Why Christians Don’t Use the Star of David
Entries Tagged as ''
More of the Seminar…
So, my friend has a follow-up question about the Jesus Seminar. He wonders if I would expect them to get a fair hearing from the rank and file of the laity of the churches when the propositions they are presenting are antithetical to the faith claims that those laity hold dear. I think that is a very faith question in deed. I see the Jesus Seminar as addressing two audiences of laity. The first is your “good churchy folk”. This, of course, is a technical term. But the other is the folks who are on the periphery of belief and ascent. These are the folks who are attracted by Jesus, maybe even claimed by Him, but are not able to recite the creeds of old and the pray the prayers of old. I would expect that if most of the laity listened carefully rather than allow themselves to have knee-jerk reactions to bad press releases, they may mind much of value with the Jesus Seminar. Borg has recently affirmed a form of panentheism which, while it very unconventional is not necessarily unfaithful to Christian witness as any process theology minded Methodist can make clear. In fact, I have a few clergy friends who find Borg’s panentheism very convincing. [Pan-en-theism] for those un-familiar is different from theism and pantheism. Pantheism is the idea that everything and God are the same. Theism is the traditional conviction-stance of the Church. It is the idea that there is a God and there is a world and the two relate to one another from outside. God invades when needed, but the two are distinct and separate. Pan-en-theism is the notion – in the middle – that does integrity to the distinction of God and the cosmos while allowing for the interpenetration of the cosmos and the Holy One of Israel. Panentheism believes that the world and God are not the same, but that God is always in the world doing things and that the world is – in a sense – “in God”. They are separate, but they are so melded together that their separateness is more formal and official than real and actual.]
The folks who are in the churches need to hear the voices of people disaffected from the church, but still in love with Jesus. They need to hear that there is room for Christians who do not accept items like the Virgin Birth but still would live and die for the one they call Messiah. Sometimes, I am amazed at Christians who are quick to assume that if someone does not think exactly as they do, they must not be a Christians . . . or even a good person. For the folks who are not at home in the church, they may find a home within. They find within Crossan and Funk at least (but also people like Spong), an admission that doctrines such as the Virgin Birth, the historical affirmation of the resurrection, Anselmian blood atonement, and so forth are not what makes or breaks the Christian life. Rather, a Christian is defined by their relationship to Jesus of Nazareth who Christians affirm to be the Christ and the Father God who sent Him into the world and our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Christians are made Christians when they are claimed in their personal being by Jesus, not by whether or not they can affirm every line of the Westminster Catechism. This of course is nothing new. Mentally handicapped persons who do not splice theology, but love Jesus are likely to be better Christians that I will ever be. But sometimes, the Church and the Christians who inhabit it, act like those who do not accept the official doctrine of the church without any line item veto are not welcome and/or bad Christians. This is certainly not the case.
I welcome the fact that there are people in my church who read Spong, Crossan and Funk, and other such debunkers of the faith. They have been compelled by those books to reconnect with a faith that they were not able to connect with since childhood in many cases. I also meet many who can affirm faith in Jesus Christ, though they were not able to in the past and though they still do not feel comfortable or welcome in their local churches. They may be unchurched, but by the grace of God, they are still claimed in their hearts by God. These radicals do a service for our church, even if their voice is not always welcome by the laity who come each and every Sunday.
Ears to Hear (the Jesus Seminar)
Crossan Borg
(Faithful Heretics)
Had a good debate with a friend about the Jesus Seminar, a consortium of New Testament scholars (and others) who have been at work to try to discern the true Jesus behind the Biblical texts. They have been very radical and have been presented by the media often as the forefront of biblical scholarship. They are not, however. Most biblical scholars (believers and non) would not consider them to be cutting edge stuff anymore and few would consider them to be the voice of a whole academic discipline. Among their more favous announcements has been that the Resurrection was not an historical event (in the way most people assume), there was no Virgin Birth, Judas Iscariot probably did not exist but was manufactured to blame the Jews for Jesus’ death when it was actually the Romans, and more. My friend said that the Jesus Seminar offers nothing constructive, that as burned ex-Christians they are to be pitied and that they were all a bunch of publicity hogs. For my part, I do not pity these gentlemen. I admire their quest for truth, even though I disagree with most of their conclusions. I disagree that they offer nothing constructive. Borg and Crossan in particular offer much in the way of construction, even if it differs from historical Christian teaching and from my own opinions. I do not hear them as bitter, but rather frustrated that they do not get a fair hearing from the churches that nurtured them in their faith.Neither do I find these men (and few women) as publicity hounds, trying to say provocative things and jump in front of cameras. I think the press itself is the culprit there. If it bleeds, it leads. And they are looking for something provocative every Christmas and Easter. That Jesus is risen is a 2000 year old headline and (sadly) surprises no one anymore. I have read most books by Funk and Crossan. Both strike me as very earnest seekers for truth. And, as Christians, we should never be afraid of the truth. We know the truth as ultimately trustworthy, and beneficent . . for God is truth.
Now, it may be that these persons in the Jesus seminar are doing a poor job in their quest. I have explored avenues from time to time which turned out to be dead ends. But seeking out dead ends is valuable for all who are a part of the body of Christ (which Crossan and Funk would identify themselves with, if they will not identify themselves with the institutional church).
More over, I trust enough in God and the truth of God to feel that whatever is of God’s truth will remain, while falsities will not. And I feel no real reason to get my feathers ruffled over this stuff it is not of God. And if it is of God, then I will go with God’s flow.
Still more, I trust enough in God and the truth of God to feel that whatever is of God’s truth will remain, while falsities will not. And I feel no real reason to get my feathers ruffled over this stuff it is not of God. And if it is of God, then I will go with God’s flow.
I disagree with them, but I see no reason to vilify or demonize them. Rather, I respectfully listen. Jesus asked all who have ears to hear should listen. I do so (if not uncritically).
