55 share
high read insterest
Editorial preface: I am well aware that this is a political blog, but I am a believer, and, from time to time, write something that might have an appeal to many of the readers of this blog. I am a retired pastor of years gone by and my "theology" is a mix of traditional Evangelicalism and Lutheran Reformed ala Karl Barth. high read insterest
In his prologue to the book, How to Read Karl Barth – The Shape of his Theology, George Hunsinger bemoans the “fact” that there is no summary statement for Barth’s theology.
He writes, “A number of attempts have been made in the past to discover a single overriding conception that would serve as a key to reading Barth” (p3).
Barth (pronounced “Bart”), was asked by a student at Princeton I believe, for a single statement that could be used as a summary for his theology to which the theologian responded: “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”
I have been a student of Barth for 10 years, now. He is “Christological” to a fault, some would say. And Holy Scripture is his source of information and the subject of his exegesis. Everything in Holy Scripture is about Jesus Christ, according to Barth.
Note: Barth (d. 1968) is the most significant theologian of the past several hundred years. A dialectic of the first order, his "biblical theology" has wide-ranging acceptance a man who single handedly defeated the classic liberalism of the day and brought Dietrich Bonhoeffer back "from the [liberal] brink."
He is famous, in part, for making it clear that, "In the person of Jesus, we have the only objective revelation of God to man" . . . . not the Bible, not the church, not the Pope or your local pastor; only Jesus. And while His (Jesus) indwelling is a promised reality and personal in its nature, that indwelling is only personal. In Barth, the written word is the Bible, the Living Word is God is Christ.
While the Bible is our source of information concerning God and God in Christ, Jesus is the solution to our insoluble human (dialectic) circumstance, or to put it in simpler terms: while the Bible informs and helps us to order our lives in terms of dogma, the Spirit (which is Christ our Lord - II Cor 3:18)), is the solution to our inherent inability to practice that order to any significant degree.
We are not “free in Christ” unless and until we can grasp the fact that we come to God as sinners and sinning, and that circumstance never changes. Who cares if our conduct is more consistent today, than it was before, in the Lord’s will . . . . the fact is this: He died for us while we were yet sinners (and sinning).
Why is that true? Because there never is a time when our circumstance is different. God did not empower us to overcome sin after “we have accepted Christ as our personal savior,” if, by that, we mean to say that we will come to a point in time, before the Final Day, in which we live perfected lives - that we are not only free of lies and deceit of any kind, but we are free of BEING human with all its evil tendencies. It is one thing to lust, it is something other, to think lustful thoughts. It is one thing to murder, it quite something else, to hate. It is one thing to do what is right, but such is never enough - we are always guilty of the sin omission.
On a personal level, we only “consider ourselves dead to sin” (Rom 6:11) when such is not a reality except in the fact that Christ is our righteousness. We are not dead to sin, except as a consideration (on our part), except as we stand in the sacrifice of Christ. It is His faith and His righteous that saves. This may be a poor choice of words, but "consider" in Romans 6:11 has the notion of "pretense" embedded in its defining . . . . . so we pretend to be dead to sin, and if we do this, we will be as "perfect" as possible, knowing that Christ is our success, not ourselves.
I once told a friend, an Episcopalian priest, I had always been doubtful and questioning of Christianity.... his response, "as you very well should be."
ReplyDeleteAs a spiritual model, Jesus provides a path. The Bible, not so much. Perhaps this is what Barth is saying.
I'm perfectly fine with the likely reality that the story of Jesus never really happened, and is just metaphorical, a legend, a fairy tale. If one can see it in such a manner, it doesn't diminish the message.
As Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote: "It is a misconceptions that the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it. ...Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament.... Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture. ... Jesus of Nazareth, according to our best research, lived between the years 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Yet all of the gospels were written between the years 70 to 100 A.D., or 40 to 70 years after his crucifixion, and they were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write."
Stories of heroic figures grow, experience magnifying tendencies and become surrounded by interpretive mythology through the years.
"Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written - that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John - we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100.
For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative.
In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side.
Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all."
Finally, Bishop Spong ends with this:
"One has only to look at Christian history to see why these misconceptions are dangerous. They have fed religious persecution and religious wars. They have fueled racism, anti-female biases, anti-Semitism and homophobia.They have fought against science and the explosion of knowledge."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/29/my-take-the-3-biggest-biblical-misconceptions/
Certainly, we must see the Bible for what it is. Fundamentalism in any form is dangerous, divisive. We see it used everyday by conservatives to divide and subjugate people. It is very important to keep it out our laws, and gov't, as our founders intended.
