave me no solace, explained nothing substantially about life.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:39 am
One last comment (and I’ll stick w/ the bird metaphor!) - you suggest all we get in this life is specks. Even were I to assume this was the case, would it not be realistic to recognize that reasonable people w/ different life experiences and personalities will interpret these specks differently? I appreciate why theism holds to the beliefs it does - I understand its interpretive framework for reality. But in reading your comments, particularly the comments on the Enlightenment, I wonder if you have struggled through Locke, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume and Spinoza w/o the hand of someone who is a confessed theist and interprets for you? Having walked both on my own, I’m comfortable that I have a unique perspective. I wrote once that “only someone who has truly walked on both sides of the river can be trusted to build a bridge across.” We gain so much when we engage those who disagree with us on their own terrain and not attempt and superimpose their language with ours, their metaphors for ours, their framework for ours. Real incompatibilities exist and real insights are hidden until the latter part of this journey is walked w/o the tether of having to believe somehow the Enlightenment philosophers were off their rockers!
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:12 am
“true scientists are those who comprehensively understand the theories of the universe and do not take things for granted” - Ben you gonna be kidding me! Please introduce me to the scientist who comprehensively understands the universe and who starts with a clean slate - nothing taken for granted. Who was the 1st scientist that sat there and thought - “Well, I feel like the universe is mechanistic and runs on certain natural laws” - he started with an idea, a hunch, a presupposition and then worked within that paradigm to begin to do his further investigation of what he assumed was right and true. This is where I feel like you are not giving me anything to work with or a starting point for a conversation, because if there is no absolute certainty on things then how does one begin to communicate or study anything without a little measure of faith. Not blind faith, but faith nonetheless.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:22 am
Shane - Let me rephrase: many scientists have a comprehensive understanding of their field. By that I mean a biologist does not just accept evolution, which is what you are arguing for in terms of the epistemological framework. A biologist has to understand the theory comprehensively. He also has to test it which is what religion does not accomodate - it can not be tested and result in agnosticism or even “I’ll deal with it when / if I get to X”. And while he may start w/ a hunch, he has to test it and validate - it must withstand the tests of reason if it is to become accepted. Most scientific advancements are less hunch work and more investigations - pursuits that allow the data and proof to take them into new areas of knowledge. Do you really think the airplane you fly in is built on faith? If so, faith in what? No faith is at work in the science applied by engineers in building a plane. It is all hard, quantifiable and understood science, not theory.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
How much have you studied about Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Theory, Strange Attractors, things like that? They are the foundations of existence, and in order for a scientist to study them, he or she must guess at where, when, and if said particles even exist. Many in the solid science of Quantum Physics believe that particles don’t exist until a scientist looks to see if they’re there.
Things may be repeatable and predictable to a point on a macro level, but at the micro level, all science is based on faith of one kind or another, and there can be no macro without micro.
