Shuck and Jive
A Presbyterian minister blogs about spirituality, culture, religion (both organized and disorganized), life, evolution, literature, Jesus, and lightening up.John Shuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comBlogger1455125
Updated: 43 min 1 sec ago
We Dedicate Our Labyrinth Tomorrow
Greg Miller of the Elizabethton Star wrote a nice article about our labyrinth. We will dedicate it during Sunday worship.
Check out these photos of our labyrinth in the making!
Here is a brochure about the labyrinth in pdf.
We are on the Worldwide Labyrinth Locator.
First Presbyterian to dedicate labyrinth
By Greg Miller
First Presbyterian Church, 119 W. F St., Elizabethton, will dedicate their new labyrinth on Sunday, Oct. 12, shortly after noon, according to the Rev. John Shuck, pastor.
"The spiritual practice of walking labyrinths is thousands of years old," Shuck said. "We don't know where or when it began for certain. Labyrinths have been found in ancient cultures from Greece and Crete to Egypt, China, Peru, Ireland and Scandinavia. You can find them on the floors of the great medieval cathedrals."
Aubrie Abernethy provided "the vision, energy and direction" for First Presbyterian's labyrinth, Shuck said.
Abernethy says Annette Reynolds, the founder of Labyrinth Project of Alabama and international labyrinth speaker, "shared her journey with the labyrinth" during the Annual Church Retreat at the Roan Mountain Conference Center in July 2002. "She facilitated a day-long workshop about labyrinths and their use for healing and insight," Abernethy said. "She brought a full-sized canvas labyrinth." Many people "had profound experiences walking the labyrinth that day," Abernethy said.
In 2002, Abernethy says, "plans were discussed for our own outdoor permanent labyrinth. Preliminary drawings were made. The site was discussed.
"Then during 2003-2005 during the transition from John Martin's ministry to the arrival of John Shuck, focus shifted to the matters at hand of a pastoral search and congregational care."
In 2007, members expressed renewed interest in the labyrinth. "Session approved our moving forward," Abernethy said. "Frank Knisley took the design I had drawn on graph paper back in 2002 and put sacred geometry, engineering and his artistry together to produce a working blueprint."
During Labyrinth Stepping Stone workshops, "Toddlers (with the help of parents), youth and adults, made concrete stepping stones and included personal designs, children's names, religious symbols from various traditions, signs of healing, joy, and nature.
These workshops will be ongoing...the stones will continue to be the individual expressions of the labyrinth's walkers."
Abernethy says that in May 2007, "We blessed the space and 'broke ground' with sod removal and actual construction. The sod that was removed, was relocated to other areas of the lawn that needed care. The site was dowsed, the four directions located, measured for fully handicap accessibility."
Abernethy continued, "The next steps included applying numerous layers of granulated surface, re-leveling the surface, lining the paths and perimeter with rocks donated by the Rogers family, installing the stepping stones, planting solid monkey grass donated by friends, planting memorial gifts of variegated monkey grass to mark the four directions donated as a memorial to Sally Brown by the Brown/Mason family, planting hostas as a memorial gift to Helen Collins by Audrey and Kelly Collins, and installing a post and information box for walkers to use."
Shuck has enjoyed watching people use the labyrinth "for spiritual peace and healing. The labyrinth is for members of our congregation and for the larger community. We hope everyone will be blessed by it."
Shuck describes his labyrinth-walking experiences. "I have walked this labyrinth and others," he said. "It is prayer that engages the body and the senses. It may take time to appreciate it. First time walkers wonder if they are doing it right or if they are supposed to feel something or get something. I have gone through that. Now, I don't worry about it. I just do it."
Shuck continues, "I often begin with something on my mind. I bring it to consciousness. Then as I walk to the center and back out again, I find that I am more at peace with myself and with what I have to face. There is nothing magical or superstitious about it. It is a physical path of winding to the center and back again that is a symbol for our spiritual path."
Shuck says he personally understands Christ as the center. "At times, our life journey feels like it takes us away from Christ," he said. "But Christ is always at the center. The path leads us to Him. We need simply to trust and walk toward Him. Christ at the center also gives us the strength and faith to go back and face our lives with peace and trust."
Shuck says the labyrinth "is a meditative practice to help clear the mind. There is no right or wrong way to walk the labyrinth. The best advice I can give is to simply do it without concern if you are doing it 'right.'"
The labyrinth, Shuck says, is 44 feet in diameter and is wheelchair accessible. Some of the materials were donated, and the dirt and the stone were purchased. Shuck estimates the cost at about $1,500.
The church is listed on the worldwide labyrinth locator, wwll.veriditas.labyrinthsociety.org. For more information, call 543-7737.
Check out these photos of our labyrinth in the making!
Here is a brochure about the labyrinth in pdf.
We are on the Worldwide Labyrinth Locator.
First Presbyterian to dedicate labyrinth
By Greg Miller
Star Staff
gmiller@starhq.comFirst Presbyterian Church, 119 W. F St., Elizabethton, will dedicate their new labyrinth on Sunday, Oct. 12, shortly after noon, according to the Rev. John Shuck, pastor.
"The spiritual practice of walking labyrinths is thousands of years old," Shuck said. "We don't know where or when it began for certain. Labyrinths have been found in ancient cultures from Greece and Crete to Egypt, China, Peru, Ireland and Scandinavia. You can find them on the floors of the great medieval cathedrals."
Aubrie Abernethy provided "the vision, energy and direction" for First Presbyterian's labyrinth, Shuck said.
Abernethy says Annette Reynolds, the founder of Labyrinth Project of Alabama and international labyrinth speaker, "shared her journey with the labyrinth" during the Annual Church Retreat at the Roan Mountain Conference Center in July 2002. "She facilitated a day-long workshop about labyrinths and their use for healing and insight," Abernethy said. "She brought a full-sized canvas labyrinth." Many people "had profound experiences walking the labyrinth that day," Abernethy said.
In 2002, Abernethy says, "plans were discussed for our own outdoor permanent labyrinth. Preliminary drawings were made. The site was discussed.
"Then during 2003-2005 during the transition from John Martin's ministry to the arrival of John Shuck, focus shifted to the matters at hand of a pastoral search and congregational care."
In 2007, members expressed renewed interest in the labyrinth. "Session approved our moving forward," Abernethy said. "Frank Knisley took the design I had drawn on graph paper back in 2002 and put sacred geometry, engineering and his artistry together to produce a working blueprint."
During Labyrinth Stepping Stone workshops, "Toddlers (with the help of parents), youth and adults, made concrete stepping stones and included personal designs, children's names, religious symbols from various traditions, signs of healing, joy, and nature.
These workshops will be ongoing...the stones will continue to be the individual expressions of the labyrinth's walkers."
Abernethy says that in May 2007, "We blessed the space and 'broke ground' with sod removal and actual construction. The sod that was removed, was relocated to other areas of the lawn that needed care. The site was dowsed, the four directions located, measured for fully handicap accessibility."
Abernethy continued, "The next steps included applying numerous layers of granulated surface, re-leveling the surface, lining the paths and perimeter with rocks donated by the Rogers family, installing the stepping stones, planting solid monkey grass donated by friends, planting memorial gifts of variegated monkey grass to mark the four directions donated as a memorial to Sally Brown by the Brown/Mason family, planting hostas as a memorial gift to Helen Collins by Audrey and Kelly Collins, and installing a post and information box for walkers to use."
Shuck has enjoyed watching people use the labyrinth "for spiritual peace and healing. The labyrinth is for members of our congregation and for the larger community. We hope everyone will be blessed by it."
Shuck describes his labyrinth-walking experiences. "I have walked this labyrinth and others," he said. "It is prayer that engages the body and the senses. It may take time to appreciate it. First time walkers wonder if they are doing it right or if they are supposed to feel something or get something. I have gone through that. Now, I don't worry about it. I just do it."
Shuck continues, "I often begin with something on my mind. I bring it to consciousness. Then as I walk to the center and back out again, I find that I am more at peace with myself and with what I have to face. There is nothing magical or superstitious about it. It is a physical path of winding to the center and back again that is a symbol for our spiritual path."
Shuck says he personally understands Christ as the center. "At times, our life journey feels like it takes us away from Christ," he said. "But Christ is always at the center. The path leads us to Him. We need simply to trust and walk toward Him. Christ at the center also gives us the strength and faith to go back and face our lives with peace and trust."
Shuck says the labyrinth "is a meditative practice to help clear the mind. There is no right or wrong way to walk the labyrinth. The best advice I can give is to simply do it without concern if you are doing it 'right.'"
The labyrinth, Shuck says, is 44 feet in diameter and is wheelchair accessible. Some of the materials were donated, and the dirt and the stone were purchased. Shuck estimates the cost at about $1,500.
The church is listed on the worldwide labyrinth locator, wwll.veriditas.labyrinthsociety.org. For more information, call 543-7737.
Heresy Hunting
Here is an interesting paper by Tony Burke delivered to SBL (Society of Biblical Literature). It is entitled Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium.
