Christian Humanism
This is one of those awkward articles to write because I am pretty sure that it will be disowned or at least misunderstood by some from both sides. Many traditional theist Christians reject anything that sounds like humanism. I have heard multiple professors and church leaders say that the two camps are irreconcilable. On the other side, many humanists scoff at an attempt to incorporate Christian principles as unnecessary. Nevertheless, I find myself becoming more and more of a Christian Humanist, and let me explain why.
Humanism as a concept is broader than secular humanism, and doesn’t necessarily have to come along with its atheistic connotations. The most important aspect of humanism involves the focus on humanity for finding philosophical answers (rather than relying on divine revelation). It involves many different aspects and different branches, and it is not necessary to embrace each one of those to be considered a humanist. A humanist would view the Christian Bible as an attempt by humans to understand the physical, moral, and transcendent elements of the universe. It brings some good principles and philosophies to the table, and deserves a place in any useful dialog, but it should not be considered trump.
At this point, the humanists and some exasperated Christians may ask “what purpose does Christianity play if its religious texts are the product of humans?” At its core, Christianity is a religion of principles: love (above all), altruism, charity, self-control, and others. These principles, articulated and exemplified by Jesus, are absolutely timeless. No amount of historical or textual criticism should diminish their value because these seem to be intrinsically good. Following Jesus and his teachings should drive modern adherents to focus on improving the human condition, rather than obsessing over specific doctrine. Finally, Christian philosophy should not be denied its place in modern discourse simply because of its religious heritage. Although Christian institutions have had widely known shortcomings (the Crusades, indulgences, and the priest molestation scandals to name just a few), Christianity has brought a great deal of good to the world.
Some of the trappings of each of these philosophical approaches seem unreasonable, though. Humanism can place too much value on the scientific method and the physical world. Other humanists, who look to philosophers like Plato and Hume can have broader views that can incorporate Christianity. For its part, Christianity brings a lot of historical, traditional, and doctrinal baggage that is not worth going into now. Philosophically, traditional Christianity can involve some beliefs that are impossible for an enlightened educated person to swallow. Among these are modern divine intervention, plenary biblical inspiration, and exclusivism.
It is definitely possible to reconcile these two camps together to form a coherent worldview. Everybody’s worldview is a combination of ideas that they have come across from other people and come up with on their own, anyway. Christianity provides the ethical principles and humanism brings the means of understanding and implementing those principles. Both are concerned with making the world a better place, which should be something that everyone can get behind.
Why are you so concerned that everyone should get along?
Oh I’m not. I don’t think I am, anyway.
Sounds like Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man.
My question for you is: in this religious humanism, what makes Christianity superior to all others, if, ultimately, they are all looking for philosophical/spiritual answers to life’s questions? Why call it ‘Christian’ Humanism, and not Spiritual or Transcendental Humanism?
Because it’s following the specific teachings of a particular individual – Jesus Christ. Superiority doesn’t necessarily follow from what I said.
Superiority is implied by the the label ‘Christian’ to describe your belief in Humanism.
I’m not trying to be adversarial. But these are types of questions/comments that have been posed to me for advancing similar views.
I am really not getting why you are inferring superiority from the Christian part of the label. If it’s because some Christians are exclusivists and some think that Christianity is the only possible source of truth and moral living, then it’s an easy fix. You don’t need to infer anything because I specifically said that I’m leaving that stuff out (see above).
I think that, if anything, there can be too strong of a negative response from the intellectual community towards anything that resembles Christianity.
It’s probably the whole man rising from the dead and ascending to the skies thing. And the whole idea that only one person (Jesus) can save you from eternal damnation.
Also, if you leave out all of the exclusivity aspects (and even the inclusive aspects) you don’t really have Christianity anymore. You have perhaps a spiritual humanism. Love, selflessness, altruism, charity – all of these things are not unique to Christianity. So, if you reject a divine Jesus (one who saves through an exclusive or inclusive belief), then what do you have? It’s not Christianity in my view. Not at all. It’s a very noble and altruistic humanist belief, with a shot of transcendentalism perhaps.