And of course airplanes are flown on faith. The pilot has faith in the mechanics, the passengers faith in the pilot. Faith is quantified trust.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Jesse - Fairly familiar actually. But the principles you mention are quite tenuous are they not? In fact, a number of them are disputed as to existence because the proof for them is inherently conceptual and non-empirical. They are put forward as attempts to model, in particular to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much desire TOE. And Jesse, remind me not to fly with you if you think the pilot has faith in the mechanics. The pilot may have faith, but it is substantiated at his desire in any number of ways in the form of regulations, double checks and other items that can be quantitatively verified.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Couple of things first before I forget: 1. Love ya and your sharp mind. Love your ability to ask the hard questions. 2. Love your pictures that change at the top of your site - you got some really cool pics! 3. Just so you know a little of my theology: I already think you are included in Jesus whether you accept it or not. My understanding of the Trinity allows me to teach that they created they universe out of overflowing love - they wanted us as creations to participate in the goodness, joy, community, fellowship, love, grace, and dance that they have. This was plan A before the foundation of the world and nothing ever stopped God from this plan. Even when we sinned (which is a relational thing)God did not give up hope but was always determined even when our backs were turned. And in a moment in time God accomplished what he desired from the beginning. Jesus took on an earth suit (Adam’s flesh in the context of Israel’s broken covenant)and became what we were and saw the world through our eyes. He felt the inward turmoil and the feeling of helplessness and rejection. His whole life was 33 years or so of pain and misery as He is systematically altering the enitre human race as God in the flesh. So if He is the one in and by and through all things were created and all things are connected to him as Col refers and the one in whom we move and have our being then what happens to Him, happens to us. He took humanity down in death and then later in resurrection and in the ascension raised us up and placed us in the Father’s lap. And that there is the secret behind human existence. That is why we love and marry, write potery, make music, play baseball - these are all the ways that the Trinitarian life of God is being played out in our lives. That is why we will search and invent and do anything to fill the void inside. I believe that this is what your life pursuit is about (doing good in and for the world and helping the helpless)and even what the search on this site is about. Does all that longing and goodness and searching originate in you or are you wired for something else? So to me the gospel is not so much an invitation, but a declaration. We do not create the truth when we practice faith, but discover it. The truth is already there - Jesus has already finished it and we are connected to the life of God. My theology obviously still has room for belief because we still must accept the truth about ourselves. God will not step over the line and believe for us, for that would be our doom. He has united us and connected us to the life of God, but we are not absorbed, because that would mean that there is no real us to share in the life. But I do see all humanity already caught up in this thing and to me this is good news. God has done absolutely everything for us and now we just have to acknowledge or align ourselves with the truth. So all the things you read and say and do are signs to me that there is something inside of you that drives you and reveals to me that you are wired for the dance and you have a home.
The old barriers that came from a Newtonian view of the universe are now falling. Scientist are discovering more and more that the universe is actually of one piece. Everything connected. My question becomes - what is the thing that is holding it all together? Or who is the one holding all things together? What is the central piece or cosmic glue that connects all the parts? (Obviously, these are hypothetical questions) So I don’t wnat you to respond as much as I just wanted to be honest with you about where I an coming from. In Christ, God is reconciling the world to himself. You used to ask me alot what I think of you and where you arrived at. Well, this lets you in a little on my thoughts. I believe you were made for something huge and that you are connected to something way bigger than you imagine and with every strike of the keys on your computer, you reveal it. I think when you begin to align yourself with this truth, rivers of living water will pour from your insides and it is only in that moment that you will use the word peace and truly know what it means. If I am right,(and I already know that you think that is a big “if”) it would only be in that moment that you would know who you really are, for then you would be aligned with all that is true about you. So until that point there is - Who you actually are and then there is - who you think you are. My only hope is that you embrace your true self. If you feel that you have - then may the fullness of God’s shalom be yours in every way!
February 24th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
In response to your last 2 comments to me about science, tradition, faith and so on: Einstein’s theories were after much debate, accepted on the basis of their intrinsic beauty and completeness, but it was only long afterward that there was any experimental verification of their truth. In fact, a great many attempts were made to test their truth by repetitions of the Morley Michelson tests, and they did not give the results required by Einstein’s theory. Polanyi actually records that in a broadcast discussion with Bertrand Russell they both agreed that the theory was never likely to have any practical consequences. Only a few days later the 1st atomic bomb was exploded, and since that date we have learned many more practical consequences that have flowed from his theory. Yet the theory was held as true by scientists even in the absence of proof or practical utility. This to me is an important feature of scientific discovery. The theory was held to be true because of intrinsic beauty, rationality, and comprehensiveness. These qualities were taken to indicate that it corresponded with reality, and that it would open the way for new discoveries. The holding of the theory for truth is an act of faith in the rationality of the cosmos. The justification (if we wanted to put it that way)is by faith; only afterwards, as a spin-off, does one find that it is also justified because it works. The analogy with Christian faith hardly needs to be pointed out. A major paradigm shift, such as that from Newtonian physics to that of Einstein, does not take place easily. Perhaps it will come manily through conversion of younger scientists to the new view. A similar long debate took place before the Copernican paradigm replaced the Ptolemaic. For such paradigms form the world within which scientists work for generations. They form the lenses through which things are perceived. They are not easily or lightly abandoned. Clearly the scientific tradition as a whole, and the many concepts, classifications of data, and theoretical models which are the working tools of science form as a whole a tradition within which scientists have to dwell in order to do their work. Without such an enduring tradition, science would collapse. At any moment in history several parts of the tradition may be under critical review and alternatives proposed; but this critical review would be impossible without the a-critical acceptance of the tradition as a whole. The progress of science depends on the authority of this tradition.