A cottage industry of books has emerged in the past few years responding to apparent "attacks" on the Christian faith by such perceived enemies as the Jesus Seminar, Bart Ehrman, Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, and the discoverers of the so-called Jesus Tomb.[1] Targeted also in these books are the texts of the Christian Apocrypha (CA). The books are transparently apologetic with the aim of disparaging the CA and the Gnostics who (they say) wrote them so that their readers will cease being troubled by their texts' claims. The problem with such books, at least from the perspective of those who value the CA, is that they often misrepresent the texts, their authors, and the scholars who study them.Burke points out that many of the same rhetorical strategies of the ancient heresy hunters are used by contemporary critics of the Christian Apocrypha. These strategies include:
1) Refutation by exposure. This includes selecting unfamiliar passages from the Christian Apocrypha (CA) in an attempt to dismiss them because they sound weird. Burke writes:
Such focus on the "bizarre" elements of the texts misrepresents their contents. There is plenty of material in the canonical texts that is bizarre or objectionable but it would be unfair to characterize Acts simply on the basis of the cursing stories, or Luke on Jesus' disappearing act (4:30) or the sweating of blood (22:43-44), or John on its anti-Semitism. Large parts of the CA are quite "orthodox" but these sections are not discussed.
2) Explicit ridicule of the texts' contents. Apologists define "gnosticism" in a simplistic way and equate non-canonical texts with this definition.
Several of the apologists go on to associate all non-canonical texts with Gnosticism—even the Gospel of Peter[12] and the infancy gospels[13]—either because of a lack of awareness of the complexities of defining Gnosticism, or because of a reliance on outdated scholarship on the texts, or simply because it suits their purposes to associate all non-orthodox forms of Christianity with oft-demonized Gnosticism.
3) Demonizing their opponents. Ben Witherington says this of scholars like Helmut Koester, Elaine Pagels, and James Robinson:
"these scholars, though bright and sincere, are not merely wrong; they are misled. They are oblivious to the fact that they are being led down this path by the powers of darkness."4) Concluding their works with statements of orthodoxy. They claim to have the "real Jesus" of orthodoxy as opposed to the fake Jesus of the apocrypha and of those who study the apocrypha.
Some of the apologists instead simply assert the superiority of the canonical texts over the non-canonical. Such declarations seem to be a necessary component of apologetics. It is not enough to defend the faith from its enemies; one also has to affirm one's own orthodoxy. The readers thus are reminded of the strengths of the orthodox perspective and any fleeting interest they may have in the vagaries of the popular media's current fascination with the apocryphal Jesus is checked, at least for a time.This article helped explain a few things to me. I really couldn't understand why the Jesus Seminar has been so demonized by the apologists. They have become a focal point for the modern heresy hunters. It can't be their scholarship. It isn't that radical. Form and redaction criticism isn't new. Nor is it because they are anti-church. Many are within the church (ie. Marcus Borg).
I think it is because they have spilled the beans and have made critical scholarship available and accessible. When other scholars such as Bart Ehrman (who is not with the Seminar) write books for the general public, they too join the ranks of the heretics, who in Witherington's words: "are being led down this path by the powers of darkness."
Hardly a statement of scholarship.
A cottage industry of books has emerged in the past few years responding to apparent "attacks" on the Christian faith by such perceived enemies as the Jesus Seminar, Bart Ehrman, Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, and the discoverers of the so-called Jesus Tomb.[1] Targeted also in these books are the texts of the Christian Apocrypha (CA). The books are transparently apologetic with the aim of disparaging the CA and the Gnostics who (they say) wrote them so that their readers will cease being troubled by their texts' claims. The problem with such books, at least from the perspective of those who value the CA, is that they often misrepresent the texts, their authors, and the scholars who study them.Burke points out that many of the same rhetorical strategies of the ancient heresy hunters are used by contemporary critics of the Christian Apocrypha. These strategies include:
1) Refutation by exposure. This includes selecting unfamiliar passages from the Christian Apocrypha (CA) in an attempt to dismiss them because they sound weird. Burke writes:
Such focus on the "bizarre" elements of the texts misrepresents their contents. There is plenty of material in the canonical texts that is bizarre or objectionable but it would be unfair to characterize Acts simply on the basis of the cursing stories, or Luke on Jesus' disappearing act (4:30) or the sweating of blood (22:43-44), or John on its anti-Semitism. Large parts of the CA are quite "orthodox" but these sections are not discussed.
2) Explicit ridicule of the texts' contents. Apologists define "gnosticism" in a simplistic way and equate non-canonical texts with this definition.
Several of the apologists go on to associate all non-canonical texts with Gnosticism—even the Gospel of Peter[12] and the infancy gospels[13]—either because of a lack of awareness of the complexities of defining Gnosticism, or because of a reliance on outdated scholarship on the texts, or simply because it suits their purposes to associate all non-orthodox forms of Christianity with oft-demonized Gnosticism.
3) Demonizing their opponents. Ben Witherington says this of scholars like Helmut Koester, Elaine Pagels, and James Robinson:
"these scholars, though bright and sincere, are not merely wrong; they are misled. They are oblivious to the fact that they are being led down this path by the powers of darkness."4) Concluding their works with statements of orthodoxy. They claim to have the "real Jesus" of orthodoxy as opposed to the fake Jesus of the apocrypha and of those who study the apocrypha.
Some of the apologists instead simply assert the superiority of the canonical texts over the non-canonical. Such declarations seem to be a necessary component of apologetics. It is not enough to defend the faith from its enemies; one also has to affirm one's own orthodoxy. The readers thus are reminded of the strengths of the orthodox perspective and any fleeting interest they may have in the vagaries of the popular media's current fascination with the apocryphal Jesus is checked, at least for a time.This article helped explain a few things to me. I really couldn't understand why the Jesus Seminar has been so demonized by the apologists. They have become a focal point for the modern heresy hunters. It can't be their scholarship. It isn't that radical. Form and redaction criticism isn't new. Nor is it because they are anti-church. Many are within the church (ie. Marcus Borg).
I think it is because they have spilled the beans and have made critical scholarship available and accessible. When other scholars such as Bart Ehrman (who is not with the Seminar) write books for the general public, they too join the ranks of the heretics, who in Witherington's words: "are being led down this path by the powers of darkness."
Hardly a statement of scholarship.
Go Connecticut!
This just in from the New York Times!
Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.
H/T Madpriest
Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.
H/T Madpriest
Jesus Was a Community Organizer
This is from Trina Zelle of the Witherspoon Society. You will find the whole article and other great ones in the current issue of Network News. The articles can be accessed individually:
Jesus Was a Community Organizer:
When it comes to the future of the very good legislative work done at the San Jose General Assembly, this same principle is in play. We know that the majority of Presbyterians are tired of the scorched earth machinations of the hard right. Year after year, General Assembly commissioners vote for common ground candidates. This past assembly took it a step further with votes to move toward restoring the Heidelberg Catechism to a more accurate translation, to remove the infamous 1978 and 1979 statements of "definitive guidance," and to propose amending the exclusionary "Amendment B" (G-6.0106b in our Book of Order).Now it’s up to us – the rank and file of the denomination – to make sure that the decisions made in good faith by a majority of representatives are implemented rather than subverted as they have been in the past. This can only be done if two thirds of the presbyteries affirm the San Jose decisions. This can only happen if there is sufficient turnout at those same meetings. And this will only take place if those of us who care the most make the effort to reach out to the members in the middle who are looking for a reason to vote for justice.
Jesus Was a Community Organizer:
When it comes to the future of the very good legislative work done at the San Jose General Assembly, this same principle is in play. We know that the majority of Presbyterians are tired of the scorched earth machinations of the hard right. Year after year, General Assembly commissioners vote for common ground candidates. This past assembly took it a step further with votes to move toward restoring the Heidelberg Catechism to a more accurate translation, to remove the infamous 1978 and 1979 statements of "definitive guidance," and to propose amending the exclusionary "Amendment B" (G-6.0106b in our Book of Order).Now it’s up to us – the rank and file of the denomination – to make sure that the decisions made in good faith by a majority of representatives are implemented rather than subverted as they have been in the past. This can only be done if two thirds of the presbyteries affirm the San Jose decisions. This can only happen if there is sufficient turnout at those same meetings. And this will only take place if those of us who care the most make the effort to reach out to the members in the middle who are looking for a reason to vote for justice.
Time to Open Up Your Closet
Tomorrow (Saturday, October 11) is National Coming Out Day. The Steering Committee of PFLAG Tri-Cities has sent this letter to the newspapers. Hopefully, it will be published tomorrow. You get a sneak peak:
Dear Editor,
National Coming Out Day is Saturday, October 11. Every year, on this date, tens of thousands of people come out to their family, friends and co-workers and reveal the truth about themselves. They tell others that they are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Often, this revelation is fraught with emotional turmoil for everyone involved. Parents may question themselves, by asking, “What have I done wrong to raise a son or daughter who is homosexual?”
It is important to understand that sexual orientation is not caused by parenting decisions or style or by negative life events in childhood; and it is not a choice made by individuals who simply want to be oppositional. PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) is a national organization that provides support, education and advocacy with compassion and without fees. Its purpose is to help families adjust to the reality that a son or daughter is gay, lesbian or bisexual and to relate more effectively with a society that is prejudiced against homosexuality.
This year when your loved one comes out to you, please open your heart and your arms to him or her. Then, if you need to, contact PFLAGTriCities for help and support. If you are a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individual who is struggling with the coming out process, you can also contact us. Our local chapter comprises mental health professionals, religious leaders, medical professionals, educators, and lots of parents, family members and friends of gays and lesbians.