I think you’re trying really hard to reconcile a non-superiority view with a religious that is posits an inherent superiority.
Question: Is the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the savior of humanity the way to salvation? Or is Jesus optional?
Quite honestly, I think your attempt to reconcile the two views represents a conflict between your Christian upbringing (parents, church, and school) and your more open, humanist (skeptical) side. An effect of your environment upon your beliefs.
I could be wrong, though.
I know what my own worldview is, and I think you know a lot of it, too. It may not fit exactly into categories, but since we have to operate within the confines of language, I try…
You cannot look at the Christian adjective as a confining word in that description. The words do not make reality, they are trying to describe my reality.
Yes, you cited some aspects of Christianity. I cited others whenever I explained why I still apply the label “Christian” to myself. I think I get to decide what I mean, though, if we are talking about me.
Thank you for this post. It is a subject I have been thinking about lately.
Right, and I also have the intellectual right to say you aren’t correctly identifying a particular philosophy, worldview, or set of beliefs. My point is thus: if there is something particularly special about Jesus, say that he controls the hereafter of your soul, then Christianity is damn well superior; how can it not be? However, if Jesus is optional, which you may be suggesting (I can’t tell), then what’s the point of calling it Christianity? If Muhammad, The Buddha, the Bab, and the hundreds of other Messiah/Prophets are equally legitimate, then why believe in only one and not them all? Heck, why not be one yourself?
However, if Jesus is somehow more significant than all the others, then there is a superiority complex here. Your denial of any type of implied superiority is what got me ranting against you in the first place ( I didn’t think you’d deny it).
Perhaps you just have a radically different view of Christianity, which is perfectly fine (in fact, it may be wholly necessary). I’m just rather confused at what, exactly, you believe.
I was hoping you would answer S.C.’s question about Jesus; is He optional or is He the only way to God as He said in John 14:6? The apostle Paul had problems with the intellectuals of his day when he speaks of the wisdom of the world and the foolishness of God in I Corinthians, chapter 1. If you don’t believe Jesus is divine, is deity, is God incarnate, is the Messiah of the O.T., then you should remove “Christ” from your “Christian Humanism” and just call it “Another kind of secular humanism.” I know you’re trying to harmonize the two concepts, but you can’t. I don’t know when or where you lost faith in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, but Paul declared it in I Corinthians 2:9-13 (I’m sure your doubts will cause you to reject his words). If Jesus was not the Son of God, He was not a good man, He was a liar and should not be believedd. I choose to accept His statements about Himself.
Noah, you certainly can synthesize the two worldviews. Theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, Giovanni Mirandola, Thomas More, Desiderius Erasmus, and countless many others “harmonized” the two worldviews just fine. As David suggests above, it is perfectly legitimate to use secular philosophies to further the case of Christianity, in fact it may be preferable. Perhaps the quintessential work in this field is Mirandola’s “Oration on the Dignity of Man.” In this short book, Mirandola makes a brilliant case for why there ought to be a synthesis between humanism and Christianity since together, they can strengthen each other.
However, all of these figures still maintained that Jesus was still above all else. Despite their willingness to accept humanism, they were still exclusivists.
Steve, I think you’re trying to lump too many things together under one label – exclusivist. So let’s clarify.
Exclusivist Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the divine son of God and that only adhering to his teachings leads to eternal reward in Heaven. It asserts that no other religions or philosophies provide paths to God or insight into the spiritual realm. I think that’s a fair summary.
Now, I haven’t believed that kind of stuff for years.
Jesus was, by any reasonable analysis, an exceptional person, especially given the context in which he lived. His recorded words, actions, life, and death literally changed the world. I believe that he said a lot of illuminating things, and the world would be a lot better if everybody actually followed the principles that he preached. Because I see so much truth and beauty in his teachings, and because I think his principles hold a timeless moral standard that can be very beneficial for humanity.
