www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Church

Name one! Name one!

The chronology of humanity since genesis is not legitimate, nor could the events described in it be accurate. The genealogy of Christ is contradictory in Matthew and Luke. The book of Esther is completely fictional. The account of Exodus could not have happened the way it is described etc. ,etc., etc.

The Papacy is built on foundational myths which don't match up with history (important for the true church claim). The council of Constance makes no sense in light of the current church and the explanation of how that crisis was resolved is a fudge. The Syllabus of errors it seems no longer applies. The Jews of Rome were at one time compelled to listen to Christian sermons. The Albigensian Crusade was a wholesale slaughter sanctioned by the church etc., etc., etc. The Orthodox have their own myths, problems, reversals, errors, shortcomings and so on.

The problem is not finding the examples, but where to stop.

The RCC says it is the true church and contains the fullness of faith. The Orthodox Church says the same thing in reverse. One or both is wrong. Who knows where that leaves the Non Chalcedonians. They are but a few of the voices in the true church chorus.

Each one has errors and shortcomings.

The idea of a single true church, as the existing ones claim, is absurd. The idea of an inerrant Bible is equally preposterous.

You refuse to acknowledge the obvious, you live with the paradoxes, you don't consider the issues, or you abandanon it all. Those are the choices.

If you believe the above, why are you still a Christian? I'm not picking a fight, but am sincerely asking. If I thought that the Bible had errors, and it's supposed to be the inerrant Word of God then I'd have to conclude that Christianity is bogus and would have to look elsewhere, say Judaism or Islam.

"You refuse to acknowledge the obvious, you live with the paradoxes, you don't consider the issues, or you abandon it all. Those are the choices."

Perhaps one would "not consider the issues" if they fail to adapt the a priori assumptions of modern (and post-modern) critical methods in their read of claims of scriptural revelation and tradition. I would not be ashamed if that were to describe why I accept Church teaching and scripture as free from error--there is a binding voice through the entire Biblical canon.

At times the err in "finding the examples" falls on the beholder and his way of seeing or reading text, its context, and the history of the Church. The chronology of Matthew is not, for example, structured in a way our genealogists would consider accurate today. But, if you look at the names, it can be understood that they were chosen carefully.

There are faults in the Church, but that is because man is faulted. If the institution of the Church was shouldered on human shoulders alone, it would have collapsed centuries ago. Perhaps during the wrangling with Arius, or other times of crisis. There are periods of decline and periods of revival, the history of the Church is very much like our day-to-day life.

Absurdity is an opinion, a judgment; it is not a fact. I cannot agree with your claims.

Terry

And that is the one true Church.

The author constructed the genealogy to suit his own purposes. It is made up. It is not based on fact. The issue is not my reading from a post modern perspective, it is the text itself. Reading in a certain context does not do away with this most basic of facts. This is very much like reading the foundational mythologies the churches have constructed about themselves. There is error, there is misrepresentation, there is contradiction.

The paradox is to accept that but believe there is still something behind it all, that it isn't all just an insane lie.

I think Dr. Eric that is the only way in which I remain Christian. Though on some days it is a pretty loose grasp I maintain.

"Reading in a certain context does not do away with this most basic of facts. This is very much like reading the foundational mythologies the churches have constructed about themselves."

Reading within the context of faith does put one in the position to subjectively accept revelation as truth; though that type of reading may hinge on God's grace rather than our own will and intellect. The biblical authors did not value objective fact in the same fashion that modern thinkers do. To question their writings because "it is made up" or to suggest that the accepted narrative of a particular church is fallacious is an easy task for some to make.

By formulating an alternate narrative, such as one suggesting that the early church writers rhetorically manipulated Christ's mission to their ends, or to go further and suggest that the biblical authors were misogynist and oppressed knowledge of the role Mary Madeline played, modern academics tend to excite their imaginations and anti-authoritarian sensibilities far more than their hearts.

Faith is a very particular matter. The lives of the saints show us how diverse lived faith can be. Have you read much of the saints? The stories of their lives can feed the heart.

Terry

Dear Dr. Eric,

I've grappled at one time with any and all of the issues which AMM cited (and more), and I've grappled with your question as a result, so allow me to take a stab at replying.

The short answer is faith.