We can help you and your family members find their way back to each other.
Please contact PFLAGTriCities at: pflagtricities@yahoo.com or visit our website at: www.PflagTricities.org. We are here to help.
The Steering Committee for PFLAG TriCities
Mountain Home, TN
423-483-7129
Now, everybody sing!
Dear Editor,
National Coming Out Day is Saturday, October 11. Every year, on this date, tens of thousands of people come out to their family, friends and co-workers and reveal the truth about themselves. They tell others that they are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Often, this revelation is fraught with emotional turmoil for everyone involved. Parents may question themselves, by asking, “What have I done wrong to raise a son or daughter who is homosexual?”
It is important to understand that sexual orientation is not caused by parenting decisions or style or by negative life events in childhood; and it is not a choice made by individuals who simply want to be oppositional. PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) is a national organization that provides support, education and advocacy with compassion and without fees. Its purpose is to help families adjust to the reality that a son or daughter is gay, lesbian or bisexual and to relate more effectively with a society that is prejudiced against homosexuality.
This year when your loved one comes out to you, please open your heart and your arms to him or her. Then, if you need to, contact PFLAGTriCities for help and support. If you are a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individual who is struggling with the coming out process, you can also contact us. Our local chapter comprises mental health professionals, religious leaders, medical professionals, educators, and lots of parents, family members and friends of gays and lesbians.
We can help you and your family members find their way back to each other.
Please contact PFLAGTriCities at: pflagtricities@yahoo.com or visit our website at: www.PflagTricities.org. We are here to help.
The Steering Committee for PFLAG TriCities
Mountain Home, TN
423-483-7129
Now, everybody sing!
Peace Surge
My Liberal Identity:
Ha! Hat Tip, Rev's Rumbles
You are a Peace Patroller, also known as an anti-war liberal or neo-hippie. You believe in putting an end to American imperial conquest, stopping wars that have already been lost, and supporting our troops by bringing them home.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com
Ha! Hat Tip, Rev's Rumbles
Tennessee Equality Project for the Tri-Cities!
A new chapter of the Tennessee Equality Project (TNEP) is forming for the Tri-Cities. The first meeting is Friday, October 10th. Here are the details:
Title: Tep Tri-Cities meeting
Date: Friday October 10, 2008
Time: 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Location: ETSU CAMPUS-Warf-Pickel Hall Room 311
Notes: This will be the first meeting of the Tri-Cities group.
The Tennessee Equality Project is attempting to do a statewide fundraiser in November where salon owners contribute a portion of their earnings from one day to TEP. If you know of any salon that might be willing to contribute let me know and I will forward their information and then TEP will contact them to find out if they will.
Thank You,
Joe Rhymer
423.504.5133
teptricities Yahoo! Group
Title: Tep Tri-Cities meeting
Date: Friday October 10, 2008
Time: 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Location: ETSU CAMPUS-Warf-Pickel Hall Room 311
Notes: This will be the first meeting of the Tri-Cities group.
The Tennessee Equality Project is attempting to do a statewide fundraiser in November where salon owners contribute a portion of their earnings from one day to TEP. If you know of any salon that might be willing to contribute let me know and I will forward their information and then TEP will contact them to find out if they will.
Thank You,
Joe Rhymer
423.504.5133
teptricities Yahoo! Group
What About Naturalism?
When I make posts about my beloved--the Jesus Seminar--a commenter usually brings up "naturalism" as in "you have bought into naturalism." My pals at Westar are accused of being "naturalists."
I am a humble country parson and no philosopher or biblical scholar. But since this comes up so often especially in regards to religious discussions, I thought I should take a stab at this.
What is naturalism? As I am hearing it, naturalism is a presupposition or assumption that the supernatural does not exist. Appeals to divine agency or miracles regarding natural or historical events are automatically ruled out. There could be (and probably are) scientists and historians who are naturalists in this sense--absolute naturalists, I guess you could call them.
In Perry Kea's article, The Road to the Jesus Seminar, he writes:
The quest for the historical Jesus was a product of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in eighteenth-century Europe and North America that promoted reason as the sole standard for establishing matters of truth. The ramifications were enormous. The political underpinnings of the American and French revolutions were established by Enlightenment figures (for example, Locke and Voltaire). The scientific method was born out of the Enlightenment. The privileging of reason over other modes of knowledge (such as tradition) meant that history was brought "down to earth" so to speak. The reasons why things happened in the past had to be sought within the space-time continuum of human life without appeals to divine agency. Just as the scientist could not appeal to supernatural forces to explain natural events, so the Enlightenment historian could not claim that historical events happened because "God so willed it."
When scholars informed by the Enlightenment considered the figure of Jesus in the gospels, they began to ask if the claims made for Jesus could be supported by rational evidence or arguments. So began the quest for the historical Jesus.Does this make Perry Kea an absolute naturalist? I don't know. Perry could be one, but I don't think this statement is necessarily an argument for absolute naturalism.
One of my commenters used the phrase practical naturalism. Practical or pragmatic naturalism does not automatically rule out the supernatural. In order for science and history to be consistent, we work with the assumption that natural events and historical events can be evaluated and explained by natural forces as opposed to supernatural ones.
What is the alternative? You could appeal to special revelation or tradition but this ends up being confusing. If we thought we could appeal to divine agency to explain things, where do we stop? How are we proven wrong? You can say most anything. People often do.
I think the charge of "naturalism" against the Jesus Seminar or other scholars of Christian origins is misplaced.
First, most of those who will use that label are in fact naturalists themselves when it comes to someone else's religion. John Loftus, author of Why I Became an Atheist says something to the effect that most Christians are atheists. They don't believe in the gods of other religions. Those whom they in turn call atheists are simply people who don't believe in one more god. These Christians are naturalists for everything in the universe except they suspend it for their own religion.
Second, historians and scientists don't need to resort to naturalism to deal with events. Most of the time we ask what is probable? What is the probable reason for the existence of this text that reports this event? Sure, it is possible that God answered Elisha's call by summoning bears to maul 42 boys for calling Elisha "baldy." It is possible that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, turned clay birds into real ones, and ascended to heaven. It is possible that Muhammad ascended into heaven to join him. All of these "events" are possible. Historians ask what is probable regarding how these stories came to be told.
I don't expect to convince anyone. I just wanted to put my thoughts down.
It does lead to the question of faith. What is faith? Is faith a belief in the supernatural? Is faith the suspension of naturalism when it comes to our preferred religious texts? Must you have this kind of faith in order to be a Christian?
Some say yes I suppose.
I am fine if folks believe that. Personally, I think faith is something different. But I am not exactly sure what that something is. It is for me related to these texts (of my religion mostly), but of other religions as well. Something in them summons something in me. Not only texts. The natural world in all its mystery summons me as well. It makes me more comfortable in my own skin and helps put one foot in front of the other. I call that faith. For now, I am OK with that.
I am a humble country parson and no philosopher or biblical scholar. But since this comes up so often especially in regards to religious discussions, I thought I should take a stab at this.
What is naturalism? As I am hearing it, naturalism is a presupposition or assumption that the supernatural does not exist. Appeals to divine agency or miracles regarding natural or historical events are automatically ruled out. There could be (and probably are) scientists and historians who are naturalists in this sense--absolute naturalists, I guess you could call them.
In Perry Kea's article, The Road to the Jesus Seminar, he writes:
The quest for the historical Jesus was a product of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in eighteenth-century Europe and North America that promoted reason as the sole standard for establishing matters of truth. The ramifications were enormous. The political underpinnings of the American and French revolutions were established by Enlightenment figures (for example, Locke and Voltaire). The scientific method was born out of the Enlightenment. The privileging of reason over other modes of knowledge (such as tradition) meant that history was brought "down to earth" so to speak. The reasons why things happened in the past had to be sought within the space-time continuum of human life without appeals to divine agency. Just as the scientist could not appeal to supernatural forces to explain natural events, so the Enlightenment historian could not claim that historical events happened because "God so willed it."
When scholars informed by the Enlightenment considered the figure of Jesus in the gospels, they began to ask if the claims made for Jesus could be supported by rational evidence or arguments. So began the quest for the historical Jesus.Does this make Perry Kea an absolute naturalist? I don't know. Perry could be one, but I don't think this statement is necessarily an argument for absolute naturalism.
One of my commenters used the phrase practical naturalism. Practical or pragmatic naturalism does not automatically rule out the supernatural. In order for science and history to be consistent, we work with the assumption that natural events and historical events can be evaluated and explained by natural forces as opposed to supernatural ones.
What is the alternative? You could appeal to special revelation or tradition but this ends up being confusing. If we thought we could appeal to divine agency to explain things, where do we stop? How are we proven wrong? You can say most anything. People often do.
I think the charge of "naturalism" against the Jesus Seminar or other scholars of Christian origins is misplaced.
First, most of those who will use that label are in fact naturalists themselves when it comes to someone else's religion. John Loftus, author of Why I Became an Atheist says something to the effect that most Christians are atheists. They don't believe in the gods of other religions. Those whom they in turn call atheists are simply people who don't believe in one more god. These Christians are naturalists for everything in the universe except they suspend it for their own religion.