It is fine with me that other teachers and moral leaders at various times have advocated some of the same ideas. Great for them and their followers. We should get along pretty well, and they should be making the world a better place, too. But their existence does not negate the ability of someone to follow the principles of Christianity and keep the label.
Your problem, Steve, is that every time you see the word Christian you want to insert the adjective exclusivist, and that simply isn’t always appropriate. Some Christians are exclusivists, but their numbers are diminishing. Just because they follow Jesus, his teachings, or whatever, doesn’t mean that they hold exclusivist beliefs.
Noah, a few things for you.
Were you around for the Divine Jesus article/debacle? If you missed it, maybe this will help you understand where I am coming from.
http://politicalcartel.com/2008/10/25/divine-jesus/
Your verse (I Corinthians 2:9-13) does not say anything about inspiration, and it certainly does not necessarily imply plenary inspiration. Even if you believe that the original texts that the Biblical writers authored was inspired in that way (yikes!), then how do you get past what I described in this article?
http://politicalcartel.com/2008/12/30/literary-critique-of-biblical-interpretation/
As for that last part, I do not find CS Lewis’ elementary simplification of the possible ways of looking at Jesus compelling because he overlooks the most obvious way of viewing him outside of traditional Christian doctrine – he was a good moral teacher who never claimed to be divine, but his claims gradually became morphed into claims of divinity over time.
I know what exclusivism is. I wasn’t necessarily attaching that label onto you and I’m certainly not wanting to attach some exclusivist adjective to everything Christian (hence the fact I mentioned inclusivist beliefs above). I just think you’re trying really hard to be universal and exclusive/inclusive – incompatible positions, in my opinion. But, whatever. I think you’re conception of the Christian religion is odd. But odd is usually what I strive for.
Do you think that other religions are equally as valid as Christianity? Valid meaning that they lead to some sort of redemption. (I’m making a lot of assumptions here, I know.) This is the question I’ve sort of been alluding to, that I think you’re avoiding.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be speaking of redemption at all, though. (such a nebulous concept anyway, right?)
I’m definitely odd, but that isn’t new. You said that I am “trying really hard to be universal and exclusive/inclusive,” but I don’t see any evidence for that. If I had to place myself somewhere on Monte Cox’s lineup now, I would probably fall between pluralism and universalism, but I rarely fit nicely into a single category and I’m fine with that.
What is redemption, anyway?
GIOVANNI Mirandola, David. See? SEE?
Redemption is nebulous.
I didn’t mean for this to go on so long, anyway. I was being a bit pedantic. Pedantic, Heather! See!
You should read the Oration on the Dignity of Man. It’s really good (and short). It’s the definitive (short) work on Christian Humanism.
So I’ve heard…
Haha.
Have you heard of Giovanni Mirandola, David?
I’ve always heard him referred to as Pico della Mirandola (Heather and I talked about this recently). But I visited the Wikipedia and it has Giovanni in there, too. So it must be okay.
Actually, the more I think about it, I am blaming Klein for this. He always referred to him as Pico della Mirandola in class.
He gave us both presents: I have pico, you have polemical. :)
What? Giovanni Pico della Mirandola is his full name.
David,please read carefully I Corinthians 2:9-13; these verses most definitely do describe how the Holy Spirit inspired Paul & others to tell what was in the mind of God — not in words taught by men, but words taught by the Holy Spirit. Note 2 Peter 1:20, 21, as well as the promise by Jesus Christ to the apostles in John 14:26 and John 16:13, as well as Paul in 2 Timothy 3:14-17. We may be doing too much reading too much from men outside the Bible instead of reading from men inside the Bible. Even in a court of law, the accused has a right to testify in his own behalf. Inspired men are doing that in defense of God’s revealed word. I don’t know who influenced you in your rejection of the Bible’s inspiration. BTW, Jesus is exclusive. John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12. Also, if goodness and good deeds would save a person, Cornelius in Acts 10:1 and Acts 11:14 wouldn’t have had to be told words by which he could be saved.