2 points to be made: innovation can only be responsibly accepted from those who are already masters of the tradition, skilled practitioners of whom it could be said both that the tradition dwells full in them and that they dwell fully in the tradition; and 2nd, that one alleged new fact, or even a number of new facts, does not suffice to discredit an established paradigm. That can only happen when a new and more compelling paradigm is offered, a vision of reality which commends itself by its beauty, rationality, and comprehensiveness. The acceptance of such a vision is a personal act, an act of personal judgment to which one commits oneself in the knowledge that others may disagree and that one may eventually be proved wrong. It involves personal commitment. But it is not merely subjective. The scientist who commits himself to this new vision does so (as Polanyi points out) with universal intent. He believes it to be objectively true, and therefore causes it to be widely published, invites discussion, and seeks, to persuade his fellow scientists that it is a true account of reality. It is his personal belief to which he commits himself and on which he risks his scientific reputation. But at no stage is it merely subjective opinion. It is held with universal intent as being a true account of reality which all people ought to accept and which will prove itself true both by experimental verification and by opening the way to fresh discovery. It is not offered as a private opinion but as public truth. Like all visions of ultimate truth, science is necessarily involved in circular argument. It has to assume from the beginning the truth of which it seeks to prove. It begins from the conviction that the universe is accessible to rational understanding, it refuses to accept as final evidence that which seems to contradict this faith, and it seeks with a passion, which is one of the glories of human history, to prove that the faith is true. It can only pursue this task within a tradition that is authoritative. The maintenance of the tradition depends on the mutual trust which scientists have in one another, in the integrity in which each one does its work, for no one scientist can have direct knowledge of more than a tiny fraction of the whole. But the authority of the tradition is not something apart from the vision of truth which the tradition embodies. It would be a violation of the tradition if authority were to be substituted for the personal grasping of the truth. The scientist, from the pupil just beginning to study physics, to the pioneer on the front end of research, accepts the authority of the tradition not to replace personal grasp of the truth but as the necessary precondition for gaining this grasp. He accepts the authority of the tradition in order to reach the point where he can say, “I see for myself.” In Augustine’s phrase, his program is “Credo ut intelligam - (I believe in order to understand). And if the scientist is a poineer who has reached the point where he has to challenge the tradition and to propose a drastic innovation, it is not to undermine the authority of the tradition, but to strengthen it by making it more truly aligned with the truth. Insofar as his innovation proves acceptable to the scientific community, it will itself become part of the authortative tradition.
So we have referred to the character of scientific knowledge as (in Polanyi’s phrase) personal knowledge. It is knowledge to which the scientist commits herself personally and on which she stakes her professional reputation. She accepts the risk that she might be wrong. If you agree with me on this, must we not say that it is part of the sickness of our culture that, ever since Descartes, we have been seduced by the idea of a kind of knowledge which could not be doubted, in which we would be absolutely secure from personal risk? And has not his seduction taken on 2 forms, which even if they disclaim all relationship with each other, are really twin brothers? One is a biblical fundamentalism which supposes that adherence to the text of the Bible frees me from the risk of error and then gives me a security which does not depend on my own discernment of the truth. The other is a kind of scientism which supposes that science is simply a transcript of reality, of the “facts” which simply have to be accepted and call for no personal decision on my part, a kind of knowledge which is “objective” and free from all the bias of subjectivity.