Second, historians and scientists don't need to resort to naturalism to deal with events. Most of the time we ask what is probable? What is the probable reason for the existence of this text that reports this event? Sure, it is possible that God answered Elisha's call by summoning bears to maul 42 boys for calling Elisha "baldy." It is possible that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, turned clay birds into real ones, and ascended to heaven. It is possible that Muhammad ascended into heaven to join him. All of these "events" are possible. Historians ask what is probable regarding how these stories came to be told.
I don't expect to convince anyone. I just wanted to put my thoughts down.
It does lead to the question of faith. What is faith? Is faith a belief in the supernatural? Is faith the suspension of naturalism when it comes to our preferred religious texts? Must you have this kind of faith in order to be a Christian?
Some say yes I suppose.
I am fine if folks believe that. Personally, I think faith is something different. But I am not exactly sure what that something is. It is for me related to these texts (of my religion mostly), but of other religions as well. Something in them summons something in me. Not only texts. The natural world in all its mystery summons me as well. It makes me more comfortable in my own skin and helps put one foot in front of the other. I call that faith. For now, I am OK with that.
October Newsletter On-Line
You can download the October White Spire in pdf.
This Sunday we will have a service to dedicate our new labyrinth. It has really turned out nicely. Download the brochure. More to come about that.
Our labyrinth is listed on The Worldwide Labyrinth Locator.
You will find ours here.
Oh, but I am not finished yet. Snad has put up our new webpage www.fpcelizabethton.org. We will keep our current page up for awhile as we transfer the information we need. Add it to your favorites!
This Sunday we will have a service to dedicate our new labyrinth. It has really turned out nicely. Download the brochure. More to come about that.
Our labyrinth is listed on The Worldwide Labyrinth Locator.
You will find ours here.
Oh, but I am not finished yet. Snad has put up our new webpage www.fpcelizabethton.org. We will keep our current page up for awhile as we transfer the information we need. Add it to your favorites!
A Rant About the Usual (Rewritten!)
The Center for Progressive Christianity posted this article by Fred Plumer: Who Will Lead Us? Maybe Our Lay People. The most exciting and important question facing the Christian religion is what it means to be a Christian. The second question is related: how can the resources of Christianity be used to meet the challenges of our time? In short: What is Christianity about?
Fred demonstrates that congregations (with some exceptions) have not been the place to explore conversation regarding new developments in theology, historical Jesus study, and Christian origins. While we might expect clergy to lead congregations in this direction, they appear resistant to do so (with some exceptions, of course). Even those who want to explore new theological ideas and scholarship have limitations set upon them or set these limitations themselves. Perhaps we clergy have become too institutionalized. Check this:
I suspect the reason may be that clergy do not want to create any unnecessary conflict nor do they want to risk the loss of any church members. But it seems strange to me that the latest thinking about the historical Jesus or about the sometimes twisted roots of the Christian church can be found on the front page of Time or Newsweek magazines and other national publications but these things are seldom being discussed in our churches. It is more than ironic that even though scholars are producing more books and articles challenging us to rethink what it means to be a Christian today, one of the last places you will hear these topics being discussed is in our churches.Why is this so? Here is my guess: Clergy are trained to be care takers not risk takers. We are chaplains to the flock. We think our task is to provide comforting faith not questioning faith. This is what we think we are paid to do. We are kept, fed, and housed by the same flock. Giving them anything but the same old message is considered either evil, irrelevant, or against our own interests.
Twenty-first century theology is a lay people's movement. I am proud of the courage of a layperson in my first congregation. She wasn't really sure about me but invited me to her home. After a few minutes she pulled her copy of John Dominic Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography out of a desk drawer and showed it to me as if it were a nickle bag of Panama Red. "This is the first person who has ever made sense about Jesus," she whispered.
I wonder when we will reach the tipping point when we no longer have to whisper but can speak openly? It happens as laypeople have these conversations in book studies, retreats, and with their clergy.
It is the people in the pews (and who have left them) who will set the course for the next phase of the Christian tradition. One of the things that laypeople can do now is to encourage ministers to bring this information in their sermons and in their teaching and to support them as they take risks in this effort.
There are many great resources out there that are accessible for non-professionals. The Center for Progressive Christianity is a good place to start. You don't need a preacher to have a book study. Start your own.
Hat Tip to Revs Rumbles
Fred demonstrates that congregations (with some exceptions) have not been the place to explore conversation regarding new developments in theology, historical Jesus study, and Christian origins. While we might expect clergy to lead congregations in this direction, they appear resistant to do so (with some exceptions, of course). Even those who want to explore new theological ideas and scholarship have limitations set upon them or set these limitations themselves. Perhaps we clergy have become too institutionalized. Check this:
I suspect the reason may be that clergy do not want to create any unnecessary conflict nor do they want to risk the loss of any church members. But it seems strange to me that the latest thinking about the historical Jesus or about the sometimes twisted roots of the Christian church can be found on the front page of Time or Newsweek magazines and other national publications but these things are seldom being discussed in our churches. It is more than ironic that even though scholars are producing more books and articles challenging us to rethink what it means to be a Christian today, one of the last places you will hear these topics being discussed is in our churches.Why is this so? Here is my guess: Clergy are trained to be care takers not risk takers. We are chaplains to the flock. We think our task is to provide comforting faith not questioning faith. This is what we think we are paid to do. We are kept, fed, and housed by the same flock. Giving them anything but the same old message is considered either evil, irrelevant, or against our own interests.
Twenty-first century theology is a lay people's movement. I am proud of the courage of a layperson in my first congregation. She wasn't really sure about me but invited me to her home. After a few minutes she pulled her copy of John Dominic Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography out of a desk drawer and showed it to me as if it were a nickle bag of Panama Red. "This is the first person who has ever made sense about Jesus," she whispered.
I wonder when we will reach the tipping point when we no longer have to whisper but can speak openly? It happens as laypeople have these conversations in book studies, retreats, and with their clergy.
It is the people in the pews (and who have left them) who will set the course for the next phase of the Christian tradition. One of the things that laypeople can do now is to encourage ministers to bring this information in their sermons and in their teaching and to support them as they take risks in this effort.
There are many great resources out there that are accessible for non-professionals. The Center for Progressive Christianity is a good place to start. You don't need a preacher to have a book study. Start your own.
Hat Tip to Revs Rumbles
A Rant About the Usual
The Center for Progressive Christianity posted this article by Fred Plumer: Who Will Lead Us? Maybe Our Lay People. Fred could have added the subtitle: Because Our Clergy Have Soiled Their Pants. But that would be unkind. Clergy cannot lead because they have become too institutionalized. Check this:
However the one characteristic that seems to get overlooked the most often is the need to create an environment for open dialogue about theological and Christological conversation. I am not certain why, but I continue to see this vacuum in too many churches that I visit. I suspect the reason may be that clergy do not want to create any unnecessary conflict or nor do they want to risk the loss of any church members. But it seems strange to me that the latest thinking about the historical Jesus or about the sometimes twisted roots of the Christian church can be found on the front page of Time or Newsweek magazines and other national publications but these things are seldom being discussed in our churches. It is more than ironic that even though scholars are producing more books and articles challenging us to rethink what it means to be a Christian today, one of the last places you will hear these topics being discussed is in our churchesWhy is this so? Here is my guess: Clergy are trained to be care takers not risk takers. We are chaplains to the flock. We think our task is to provide comforting faith not questioning faith. This is what we think we are paid to do. We are kept, fed, and housed by the same flock. Giving them anything but the same old message is considered either evil, irrelevant, or against our own interests.
In my last church, a clergy colleague was so nervous about heresy (his or mine, I'm not sure) that he wrapped The Jesus Mysteries in a brown paper bag before smuggling it on to church property.
Twenty-first century theology is a lay people's movement. I am proud of the courage of a layperson in my first congregation. She wasn't really sure about me but invited me to her home. After a few minutes she pulled her copy of John Dominic Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography out of a desk drawer and showed it to me as if it were a nickle bag of Panama Red. "This is the first person who has ever made sense about Jesus," she whispered.
I wonder when we will reach the tipping point when we no longer have to whisper but can speak openly? It begins when we let go of Mama's apron strings.
Last month I wrote a rambling rant in my church's newsletter. It is a rant about the usual. Faith or fear, which will be your guide?
Dear Friends,
Last month R_____ and I attended the Creation Spirituality Communities Conference that was held just outside of Indianapolis. The event celebrated the 25th anniversary of Matthew Fox’s book, Original Blessing. Even though I had read Fox’s books since seminary, it was the first time I had a chance to hear him speak.
Fox is one of my heroes, largely because he was silenced by the Vatican and eventually forced out of the Roman Catholic priesthood. He is now an Episcopal priest and has more freedom to express his theological views. More than anything I admire his tenacity. It is not easy to face off with an institution that is so rooted in traditionalism that it needs to stop people from writing things!
I find myself barely hanging on to the church. It becomes more and more irrelevant as each day passes. I am not speaking, of course, about our congregation or of many other progressive communities. These places are exceptions to the rule. I am speaking of Church. Whether it be Roman Catholic, Anglican, Southern Baptist, or Presbyterian, its life is based on a rule. The rule of fear.