The exclusivists lost:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/opinion/27blow.html
Ah, interesting article, Neffs! 70% is a little higher than I would have thought, but I have been living in the South for a few years.
Noah, I don’t know what to say to you. Did you read any of what I said in the comment or in the posts that I referenced? Intellectual life is not as simple as opening up a single book and finding all the answers, even if you really really want it to be that easy.
I like your trial metaphor, but you have it all wrong. Whenever something or someone is on trial, their own self-defense testimony is generally given the least amount of credit, wouldn’t you agree? Or do you generally believe the accused person’s alibi despite mountains of implicating evidence and expert testimony? We decide what we are able to do with the Bible before we ever open the cover, so its own testimony is irrelevant.
You haven’t addressed any of the critical analysis (especially what is detailed in the Literary Criticism of the Bible article).
David, I think your last sentence in your next to the last paragraph above is enough for me to withdraw from the discussion. I appreciate your listening to my simple thoughts. You’re in my prayers; I would appreciate being in yours. I am not an intellectual; I did not have the privilege of graduating from Harding, but from a state school.
Don’t feel bad Noah, me too on the state school tip.
You guys need to recognize though that you’re crossing swords over an issue that is fundamentally (I did it again!) irreconcilable. If you believe that the cofC is the first century church established by Christ in the New Testament and that you have to follow the NT by the letter and the spirit, then it trumps everything. If you don’t, then any other text/source/philosopher is as valid. And ne’er the proponents of the two shall meet, no matter how much sword-waggling for Jesus (yeah, don’t you two believe that I didn’t notice that) you do.
*Intellectual life is not as simple as opening up a single book and finding all the answers, even if you really really want it to be that easy.*
And also: 90 percent of the people who are members of the cofC are members because they really really want it to be that easy.
Dear Noah, your reason for withdrawl is insufficient. That statement about “deciding what we are able to do with the bible before we ever open th cover” is a mere statement, that a majority of people come with their own presuppositions about the validity, and reliability of our holy text. I would assume that you too, came with perceptions about scriputre, and that through study you have either come closer or further away from the truth or at the very least what mainstream christian doctrine espouses.
I agree. Some may say that the truth inherent within the bible without a doubt testifies to its validity, but people generally see what they want to see in it. Some extremists will literally take an eye for an eye; most cofCers take as literal an interpretation as they can, but skive over some texts that don’t make sense; some recognize the principles within the text and live their lives according to those. And others see it as a load of bull that some people made up to help assuage their fears about death and the afterlife. As much as you’d like it to be, the bible isn’t a universal truth with one message that holds the same credibility to all people. This discussion is really all the example you need…
Will someone interpret Romans 13 for me? Thanks.
Proving the Bible is inspired with the Bible–great!
I think I came to many similar conclusions during my time at Harding. I think at some point I got to the point where I felt dishonest describing myself as a Christian or believing in God because what I meant by those phrases was vastly different from what most of my peers meant. I admire your efforts to reconcile the two, in part because I think churches are better places with thoughtful, tolerant people like you. I personally don’t see how any recognizable form of Christianity is reconcilable with a fully invested humanism, but maybe that’s because my fundamentalist background left me suspicious of less conservative professions of Christian belief–I guess they always strike me as a little dishonest, or as an effort of sorts to hold on to something that is appealing without having good reasons to do so.
i’m willing to bet you know a proper translation steven
question:
who would apply this statement to….say…Obama?
“Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”
*I think churches are better places with thoughtful, tolerant people like you.*
I just want to add my agreement to that. I’ve been in all kinds of congregations with all kinds of people and it’s always the kind, thoughtful people that I’ll remember, not the nutjobs who are there for the meanness.
I have a provocative question for you guys though, since you’re a sharp bunch. I think that the cofC loses people like me sometimes–over 40, educated, wide variety of life experiences–because we can’t logically square the things we were taught as children with our grown-up brains and views of the world, unless we have the mitigating factor of a strong family structure to hold us there. Not because, as we’re so often told, Satan snuck into our hearts and stole our faith. Well I guess it’s possible that he did but it sure didn’t feel as dramatic as I was sort of promised it would be. (Darn it all.)