February 25th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Shane - I am in the midst of completing an apellate brief so I’ll have to be a bit shorter in my response than I would like. First, as to Einstein: you mention it was a “long afterwards that there was any experimental verification of their truth.” Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915. His theory was empirically validated in 1919 by Eddington who was able to confirm Einstein’s prediction as to the deflection of the sun’s rays during one of Eddington’s expeditions. Its strongest experimental validation occurred in 1959, which was in many ways the post-hoc culmination of Einstein’s argument for three means by which general relativity could be validated (gravitational redshift of light, deflection of light by the sun, and the perihelion of Mercurcy). Regardless of the date a physicist chooses for when empirical evidence of general relativity was provided (notwithstanding Einstein’s conviction that the universe was not expanding and his introduction of the cosmological constant), it seems a terrible abuse of the phrase “long afterwards” when attempting to make a place for tradition and faith within the realm of science.
Much of your argument appears reflective of Michael Polanyi’s anti-objectivist philosophy. As one of the founders of postmodernity, his contributions are much better remembered in classical mechanics than they are objectivism. I believe we owe a hat tip to Brian McLaren for much of the information in your comments, do we not!
In any case, we differ on a couple of points: I categorically deny that science advances based on trusting tradition. This is wrong. Science advances when tradition is tested, found wanting; when its inconsistencies and imprecisions are determined to no longer be tenable. I appreciate that tradition shapes us, which is important to recognize but just as you wish for me to acknowledge its shaping influence, so you should recognize its limitations. Are we shaped by tradition? Certainly - in every facet of life. But traditions that are inherently paradoxical, nonsensical, unvalidated and irrational are those that face tests as modernity advances. You make a number of comments like Augustine’s “credo ut intelligam” - and again I reply that to say science advances “not to undermine the authority of the tradition, but to strengthen it by making it more truly aligned with the truth” is to allow a theologian to speak for scientists. In selectively allowing Augustine to speak in this fashion you rob from men like Mamonedies (forgive my spelling), Spinoza and the multitude of other scientific rationalists who gave their lives for the pursuit of truth and who lost their lives because of the traditions it forced people to discard. Let us not, of all mistakes we might make in this discussion, make the mistake of thinking they acted only to refine that which was handed down to them. Such a comment owes much to the civility of an Enlightenment philosophical exchange where previous generations had everything to lose and only the truth to gain by seeking truth that disagree with tradition.
As you know, I agree that raw scientism is no better answer to life than that of raw literalism; however, I do not equate a life of raw scientisim with that of total rationalism. I would very much aspire to alife of rationalism, which would make room for hope in what we do not know, but which makes predominant that which we do know. I believe this is the common ground as neither of us has an argument that is going to convince the other: in the outward and inward lives of either of us I doubt whether any attribute not related to personality will be different. We will both struggle and strive, but desire much in common with the state of the world. That is enough for me. I find no comfort, understanding, solace or sensibility in Christianity beyond its fringe attempts to encourage the mysticism that seems to directly lead to tolerance within a religious framework. I find much more comfort in the modern day minds whether they be Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins than I do in religion. At the end of the day, I believe what you and I want for the world is very much the same. We agree that much of Jesus teaching will allow this to take place, but I disagree he was God or in any way divine. The latter, if it is made an essential, forever separates us. The former, the poor, downtrodden, exploited and ravaged of the world, is much to unite us. It is these issues and those people that deserve our attention. Let God, if he exists, choose to reveal himself. I doubt he will but rather than throw that around as I know it and he are things you take seriously, let us focus on making this world what we know it ought to be. I am quite content with this challenge!
February 27th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Actually, none of those thoughts come from Brian McLaren but are ideas I have learned from Leslie Newbigin (Obviously, he influenced Brian as well, but it is his ideas of faith and tradition that I have learned from). The fact that you say science advances when challenging the tradition actually proves my point. Scientists are able to move and test the tradtion (which if you read what I wrote, I totally am in agreement with you on)because they accept what their teachers and experiments have taught and what those who have gone before have already tested and learned. So they do stem from the sceintific tradition and then obviously take it further with new insights. But they always have an origin or home from they start - and that is the tradtion. Hmmm, much like Christianity should as it enters new contexts and issues.