We are afraid of everything in the world including the world. We are afraid of science. It might tell us something we don’t already know. Where would our authority be then? We are afraid of change. Gays in the ministry? Good Lord, what would grandma think? We are afraid of what the neighbors might think. We are afraid of our neighbors. We are afraid of the Iranians and the economy. We are afraid of immigrants and the drought. We are afraid of BushMcCain and the Obamanation. We are afraid of crazed psychos and corporate executives. We are afraid that it might rain and afraid of our own shadow.
The Church loves it when people are afraid. It wants you scared out of your britches. Because then you’ll come home to mama. Mama Church will protect you and keep you safe. She will keep you safe from heretics like Matt Fox (who thought it might be a good idea to think of ourselves as a blessing rather than sinful scum). MamaChurch (with its all-male hierarchy) will protect you from gay cooties, freethinkers, feminists, and liberals generally.
MamaChurch will see to it that prayer in school and abortion are the only issues worth getting riled up about. She’ll make sure that our presidential candidates pass the Christian litmus test. She’ll give you an inerrant Bible, a smooth-talking preacher, a bloody Jesus on a cross, and a theological rationale to destroy the planet so that Jesus will return sooner and make it all better.
She won’t give you integrity. That isn’t hers to give. Jesus said, “If you want to save your life, you will lose it.” In other words you have to lose it to gain it. If you operate from fear (save your life), you will end up with nothing worth saving. You will have missed living. Scared people are not happy people. They are not living. Living is only living when you give it away.
Give what away? Anything, everything. You. Give yourself away. Love it away, laugh it away, sing it, dance it, celebrate it away. Give your goodness, your blessing to all. We stand for love. Don’t ever let fear keep you from loving. I close with a quote from another of my favorite heretics, Bishop John Shelby Spong. This is from his book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die:
I do believe that life here is but a limited and finite image of full life which is limitless and infinite. I do assert that one prepares for eternity not by being religious and keeping the rules, but by living fully, loving wastefully, and daring to be all that each of us has the capacity to be. I also assert that making it possible for everyone else to live, to love, and to be is the only mission that Christian people possess. (p. 218)Namaste,
John
It is our laypeople who will save the day. Perhaps they will succeed in encouraging their pastors to get with the program of love not fear.
Thanks to the other Fred of Revs Rumbles for the TCPC link. It is a good organization. Use it to increase boldness.
However the one characteristic that seems to get overlooked the most often is the need to create an environment for open dialogue about theological and Christological conversation. I am not certain why, but I continue to see this vacuum in too many churches that I visit. I suspect the reason may be that clergy do not want to create any unnecessary conflict or nor do they want to risk the loss of any church members. But it seems strange to me that the latest thinking about the historical Jesus or about the sometimes twisted roots of the Christian church can be found on the front page of Time or Newsweek magazines and other national publications but these things are seldom being discussed in our churches. It is more than ironic that even though scholars are producing more books and articles challenging us to rethink what it means to be a Christian today, one of the last places you will hear these topics being discussed is in our churchesWhy is this so? Here is my guess: Clergy are trained to be care takers not risk takers. We are chaplains to the flock. We think our task is to provide comforting faith not questioning faith. This is what we think we are paid to do. We are kept, fed, and housed by the same flock. Giving them anything but the same old message is considered either evil, irrelevant, or against our own interests.
In my last church, a clergy colleague was so nervous about heresy (his or mine, I'm not sure) that he wrapped The Jesus Mysteries in a brown paper bag before smuggling it on to church property.
Twenty-first century theology is a lay people's movement. I am proud of the courage of a layperson in my first congregation. She wasn't really sure about me but invited me to her home. After a few minutes she pulled her copy of John Dominic Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography out of a desk drawer and showed it to me as if it were a nickle bag of Panama Red. "This is the first person who has ever made sense about Jesus," she whispered.
I wonder when we will reach the tipping point when we no longer have to whisper but can speak openly? It begins when we let go of Mama's apron strings.
Last month I wrote a rambling rant in my church's newsletter. It is a rant about the usual. Faith or fear, which will be your guide?
Dear Friends,
Last month R_____ and I attended the Creation Spirituality Communities Conference that was held just outside of Indianapolis. The event celebrated the 25th anniversary of Matthew Fox’s book, Original Blessing. Even though I had read Fox’s books since seminary, it was the first time I had a chance to hear him speak.
Fox is one of my heroes, largely because he was silenced by the Vatican and eventually forced out of the Roman Catholic priesthood. He is now an Episcopal priest and has more freedom to express his theological views. More than anything I admire his tenacity. It is not easy to face off with an institution that is so rooted in traditionalism that it needs to stop people from writing things!
I find myself barely hanging on to the church. It becomes more and more irrelevant as each day passes. I am not speaking, of course, about our congregation or of many other progressive communities. These places are exceptions to the rule. I am speaking of Church. Whether it be Roman Catholic, Anglican, Southern Baptist, or Presbyterian, its life is based on a rule. The rule of fear.
We are afraid of everything in the world including the world. We are afraid of science. It might tell us something we don’t already know. Where would our authority be then? We are afraid of change. Gays in the ministry? Good Lord, what would grandma think? We are afraid of what the neighbors might think. We are afraid of our neighbors. We are afraid of the Iranians and the economy. We are afraid of immigrants and the drought. We are afraid of BushMcCain and the Obamanation. We are afraid of crazed psychos and corporate executives. We are afraid that it might rain and afraid of our own shadow.
The Church loves it when people are afraid. It wants you scared out of your britches. Because then you’ll come home to mama. Mama Church will protect you and keep you safe. She will keep you safe from heretics like Matt Fox (who thought it might be a good idea to think of ourselves as a blessing rather than sinful scum). MamaChurch (with its all-male hierarchy) will protect you from gay cooties, freethinkers, feminists, and liberals generally.
MamaChurch will see to it that prayer in school and abortion are the only issues worth getting riled up about. She’ll make sure that our presidential candidates pass the Christian litmus test. She’ll give you an inerrant Bible, a smooth-talking preacher, a bloody Jesus on a cross, and a theological rationale to destroy the planet so that Jesus will return sooner and make it all better.
She won’t give you integrity. That isn’t hers to give. Jesus said, “If you want to save your life, you will lose it.” In other words you have to lose it to gain it. If you operate from fear (save your life), you will end up with nothing worth saving. You will have missed living. Scared people are not happy people. They are not living. Living is only living when you give it away.
Give what away? Anything, everything. You. Give yourself away. Love it away, laugh it away, sing it, dance it, celebrate it away. Give your goodness, your blessing to all. We stand for love. Don’t ever let fear keep you from loving. I close with a quote from another of my favorite heretics, Bishop John Shelby Spong. This is from his book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die:
I do believe that life here is but a limited and finite image of full life which is limitless and infinite. I do assert that one prepares for eternity not by being religious and keeping the rules, but by living fully, loving wastefully, and daring to be all that each of us has the capacity to be. I also assert that making it possible for everyone else to live, to love, and to be is the only mission that Christian people possess. (p. 218)Namaste,
John
It is our laypeople who will save the day. Perhaps they will succeed in encouraging their pastors to get with the program of love not fear.
Thanks to the other Fred of Revs Rumbles for the TCPC link. It is a good organization. Use it to increase boldness.
Time for the Debate!
Why I Heart the Jesus Seminar
When I post on the Jesus Seminar, I tend to raise the ire of some commenters. I don't intend that, but I regard it as an added bonus. One blogger said that I was a Jesus Seminar Fanboy. True enough. I am an associate member and a member of their fan club. Folks may think it odd that scholars would have a fan club. I think it is swell. Some people are fans of Nascar and enjoy watching grown men (and women) turn left around a racetrack. Others are fans of Westar and enjoy watching grown men (and women) vote left around a table.
Why do I heart them? Let me count the ways:
- They are a swell group of folks. All around, nice people.
- They publish books that I can read.
- They are interested in topics that interest me: the historical Jesus, Christian origins, and so forth.
- They go around the country two by two as the Lord has instructed them to preach the gospel of higher criticism. I am pleased to have so far hosted three such events, known as Jesus Seminars on the Road.
- They hold their Spring and Fall gatherings at the Flamingo.
The Guild of Biblical Minimalists
I am tickled to have been accepted into the Guild of Biblical Minimalists. Well, kind of. I am the first member to be welcomed to its lowest rung, "those barely tolerated by the guild." See their sidebar for my name in lights.
Wikipedia has a definition of biblical minimalism:
Within the academic community, the main discussion revolves around how much weight to give the text of the Bible against counter-evidence or lack of evidence. Generally those giving more weight to the text of the Bible, assuming its correctness unless proven otherwise, and tending to interpret it literally, are called Biblical maximalists, while the opposing view is Biblical minimalism. The debate between the two sides is inextricably tied to how one views historiography: they disagree over how much weight documentary and indirect evidence should be given. Biblical maximalists view the Biblical narrative as a starting point for constructing the history, and correct or reinterpret it where it is contradicted by archaeological evidence. Biblical minimalists start purely from the archaeological evidence, and only consider Biblical accounts of value if they are corroborated by the archaeological evidence.I am not sure if the guild recognizes wikipedia's definition. Posting it here is further evidence of why I am barely tolerated.