Oh, the praise of folly and ignorance. The fundamentalist beliefs suit those who either can’t or don’t want to think about something critically.
Jesse, I’m no good at ancient Greek. So, I probably don’t know a good translation.
As for interpretations, I don’t really care. Romans 13 is so ambiguous and imprecise (like most of the Bible), that I choose to sort of ignore it (like everyone else, really).
Hitler’s Germany. Ordained by God? (laughs hysterically)
This is one conversation I can honestly say I never thought would be Godwinned. There you go. Learn something new every day.
George W. Bush. Ordained by God? (laughs hysterically)
Neffs–I think you’re right, and good point. I especially liked this: unless we have the mitigating factor of a strong family structure to hold us there. I have a good friend who went through a similar time of “faith struggles,” trying to reconcile his CoC upbringing with his worldly learning (albeit both of us were in our early 20’s and not our 40s). I think a major difference between us–though of course there are countless factors of disposition and circumstances–was that he had a closer bond to his family and a girlfriend who was more religious than he. Graduating from Harding single enabled my deconversion (or rather, getting through the first three of my five years without a serious relationship allowed my deconversion, which then made dating rather awkward for the last two) and, while it’s sucks to have parents think you’re going to hell, I still have to be honest about my beliefs.
I like the term deconversion and I would like permission to steal it from time to time. :) Honestly when I went back and looked at my prior statement about 90 percent of cofCers being there because of the easiness, I thought, that’s not right. 60 percent of them are there because they’re related to them.
Steven, here’s my big plop of heresy: I believe today that the Bible was constructed as the perfect document to keep those who were in power there (read: mostly white guys), so Romans 13 is just the gratuitous kick at anybody who would have liked to fight the power. (Hey slaves! Don’t!) It’s not even particularly imaginative. Of course when you start out your book with the story about how nobody gets to live forever and eat endless delights out of the garden anymore because of what the girl did, you have classically overplayed your hand. And engaged in subtlety of the type that men typically show.
Steven: “Will someone interpret Romans 13 for me? Thanks.”
Steven: “Romans 13 is so ambiguous and imprecise (like most of the Bible), that I choose to sort of ignore it”
Ok. Someone interpret Steven for me please, thanx.
Give in to your inner agnosticism David.
I was being facetious in the original comment. :)
Family pressures are a huge part of how you relate to your religious beliefs. You basically almost never see anyone who is really close to their family make an explicit break with their family’s religion, at least not if the family would have strong feelings about it.
I gave up my faith in my sophomore year at HU, but didn’t “come out” to my family until my first year of grad school. And even then it wasn’t really by choice, it was because my dad kept busting my balls over my preference for heathen women, so it sort of forced the issue. Relations were strained for a good long while, and the only reason there’s peace now is because of an unspoken agreement not to discuss religion, ever.
So, I appreciate when people don’t follow their beliefs to their full logical conclusion sometimes. It can be a really hard road to walk, and it’s not clear sometimes that it’s worth it.
“Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
“seek first his kingdom and his righteousness”
hey neffs, i guess the idea that ‘thou shalt not kill’ is a way to keep people from rising up too right? there is more to the bible than “white men” trying to retain power. besides, i don’t think leftist blogs generally appreciate or condone discrimination/racism etc. (just a guess…) maybe you meant it “in historical fact”, which may be true, but the problems of power do not know the color of peoples’ skin
here’s a “humanist” (defined as a faith in human reason) resolution for peace:
“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.” `Boétie (Discourse of Voluntary Servitude)
hey guys, unrelated to the post but i have been out of the blogosphere for about a month and just got back on. i posted a new piece and im not sure but the banter that i am used to is now missing.
i always look forward to challenging opinions, especially from opposing ideologies.
hopefully that banter will return.
sk.