I have faith in Jesus Christ. I have faith in Him because I have personally encountered His love and presence in other people. I especially encountered this at a time in my life when I was physically and spiritually very low. Thus, the experience of selfless love in the name of Christ was all the more profound. That, in turn, enabled me to overcome my otherwise skeptical mindset and to be open to the possibility that Christianity might be true. A year or so later, and after investigating the religions of the world, I concluded as did C.S. Lewis: Considering all that Jesus said, did and claimed, He was either a liar, a lunatic or exactly what He said He is. And with that, I rejoined the Christian Church; and with His grace, I have remained.

Now, on to some of the issues presented by AMM's post:

The Bible is not a book of science, and I don't take it as such. I take it as a spiritual book. So, despite its internal errancies, I can still use the Bible as a spiritual book to learn about spiritual truths (primarily) by learning how other people have (historically) encountered God.

The Bible isn't the only such book. There are plenty of accounts from different religions --some of which have died out, some of which are still existing-- of how people have encountered God. And, many of them offer some degree of spiritual and historical information.

But, the Bible is unique. Most of it (the "Old" Testament) is the history of a nation's encounter with God. Starting with Abraham, it's not just a set of myths. (Even before Abraham, the creation myths and other myths teach very different lessons than the world's other creation myths.) With Abraham and afterwards, the Bible is religious history. Furthermore, it's not just the records of one man's record of enlightenment or revelation, like the Dhammapada or Koran. It's the religious history of a nation --composed of many different individuals, each with their individual personalities-- over centuries. And as time goes on, the understanding of God by this people becomes more refined, more deep, more ultimate, and more universal, to become morally and spiritually compelling. No longer is there simply the account of a nation and its God; there is instead an understanding by Israel that its God is the God of all the universe, and He has concern and moral demands for all. Then, in the last part of the Bible (the "New" Testament), there is the utterly remarkable account of a carpenter's son who claimed to be God showed up in human form: Jesus of Nazareth. He taught people by word and by example about God; He worked miracles; He forgave men's sins; He predicted His own death and resurrection; He did die and rise again; He spent some more time with people (upwards of 500) physically but transformed; and then He ascended into Heaven. Amazing, and utterly unique.

Now, some people try to distinguish the Jesus of history from the Jesus of faith, but I find the distinction to be impossible. If for nothing else, the earliest documents we have about Jesus are works of faith. We don't have the arrest report of the Roman soldiers or the trial transcript from Pontius Pilate or a journalist's article that contemporaneously describe Jesus. Instead, there are several early accounts (written within just a few decades of the events) by men who believed that Jesus is the Son of God. Those documents include Paul's letters, 1 Peter, the Gospels according to Matthew and Mark and Luke, Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel according to John, 1 John, and more. And they all assert --with imperative urgency-- that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, who came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the first.

And if that truth is accepted, the rest of the objections are just a hill of beans.

-- John

I agree with a lot of what you said and with this last statement in particular. Despite the errors, inaccuracies, shortcomings, inconsistencies and so on; I can still look at the Bible as a source of truth and faith because I believe it has some essential components that make sense. In my case, and I guess sort of out line with what Terry advocates, I principally have to use my own experience and intellect to separate the wheat from the chaff and make sense out of it all; and I have to look at it from the perspective of today. I live in the here and now. I don't think it is an intellectually permissible exercise to encounter the shortcomings in the text and assume there is some context which explains the errors or makes them not erroneous. I speak for myself only there. I do accept that my own understanding of the text is subjective and imperfect, but so is my grasp on reality (as it is for all people).

I look at the church - it's history, claims, proclamations and so on in the same way. There is truth and there is error, and I largely have to judge what I make of it all. I don't believe in an inerrant Bible or an infallible church (a single true one or otherwise). That is actually the only way I can believe in any of it. Everything that witnesses to the objective truth is subjective, there is nothing perfect or infallible. That includes the Bible and the Church. To believe otherwise in my opinion is to set oneself up for a fall.

I have to agree with this, the Bible is not a book of science or history ... nor does it make that claim. It is a book of faith, a revelation of our (not my) relationship with God. This for me relates back to the whole question of the Church. I need the Church. St Paul speaks of this beautifully in 1 Cor 12. If a member (like me) is cut off from the body (church), then the body (church) is wounded, however, the member (me) dies. The church is, I would say, the body of Christ "incarnate" in our world today. While the members of the body (you and I) often find ourselves far from the truth, the head of the Church (Christ) is the Truth. I feel that we cannot view error in the church in the same way that we speak of error in other human institutions (e.g. government). Why? Simply because the church is not soley a human institution.

Amen.

-- John