Wikipedia has a definition of biblical minimalism:
Within the academic community, the main discussion revolves around how much weight to give the text of the Bible against counter-evidence or lack of evidence. Generally those giving more weight to the text of the Bible, assuming its correctness unless proven otherwise, and tending to interpret it literally, are called Biblical maximalists, while the opposing view is Biblical minimalism. The debate between the two sides is inextricably tied to how one views historiography: they disagree over how much weight documentary and indirect evidence should be given. Biblical maximalists view the Biblical narrative as a starting point for constructing the history, and correct or reinterpret it where it is contradicted by archaeological evidence. Biblical minimalists start purely from the archaeological evidence, and only consider Biblical accounts of value if they are corroborated by the archaeological evidence.I am not sure if the guild recognizes wikipedia's definition. Posting it here is further evidence of why I am barely tolerated.
What A Friend We Have In (the critical study of) Jesus
The Jesus Seminar will hold its fall meeting next week. I am bummed that I will miss it. The Jesus Seminar has moved beyond the historical Jesus to look at Christian origins. You might be interested in the reports you can read in pdf. You will be even better informed if you subscribe to the Fourth R. I am pleased that they are putting these reports on-line. That is helpful for us bloggers.
In my sermon Sunday I mentioned that the Book of Acts is a second-century work of historical-fiction with the emphasis on fiction. Here is how the Jesus Seminar voted on this question:
* Red vote demonstrates strong agreement with the ballot item, Pink indicates agreement, Gray means disagreement and Black means strong disagreement.
The question is larger than just the Book of Acts. The larger question for me is how will the church come to terms with critical scholarship of Christian origins and the Bible? Things may have changed since I was in seminary, although I think for the worse.
While we were introduced to critical scholarship we weren't given an adequate model of how to present it in our preaching and teaching. The options seemed to be:
In my opinion, if the church cannot handle critical scholarship then it deserves to go the way of the theory of luminiferous aether. It will become irrelevant. In actuality it will probably become more dangerous before it becomes irrelevant (ie. biblicism and its daughters, creationism, homophobia, and so forth).
Will critical scholarship change faith? To borrow a phrase from Sarah Palin: you betcha. In a similar way, our cosmological history and the theory of evolution has changed the way we think about what it means to be human.
Critical scholarship is a gift to the church. It is our friend. Whether or not the church (specifically my beloved PCUSA) embraces this friendship remains to be seen.
James Crossley (a critical scholar who is not a member of the American Jesus Seminar) is the author of Why Christianity Happened: A Socio-Historical Account of Christian Origins. This is an insightful book. He advocates for the serious consideration of secular methods in regards to the study of Christian origins. He concludes his book with this sentence:
If these and other such insights are not exploited, NT studies will retain its dubious academic status as being nothing more than the pious scholarly wings of the Christian churches, with their scholars often plying their trade in secular universities." (p. 176)The way of aether.
In my sermon Sunday I mentioned that the Book of Acts is a second-century work of historical-fiction with the emphasis on fiction. Here is how the Jesus Seminar voted on this question:
* Red vote demonstrates strong agreement with the ballot item, Pink indicates agreement, Gray means disagreement and Black means strong disagreement.
- Acts created the myth of succession from Jesus through the apostles to Paul. .88 Red Red 70 Pink 26 Gray 4 Black 0
- Acts was written not later than 125 nor earlier than 100 CE. .80 Red Red 55 Pink 32 Gray 14 Black 0
- The purpose of Acts is to provide an apologetic response to issues that arose in second-century Christianity. .80 Red Red 55 Pink 32 Gray 14 Black 0
The question is larger than just the Book of Acts. The larger question for me is how will the church come to terms with critical scholarship of Christian origins and the Bible? Things may have changed since I was in seminary, although I think for the worse.
While we were introduced to critical scholarship we weren't given an adequate model of how to present it in our preaching and teaching. The options seemed to be:
- Ignore it.
- Resort to confessional apologetics (especially attractive to the fundamentalists).
- Escape into postmodern doublespeak (tell the story and don't worry them with facts).
In my opinion, if the church cannot handle critical scholarship then it deserves to go the way of the theory of luminiferous aether. It will become irrelevant. In actuality it will probably become more dangerous before it becomes irrelevant (ie. biblicism and its daughters, creationism, homophobia, and so forth).
Will critical scholarship change faith? To borrow a phrase from Sarah Palin: you betcha. In a similar way, our cosmological history and the theory of evolution has changed the way we think about what it means to be human.
Critical scholarship is a gift to the church. It is our friend. Whether or not the church (specifically my beloved PCUSA) embraces this friendship remains to be seen.
James Crossley (a critical scholar who is not a member of the American Jesus Seminar) is the author of Why Christianity Happened: A Socio-Historical Account of Christian Origins. This is an insightful book. He advocates for the serious consideration of secular methods in regards to the study of Christian origins. He concludes his book with this sentence:
If these and other such insights are not exploited, NT studies will retain its dubious academic status as being nothing more than the pious scholarly wings of the Christian churches, with their scholars often plying their trade in secular universities." (p. 176)The way of aether.
Sarah Keeps the Bars Open for Joe Six-Pac
If you missed SNL's send-up of the VP debate, catch it here:
-->You might also enjoy Sarah's post-debate victory party:
Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.
In other Sarah news, I saw an article about her in the Johnson City Press today where she accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists.”
But the interesting article of the day is on Witherspoon Society. No wonder she likes to use the phrase "Joe Six Pac." Residents of Wasilla spend their early morning hours driving around tanked since the bars stay open until 5 a.m.
In short, Straatmeyer, as a Presbyterian pastor in Wasilla, supported the police chief in urging the City Council to shorten the traditional 5 a.m. last call by a few hours, partly to reduce drunk driving and domestic violence. Palin, then a city councilwoman, sided with the saloon keepers, and scolded the pastor for interfering.Check out this story in the Chicago Tribune. Good family values there, okey dokey.
-->You might also enjoy Sarah's post-debate victory party:
Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.
In other Sarah news, I saw an article about her in the Johnson City Press today where she accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists.”
But the interesting article of the day is on Witherspoon Society. No wonder she likes to use the phrase "Joe Six Pac." Residents of Wasilla spend their early morning hours driving around tanked since the bars stay open until 5 a.m.
In short, Straatmeyer, as a Presbyterian pastor in Wasilla, supported the police chief in urging the City Council to shorten the traditional 5 a.m. last call by a few hours, partly to reduce drunk driving and domestic violence. Palin, then a city councilwoman, sided with the saloon keepers, and scolded the pastor for interfering.Check out this story in the Chicago Tribune. Good family values there, okey dokey.
Sermon for World Communion Sunday
Who Did Paul Hang Out With?
John Shuck
First Presbyterian Church
Elizabethton, Tennessee
October 5th, 2008
World Communion Sunday
I Corinthians 10:23-11:1
I Corinthians 11:17-34
Last week I talked about the historical Jesus and what he may have actually done. I referenced the popular bracelets, WWJD that stand for “What Would Jesus Do.” The assumption here is that Jesus if he were here, would do the right thing. More than that, he would do the God thing. But we know virtually nothing about him as an historical figure. We have nothing that Jesus wrote. We only have what others wrote about him.
One of those key writers is Paul. From an historical perspective we know a lot more about Paul than we do Jesus. We have writings from Paul. But for some reason the phrase “What Would Paul Do” hasn’t caught on. Not too many folks wear WWPD bracelets.
Determining what Paul did is an easier question but not nearly as sexy. We care a lot more about what Jesus did than Paul because Jesus became a mythical figure. Paul remains just a guy. He is an important guy, though. Paul helped shape the mythos of Jesus. It is because of what Paul did that we care about what Jesus did.
The church taught us how to read the Jesus tradition by the selection of books that made it into the canon and by the ordering of those books. The New Testament begins with four gospels. They are followed by the book of Acts that tells us its version of the early church. Half of it is devoted to Paul. Then, finally, we have Romans, a letter from Paul.
However, we have known for some time that the gospels and Acts are later than Paul’s letters. Paul did not have the gospels in front of him. Paul has nothing to say about the birth of Jesus, his teachings, his parables, his miracles, the details of his crucifixion, or the empty tomb narratives. Why? Probably because he didn’t know about them. The probable reason he didn’t know about them is that they weren’t written in his time. Let me put it more bluntly. They hadn’t been created yet. If you are interested in that provocative statement, I recommend Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions.
The gospels are written after Paul and Paul likely had influence on the gospel writers. It is likely that Paul is a source for them as they wrote their gospels rather than the other way around.
Any information that Acts has about Paul outside of what we find in Paul’s letters is highly suspect. The Jesus Seminar is now working on Acts. According to them, Acts is likely second-century and is likely historical fiction with the emphasis on fiction.
We have one more myth to debunk. All the letters attributed to Paul were not written by Paul. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians were written by other people, even though they are written as though they are from Paul. Critical scholars affirm seven letters are by Paul: 1 Thessalonians (the first), 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Galatians, and Romans.
If we want to look at Paul, the historical person, we need to put aside the gospels and anything they say about Jesus, Acts, and those other letters. They are all later.
This is a good time to talk a little about critical scholarship and confessional scholarship. Confessional scholarship uses critical means up to a point. That point, that ceiling, is the confessional heritage. That ceiling may be in a different place based on a particular confessional tradition, but it is there. Critical scholarship does not recognize that ceiling in terms of historical and literary study. For critical scholars categories of orthodoxy and heresy have no authority. Critical scholarship gives voice to the individual voices in the tradition. What became known as orthodoxy sought to put these disparate voices into one confessional tradition. I have been doing this Bible cover to cover from a critical point of view, not a confessional point of view.