Yeah but ‘thou shalt not kill’ is usually the first commandment tossed when things get ugly. How many Christians rode into the Crusades with ‘thou shalt not kill’ conveniently missing from their eyeballs? I’m just saying, the King James Bible was assembled in what, the 1400s? By white guys. If you take the ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ view of the Bible and you look at the things it accomplished and emboldened, they are the deeds of white men, typically aimed at women of all stripes and darker peoples. So over time I just started to call shenanigans on the whole book. So I’m reading these comments and discussions coming from that perspective. And funny, it’s always white guys who defend it.
Crusades=beginning in the 11th century; present-day Italy and Turkey
KJV=17th century; England
Scotty, I am done with the “banter” of LE. Sorry.
Okay, I am not a historian.
Neffs, I wanted to respond to your comment a few above
http://politicalcartel.com/2009/01/03/christian-humanism/#comment-7045
I agree with you completely that the Bible has been abused by those in power for centuries. There is really no question of that. There is also no question in my mind that it contains ideas that are outdated, irrelevant, culturally-bound, and even highly immoral.
But I don’t think you can make a valid historical argument that the text of the Bible itself was created in the modern age by the white men. The white men can rightfully be disparaged for abusing the religion to prop themselves up, and for stupidly misinterpreting ancient texts for sure. But there is significant evidence that the Bible itself has existed for a long time.
If we include the “Old” Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that lots of it existed between the first century BC and the first century AD, and were copied by Middle Eastern people (not really very white). Internal textual evidence also suggests that a good bit of it was put together during the 6th-4th centuries BC. When we get to the “New” Testament, it is clear from outside sources that various texts of the Christian Bible existed by the second, third, and fourth centuries AD, and the canonization process was essentially finalized by the end of the fourth century AD. There were white guys involved this time.
Also, the Bible is hardly perfect for anything – even for keeping slaves subdued. It has too many radical ideas like Exodus and Galatians 5:28.
I tried to access Scotty’s non-gay talk sports @ wordpress and got this message: “The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.” Wrong link?
I’m just saying that I have enough doubt both about the compilation of the document from whatever was available and the things done in its name since then to pretty much discredit it wholly in my mind. You’re right, there are truly radical and wonderful things in it; I am constantly amazed that so many buttoned-up people trumpet the words of Jesus, whether they read and understand them or not, because he was an f’in revolutionary, in every sense of the word.
I was talking to a good friend of mine about six months ago about politics and he was saying that there were no great political quotes by women. And I said ‘well, what about anything Ronald Reagan said? A good third to half of it is Peggy Noonan.’ And it started me on a more general path of looking for the voices of women in things. We don’t hear them a lot because they get drowned out or edited out, or just not offered because we learned to not bother. There are more dastardly/unfaithful/lousy women described in the Bible than there are heroic ones, and for every guy whose voice you hear or story you read there, there were at least 1.2 women also there you heard nothing from or nothing about. Not important. And that just can’t reflect reality. It’s the reality as the men wrote it down and edited it.
You are very right with the feminist criticism. I have been thinking and talking a lot about that lately.
I’m considering trying to teach a class at church that is a feminist critique of the Bible. Ha. Seriously, I think it would be fun if people would go for it.
It is much much more than just the female characters presented in Biblical stories, though. Almost every metaphor or word used to describe what is God, godly, or good in the Bible is masculine. It is a wholly masculine book from the very beginning. Also, some of the deepest-rooted theology expressed in it is anti-feminine – from the Garden of Eden to everything Paul wrote on the subject. :)
I bet there will be a post on that subject here at PC over the weekend…
Honey, I think a feminist critique of the Bible class would be great but could you please take a picture of when they start to kneel and pray for you and post it? ;)
This is not directly on topic but this is a good example of the kind of thinking I forget occurs on the part of men about women–the second paragraph:
http://www.slate.com/id/2207184/
David,
I’m largely sympathetic. I don’t identify as a “Christian humanist” (because, as you’ve discovered, it’s hard to slip this designation past those policing the boundaries of such identities) but it works as well as anything.