I am in alignment with you on your last comments. “Let God, if he exists. choose to reveal himself” - I think it would look alot like Jesus. So maybe He did and we are not even willing to accept that.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Shane - A very good conversation we are having and one I enjoy! Yes, science advances by testing tradition. But let us not, in the interests of the language and ideas we each care for, stretch them beyond any meaning. Tradition that is open to be tested on the basis of empiricism, rationalism, quantitative and qualitative objective-observer experimental design is inherently different than tradition which relies on its vintage, blood-line and unverifiable revelation. Both are traditions in the most general sense that they employ past ideas as a foundation for future endeavors; however, to say this is to overlook where they are different. Just as I respectfully should better acknowledge that your definition of tradition is an undeniable part of the ongoing pursuit of an understanding of our universe, I feel so you must acknowledge that we mean two very different things when we respectively put the word into our employ.
So let us take that as what we agree upon and test Christianity - its claims to the miraculous, its claims as to somehow (to paraphrase Habermas in his Scaling the Secular City) show that if Christianity is uniquely true it must be uniquely efficacious), and its claim to the real theophanies it is predicated on - whether the form of Jesus as the resurrected God or the Baal alter-consuming fire from the sky. Tradition is never untestable, but certain theological ideas are. The contemporary debate over homosexuality illustrates this - its advocates within the church accomodate rationalism into the question which inherently creates a sliding scale that favors rational thinking over revelation. This tide is only stymied by theology creating an artificial barrier through its own use of reason.
But this is the crux of where our agreement and disagreement overlap: I embrace tradition which can be tested and verified. Having each weighed the tradition we speak of and love, in our own ways, we have come to different conclusions. For me, while Jesus is a good example, he is an incomplete one and presents as profoundly complicated questions that leave me as unsatisfied as my rationalistic tendencies no doubt leave you. The common ground we share is profound - it is the plight of the disadvantaged. We come to it through different paths, but for much of the same reasons. While in some way this diminishes the differences of our respective beliefs, I find it hard to believe the world would be worse off by people such as us choosing to believe in the result we care for in the world we know and leave the unanswered questions we have come to disagree with separate the potential to change others. It is unclear to me how to do this - I being outside the church and you very much within it. But it is a challenge worthy of much thought and is provocatively positive idea, is it not!
February 27th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
[…] t to point out deserve to be viewed with suspicion. A full review of the book can be read here. The End of Poverty: Economic […]
February 27th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Mssrs.,
Lord have mercy on us poor sinners; the Lord who chooses to give wisdom to the babes. I’m not schooled in this subject, nor do I wish to be. I’ve learned enough to know this is a dangerous game and better to be left alone; we have proven our inability to understand things of this earth and therefore should avoid matters that are heavenly. All is good or evil, flesh or spirit; as a believer on the journey towards heaven I am reminded often enough of my shortcomings relative to the teachings (pick one of the beatitudes for starters). But I am always inspired by someone encountered on this journey who has somehow aquired some measure of faith or goodness that provides a living example of my God. And for that I praise God, proclaiming loudly in my spirit this manifestation of Christ Jesus who is nearby. Your reason creates doubt everywhere Ben, but your spirit is fragrant, and it reeks of my Jesus, and being with you is good for my soul. Peace brother - today the kingdom of God has come near to you.
And to you “christians”, shape up and pray!
February 28th, 2006 at 2:15 am
Yes, I could whole heartedly join you in your pursuits in making our world better. I am confident that anything you choose to do, I could be there right beside you in desiring the same conclusion. I just wonder how both of us have that desire within us. Where did it come from? What is the origin of that care for humanity and the cosmos? I just struggle (as do you) on how we can come to such different conclusions on where this inner drive stems from. But I am confident of you and your desire to wrestle with what is true. I am thankful for your mission to join good wherever it is being done. And I, for one, will join you in this mission whenever possible. (Just grant that I will forever wonder whose mission it really is - meaning, did this mission and drive originate in our hearts because we are good guys or are we cooperating with another’s heart whose mission is to reconcile the world)