I am not saying that the confessional tradition is not valuable. In fact, people can embrace critical scholarship and find the confessional heritage helpful for ethics and meaning. The value that I find in the confessional heritage is its creativity. The confessional tradition is a product of myth-making. And it didn’t end with the Bible. Our task, in my opinion, is to look back at the wide and deep Jesus tradition and find those things that are valuable for our meaning-making or myth-making today.
We get inspiration from our pal, Paul. Paul was one of the first Christian myth-makers. Paul did not know the historical person of Jesus. He did know those who knew Jesus, Cephas and Jesus’s brother, James. Paul isn’t interested in who Jesus was as a person. He cares about the mystical, cosmic Christ. Paul relies on his experience of mystical revelation as much or even more than Cephas or James who knew Jesus.
Paul writes in 2 Corinthians:
“From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way.”
For Paul, Christ is the mystical, cosmic bridge between ethnicity, gender, and all category. Not only is Jesus the Christ, but by being in Christ we see ourselves and others in a new way. Paul writes in Galatians 3:28:
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
That is a radical statement in the first century as well as the twenty-first century. In 2 Corinthians 5:17:
“So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!”
Paul used the phrase “in Christ” to describe this new creation. What does it mean to be “in Christ?”
Have you ever had an experience in which the limitations of your social existence were lifted? And this experience enabled you to belong in a way that you do not normally belong?
African-Americans especially before civil rights yet still today had an inferior social position. As an African-American you would be addressed by white people younger than you by your first name, as we would a child. It was an insult. It was degrading. It was meant to be that. Every aspect of social existence was demeaning and a hassle.
But on Sunday, you wore your best clothes. You were greeted not by your first name but by Mr. Smith and Mrs. Jones. On Sunday, you were not simply someone who washed white people’s clothes. You were a deacon in the church. You had authority. You had responsibility. You had respect and dignity. Together, the community was “in Christ.” You knew who you were and it wasn’t what the outside world said you were day in and day out. Limitations of social existence and identity had passed away and you were given a glimpse of a new reality.
On Monday you went back to washing white people’s clothes, but you knew who you really were because of Sunday. You needed to be reminded of that and you needed to continue that “in Christ” experience on a regular basis otherwise you could forget and lose hope and fall into the belief that you were who white people said you were.
Church at its best was and is that place. The church could also fail to provide this alternative “in Christ” experience. The church could reinforce the same societal prejudices based on race, gender, class and other categories. We find Paul often critical of the communities to whom he writes. They have fallen back on old dehumanizing habits and have not embraced the new creation. Or they bring hierarchical behaviors from the outside world into this community. This is why Paul is upset in the passage we read today regarding the Lord’s Supper.
Communion or the Lord’s Supper was not celebrated in Paul’s time like we celebrate it today. It was a meal that could last for several hours. The best comparison I can see today would be the covered dish supper. We don’t think of the covered dish supper as a sacrament. If it were up to me, we would have a covered dish supper every week.
In my previous congregation we had a Saturday night service. We ended with communion, but that wasn’t the end. We went to the fellowship hall to share a meal. That is where we got to know each other. That is where we built community.
If Paul teaches us anything, he teaches us how to eat. How to eat in a sacred way. In a sacramental way. In an “in Christ” way.
In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he is critical of those who are piggy with the food at the covered dish supper, which he calls the Lord’s Supper. They have not transcended or passed over the same greedy, status seeking, unequal behavior that they are subjected to in everyday affairs.
The “in Christ” experience enables us to get a glimpse of our real selves. Former categories have passed away and we see ourselves and relate to others in a new and a different way. We become a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects. In Christ means that if we have some kind of status in life that makes us important leave it at the door. If we feel we are not important, leave that non-importance at the door. Here we are one in Christ. For Paul, Jew, Greek, male, female, slave, free, none of it matters.
That is what it means to be a human being and to be in Christ.
That is radical. It is hard to believe and hard to do.
Who did Paul hang out with? Everybody. Kind of like Jesus. Whether Paul got that from Jesus or whether the gospel writers wrote those stories about Jesus because of Paul, I don’t know. However, one of the links between Paul and Jesus is the meal—the sacred meal. The sacred meal in which boundaries are erased.
We have unhealthy attitudes toward food. We think of it as “refueling the tank” as if we are lawnmowers. We eat food without recognition of where it comes from or what it is. We even use strange phrases like “junk food” or “fast food.” Our identification by our culture as consumers doesn’t help with that. It seems to want us to eat fast, eat a lot, and eat alone. While at the same time, so many people all over Earth do not have enough to eat and we face a global food crisis.
Perhaps the task of the church today is to help each other learn how to eat. Perhaps we are needing to learn that what we eat is sacred and how we share it and eat together is sacred.
Today is Worldwide Communion Sunday. It is a time to raise our awareness that we are a global family. We are as Thomas Berry calls us—that is all of us—all living things, a communion of subjects. We live in a beautiful, fragile home. Thomas Berry writes in his book, Evening Thoughts:
“As we recover our awareness of the universe as a communion of subjects, a new interior experience awakens within the human. The barriers disappear. An enlargement of the soul takes place. The excitement evoked by natural phenomena is renewed. Dawn and sunset are once again transforming experiences, as are the sights, sounds, scents, tastes, and feel of the natural world about us.—the surging sea, the sound of the wind, the brooding forests.”
That was Thomas Berry. That is the best description of what it means to be “in Christ” that I know.
On World Communion Sunday, we imagine that we are participating in a worldwide covered dish supper. From around the globe we gather. From Iran, Sudan, New Jersey. It is a beautiful day and we eat outside. We feel the sun and the breeze. We notice the birds. Everyone brings something. Some are able to bring a lot. Some a little. We spread it out. We give thanks to Earth who provides, the Sun who energizes, the Universe who gave us birth, and all is Divine. We go through the line. We want to sample it all. But there is too much. That’s all right. There will be other suppers. We take what we can eat. We sit with others and we talk. We learn about their lives. We marvel at how strange it is that the nation’s leaders are at war. What are we fighting for? Who is an enemy? Not you or I. After all, we shared a dish. We all have what we need when we share. We know that. There’s plenty left. There is plenty on Earth for us—for all of us. And there is plenty of time to go back and sample one more dish or to take a bit more of that one that was so good. The children eat quickly and run and play. Someone picks up an instrument and we hear a new song. There is no rush. No place we need to be but here, now.
We know who we are. We are God’s own. We are at home in our own skin. We are open and free with others and nothing separates us. We share with delight the different words we have for this experience. Regardless of religion or country, regardless of what we call it, we participate in a mystical union. We are Earthlings. And we belong.
John Shuck
First Presbyterian Church
Elizabethton, Tennessee
October 5th, 2008
World Communion Sunday
I Corinthians 10:23-11:1
I Corinthians 11:17-34
Last week I talked about the historical Jesus and what he may have actually done. I referenced the popular bracelets, WWJD that stand for “What Would Jesus Do.” The assumption here is that Jesus if he were here, would do the right thing. More than that, he would do the God thing. But we know virtually nothing about him as an historical figure. We have nothing that Jesus wrote. We only have what others wrote about him.
One of those key writers is Paul. From an historical perspective we know a lot more about Paul than we do Jesus. We have writings from Paul. But for some reason the phrase “What Would Paul Do” hasn’t caught on. Not too many folks wear WWPD bracelets.
Determining what Paul did is an easier question but not nearly as sexy. We care a lot more about what Jesus did than Paul because Jesus became a mythical figure. Paul remains just a guy. He is an important guy, though. Paul helped shape the mythos of Jesus. It is because of what Paul did that we care about what Jesus did.
The church taught us how to read the Jesus tradition by the selection of books that made it into the canon and by the ordering of those books. The New Testament begins with four gospels. They are followed by the book of Acts that tells us its version of the early church. Half of it is devoted to Paul. Then, finally, we have Romans, a letter from Paul.
However, we have known for some time that the gospels and Acts are later than Paul’s letters. Paul did not have the gospels in front of him. Paul has nothing to say about the birth of Jesus, his teachings, his parables, his miracles, the details of his crucifixion, or the empty tomb narratives. Why? Probably because he didn’t know about them. The probable reason he didn’t know about them is that they weren’t written in his time. Let me put it more bluntly. They hadn’t been created yet. If you are interested in that provocative statement, I recommend Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions.
The gospels are written after Paul and Paul likely had influence on the gospel writers. It is likely that Paul is a source for them as they wrote their gospels rather than the other way around.
Any information that Acts has about Paul outside of what we find in Paul’s letters is highly suspect. The Jesus Seminar is now working on Acts. According to them, Acts is likely second-century and is likely historical fiction with the emphasis on fiction.
We have one more myth to debunk. All the letters attributed to Paul were not written by Paul. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians were written by other people, even though they are written as though they are from Paul. Critical scholars affirm seven letters are by Paul: 1 Thessalonians (the first), 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Galatians, and Romans.
If we want to look at Paul, the historical person, we need to put aside the gospels and anything they say about Jesus, Acts, and those other letters. They are all later.