For me it simply means that I have not abandoned religious expression or interest in theology or identification as a Christian, since such is my heritage, nor do I assume that it is normative to do so.
That may seem batty to both sides. And that’s fine.
Shameless self-promotion: What if the women of the Bible had all been feminists?
Also, it’s good to point out that the “atheist community” often displays a striking lack of femininity, one reason I find a lot of atheist/humanist groups unappealing.
“A humanist would view the Christian Bible as an attempt by humans to understand the physical, moral, and transcendent elements of the universe. It brings some good principles and philosophies to the table, and deserves a place in any useful dialog, but it should not be considered trump.”
“A Christian would view Humanism as an attempt by humans to understand the physical, moral, and transcendent elements of the universe. It brings some good principles and philosophies to the table, and deserves a place in any useful dialog, but it should not be considered trump.”
brett- the sports blog is up and running at:
http://rememberthesonics.wordpress.com
hope you like it.
sk.
(sorry i wont detract from the christian humanism convo again, he just mentioned it a few posts ago)
David-
Just some thoughts…the Bible is the gift from a benevolent and omniscient God to the wandering prodigal, and we’re all prodigals. If the Bible were made clear to us so that we all understood and read its meanings the same way, there would be no purpose for us to take individual paths to salvation, to choose to follow Christ – no point in seeking if it’s already been found for us. Salvation is not just about baptism or accepting Christ that one time in front of a church. Conversion is a continuous effort, a daily decision to seek the right path with all the challenges that come with it. I can’t help but see a comparison with marriage – you get married one day, but it’s a daily effort to stay happily married. If there’s no journey, there’s no prodigal. If there’s no prodigal, there’s no homecoming. There’s no home. That’s what we’re really all looking for, isn’t it? Something that looks and feels like home, where there’s love, acceptance, peace, compassion and joy? I think that is what Christ is screaming at us, if we’d just listen, “I am your home.” There are other options/philosophies/religions, but they are crude substitutions. Is the Bible confusing? Yes. My father, who is a theology professor, admits he has more questions about the Bible now than when he started teaching 40 years ago. Has the Bible been referenced to spread hate, intolerance, oppression and violence? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s inherently inconsistent, just grossly misunderstood and exploited. History records that Christians have often given Christianity a bad name, but if Christ could call Paul, there’s hope for the rest of us. Doubt is a powerful resource for personal growth, but don’t underestimate your inability as a finite being to completely comprehend an infinite God. Keep seeking, and I will too.
Karen, thanks for your comment. I agree with a lot of your sentiments – that Christianity can provide a lot of good things despite its historical misuse, that any faith requires an active decision, and that the infinite is difficult to conceptualize.
But I think you also make some unwarranted leaps, starting with your first sentence that “the Bible is the gift from a benevolent and omniscient God…” I really don’t think the Bible came from God at all; in fact, it is quite clear that it came from humans. Deeply flawed and often misguided humans at that.
DMM – If you’re interested, Caroline Walker Bynam is a prominent medieval historian who’s done a lot of work on feminine images of God.
Thanks!
There’s ‘The Feminine Face of God’ by Sherry Ruth Anderson and I also really enjoy Karen Armstrong, but her stuff is more holistic than specific to feminist criticism.
I recently read Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza’s Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology, which was (for me) a very helpful introduction.
Okay one more link and then I’ll leave you be. What do you make of this guy? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html
“One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. ‘They are sinning through questioning,’ Driscoll preached.”
‘Nuff said.
Haha, that guy looks hilarious. Hilarious in a very obnoxious way.
I think the masturbation joke is funny, and it is amusing that he curses, but the whole Calvinism/Evangelical thing doesn’t do it for me.
I just think it’s not an accident if the movie ‘Fight Club’ is actually popular among those folks. People who are into a self-denigrating religious experience have things in common with people who are into BDSM, training for triathlons, and self-mutilation. Not that I’m judging any of them. I think there are parallels, is all.