This is a good time to talk a little about critical scholarship and confessional scholarship. Confessional scholarship uses critical means up to a point. That point, that ceiling, is the confessional heritage. That ceiling may be in a different place based on a particular confessional tradition, but it is there. Critical scholarship does not recognize that ceiling in terms of historical and literary study. For critical scholars categories of orthodoxy and heresy have no authority. Critical scholarship gives voice to the individual voices in the tradition. What became known as orthodoxy sought to put these disparate voices into one confessional tradition. I have been doing this Bible cover to cover from a critical point of view, not a confessional point of view.
I am not saying that the confessional tradition is not valuable. In fact, people can embrace critical scholarship and find the confessional heritage helpful for ethics and meaning. The value that I find in the confessional heritage is its creativity. The confessional tradition is a product of myth-making. And it didn’t end with the Bible. Our task, in my opinion, is to look back at the wide and deep Jesus tradition and find those things that are valuable for our meaning-making or myth-making today.
We get inspiration from our pal, Paul. Paul was one of the first Christian myth-makers. Paul did not know the historical person of Jesus. He did know those who knew Jesus, Cephas and Jesus’s brother, James. Paul isn’t interested in who Jesus was as a person. He cares about the mystical, cosmic Christ. Paul relies on his experience of mystical revelation as much or even more than Cephas or James who knew Jesus.
Paul writes in 2 Corinthians:
“From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way.”
For Paul, Christ is the mystical, cosmic bridge between ethnicity, gender, and all category. Not only is Jesus the Christ, but by being in Christ we see ourselves and others in a new way. Paul writes in Galatians 3:28:
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
That is a radical statement in the first century as well as the twenty-first century. In 2 Corinthians 5:17:
“So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!”
Paul used the phrase “in Christ” to describe this new creation. What does it mean to be “in Christ?”
Have you ever had an experience in which the limitations of your social existence were lifted? And this experience enabled you to belong in a way that you do not normally belong?
African-Americans especially before civil rights yet still today had an inferior social position. As an African-American you would be addressed by white people younger than you by your first name, as we would a child. It was an insult. It was degrading. It was meant to be that. Every aspect of social existence was demeaning and a hassle.
But on Sunday, you wore your best clothes. You were greeted not by your first name but by Mr. Smith and Mrs. Jones. On Sunday, you were not simply someone who washed white people’s clothes. You were a deacon in the church. You had authority. You had responsibility. You had respect and dignity. Together, the community was “in Christ.” You knew who you were and it wasn’t what the outside world said you were day in and day out. Limitations of social existence and identity had passed away and you were given a glimpse of a new reality.
On Monday you went back to washing white people’s clothes, but you knew who you really were because of Sunday. You needed to be reminded of that and you needed to continue that “in Christ” experience on a regular basis otherwise you could forget and lose hope and fall into the belief that you were who white people said you were.
Church at its best was and is that place. The church could also fail to provide this alternative “in Christ” experience. The church could reinforce the same societal prejudices based on race, gender, class and other categories. We find Paul often critical of the communities to whom he writes. They have fallen back on old dehumanizing habits and have not embraced the new creation. Or they bring hierarchical behaviors from the outside world into this community. This is why Paul is upset in the passage we read today regarding the Lord’s Supper.
Communion or the Lord’s Supper was not celebrated in Paul’s time like we celebrate it today. It was a meal that could last for several hours. The best comparison I can see today would be the covered dish supper. We don’t think of the covered dish supper as a sacrament. If it were up to me, we would have a covered dish supper every week.
In my previous congregation we had a Saturday night service. We ended with communion, but that wasn’t the end. We went to the fellowship hall to share a meal. That is where we got to know each other. That is where we built community.
If Paul teaches us anything, he teaches us how to eat. How to eat in a sacred way. In a sacramental way. In an “in Christ” way.
In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he is critical of those who are piggy with the food at the covered dish supper, which he calls the Lord’s Supper. They have not transcended or passed over the same greedy, status seeking, unequal behavior that they are subjected to in everyday affairs.
The “in Christ” experience enables us to get a glimpse of our real selves. Former categories have passed away and we see ourselves and relate to others in a new and a different way. We become a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects. In Christ means that if we have some kind of status in life that makes us important leave it at the door. If we feel we are not important, leave that non-importance at the door. Here we are one in Christ. For Paul, Jew, Greek, male, female, slave, free, none of it matters.
That is what it means to be a human being and to be in Christ.
That is radical. It is hard to believe and hard to do.
Who did Paul hang out with? Everybody. Kind of like Jesus. Whether Paul got that from Jesus or whether the gospel writers wrote those stories about Jesus because of Paul, I don’t know. However, one of the links between Paul and Jesus is the meal—the sacred meal. The sacred meal in which boundaries are erased.
We have unhealthy attitudes toward food. We think of it as “refueling the tank” as if we are lawnmowers. We eat food without recognition of where it comes from or what it is. We even use strange phrases like “junk food” or “fast food.” Our identification by our culture as consumers doesn’t help with that. It seems to want us to eat fast, eat a lot, and eat alone. While at the same time, so many people all over Earth do not have enough to eat and we face a global food crisis.
Perhaps the task of the church today is to help each other learn how to eat. Perhaps we are needing to learn that what we eat is sacred and how we share it and eat together is sacred.
Today is Worldwide Communion Sunday. It is a time to raise our awareness that we are a global family. We are as Thomas Berry calls us—that is all of us—all living things, a communion of subjects. We live in a beautiful, fragile home. Thomas Berry writes in his book, Evening Thoughts:
“As we recover our awareness of the universe as a communion of subjects, a new interior experience awakens within the human. The barriers disappear. An enlargement of the soul takes place. The excitement evoked by natural phenomena is renewed. Dawn and sunset are once again transforming experiences, as are the sights, sounds, scents, tastes, and feel of the natural world about us.—the surging sea, the sound of the wind, the brooding forests.”
That was Thomas Berry. That is the best description of what it means to be “in Christ” that I know.
On World Communion Sunday, we imagine that we are participating in a worldwide covered dish supper. From around the globe we gather. From Iran, Sudan, New Jersey. It is a beautiful day and we eat outside. We feel the sun and the breeze. We notice the birds. Everyone brings something. Some are able to bring a lot. Some a little. We spread it out. We give thanks to Earth who provides, the Sun who energizes, the Universe who gave us birth, and all is Divine. We go through the line. We want to sample it all. But there is too much. That’s all right. There will be other suppers. We take what we can eat. We sit with others and we talk. We learn about their lives. We marvel at how strange it is that the nation’s leaders are at war. What are we fighting for? Who is an enemy? Not you or I. After all, we shared a dish. We all have what we need when we share. We know that. There’s plenty left. There is plenty on Earth for us—for all of us. And there is plenty of time to go back and sample one more dish or to take a bit more of that one that was so good. The children eat quickly and run and play. Someone picks up an instrument and we hear a new song. There is no rush. No place we need to be but here, now.
We know who we are. We are God’s own. We are at home in our own skin. We are open and free with others and nothing separates us. We share with delight the different words we have for this experience. Regardless of religion or country, regardless of what we call it, we participate in a mystical union. We are Earthlings. And we belong.
Worshiping the Bible
Even as the Witherspoon Society struggles with a shortage of funds to print and mail its magazine, Network News, the silver lining is that the articles are now accessible on-line. You can read them individually. I hope this will continue even after donations flood into Witherspoon's coffers.
I call your attention to one in particular. This is by the Rev. Dr. Paul Capetz, Biblicism: Protestantism's Distinctive Form of Idolatry. Rev. Capetz writes:
Biblicism approaches the Bible as an unquestionable authority, presumably on account of its divine inspiration or authorship. I say this is idolatry because it treats the Bible as though it weren’t really a human document at all but a compendium of the divine opinions. Hence, to disagree with the biblical writers in any way is to oppose the very Word of God. But I call this form of idolatry distinctively Protestant since it differs from the forms of idolatry that characterize the other major forms of Christianity. Whereas Eastern Orthodoxy claims to have an unbroken tradition going back to the apostles that can never be revised, Roman Catholicism identifies the true church with an institution headed by the Roman pontiff who claims the authority to speak infallibly as Christ’s vicar on earth. It may be easier for Protestants to see the idolatry in these other forms of Christianity while failing to recognize idolatry in our own midst.This is an informative article. It should raise points for discussion.
I call your attention to one in particular. This is by the Rev. Dr. Paul Capetz, Biblicism: Protestantism's Distinctive Form of Idolatry. Rev. Capetz writes:
Biblicism approaches the Bible as an unquestionable authority, presumably on account of its divine inspiration or authorship. I say this is idolatry because it treats the Bible as though it weren’t really a human document at all but a compendium of the divine opinions. Hence, to disagree with the biblical writers in any way is to oppose the very Word of God. But I call this form of idolatry distinctively Protestant since it differs from the forms of idolatry that characterize the other major forms of Christianity. Whereas Eastern Orthodoxy claims to have an unbroken tradition going back to the apostles that can never be revised, Roman Catholicism identifies the true church with an institution headed by the Roman pontiff who claims the authority to speak infallibly as Christ’s vicar on earth. It may be easier for Protestants to see the idolatry in these other forms of Christianity while failing to recognize idolatry in our own midst.This is an informative article. It should raise points for discussion.