There is a lot to be learned from prophets, even though I don't personally consider them divine. Consider the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, and `Abdu'l-Bahá ... a remarkable message that is lacking from most other divisive religions, including Christianity.
Spong is hardly a qualified theologian. You disagree. And the debate continues. Like I say, you flunked Faith 101 and now, you is a expert !!! Keep polishing that one tooth you have. You might need it the next time someone asks you to chew and walk at the same time.
DeleteRationality is based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority.
ReplyDeleteFaith is a belief that is held with lack of reason or evidence, or even in spite of reason or evidence to the contrary.
Faith depends on someone selling you something and you buying it, often because others do.
Note these statements, "flunked Faith 101" ... "Keep polishing that one tooth you have ... You might need it the next time someone asks you to chew and walk at the same time." - These say a lot about Smithson, his need to say these things, and his pursuit of being as "perfect" as possible.
The mathematical postulate is based on faith - a mathematical formula without a mathematical explanation; "the postulate just works !!" You always start from a position of faith, and, then, move into the venue of knowledge. It is never the other way around. Faith is the reason you make plans for tomorrow. You have no rational reason for believing you will live to see tomorrow, but, still, you believe and rational conduct is a by-product.
DeleteYou haven't denigrated me to any serious degree for a few days, so I will hold off the insults, too. The one - tooth line is a little funny,, but you took it personal, so I will quit with that unless and until you can't stand it anymore, and fire off a couple rounds, yourself.
Research science is all about a dream, all about faith in a future cure, followed by an accumulation of knowledge. You decided to be a classical (?) guitarist. You started with faith that you could make your dream come true, and you did. My point? Don't get too carried away with the rational versus faith thing. Its a false positive - not true, not real.
DeleteHaving a vision or a goal is not the same as having faith. Faith will not help you achieve or realize the vision, only work ethic and innate ability will accomplish that.
DeleteHope for something, having a dream, a vision, combined with action to that end is a comprehensive definition of faith and that is what I am talking about. It is faith that you will see a tomorrow that allows or causes you to make plans. Faith without activity is non-existent. Again, faith rules your life, as it does mine. Why would you even argue this point?
DeleteIn other words, we believe so that we might know .. . . . understand that "believing" requires an actionable pursuit of that belief.
DeleteAll the faith and prayers in the world are not going to enable me to run a 10 flat 100m. I don't have faith that I will see tomorrow, I have a reasonable expectation based on previous observation.
ReplyDeleteHaving an unshakable belief, or faith, in a particular scientific idea, is detrimental to science itself. A good scientist is someone who trusts nothing, and no one, and is willing to drop their deepest held beliefs. “Science” is nothing more than looking carefully at the world.
Thinking positive, visualizing an ideal, self-actualization ... these are concepts that are akin to faith but a whole lot more useful and real. Faith and hope are less useful and often unrealistic. Sometimes, faith is a crutch for belief in something where there is no evidence to support that belief. Some think faith was essentially invented by man to provide a comfort and false answers to difficult questions.
Your example as to your times in the 100m is a mis-statement of reality, if not fact. The ONLY reason you will never run a 10 flat 100m is because you have convinced yourself of same. Look, what is the difference between Jesse Owens in 1936 and me, in 1863? He set a world's record for the 100 yard dash of 9.4, which means, he ran a lot of 9.5 to 9.7 races --- those were my times in high school including a 9.4 !! If Owens had been in his prime, today, I believe he would have been a world class sprinter by today's standard. Mind-set is the difference between 1936 and 1963 . . . . period. I will bet you one thing, Owens did not run 9.4 to 9.6 in high school.
ReplyDeleteYou go on to write: "Having an unshakable belief, or faith, in a particular scientific idea, is detrimental to science itself" is not a reasonable statement. It is self-defeating to a research scientist. Decades of experimental failure often leads to a cure of some sort. THAT is the product of an unshakable faith in a PARTICULAR idea.
Your last paragraph? I really agree with much of it, but, at no time, can the logic of your reasoned response be used to defeat, in toto, the notion of faith as a starting point for discovery and expanded knowledge. Faith is not always about an "absolute" or particular end game. I mean, what was the specific assumption, in studying seagull poop, and coming up with some kind of cure ? That sort of thing happens in the world of science, you know, and that is no BS (pun intended). Often, scientists, like salesmen, just throw some shit on the wall, and monitor for meaningful results. THAT is faith in a larger narrative, hoping for a specific result OF SOME SORT.
I believe in God because believing in you, or government with all its systemic corruption, or some emperor is insane. For me to believe that something came out of nothing, or that matter and motion has always existed in an universe that is constantly winding down to an "end of times," is a preposterous bit of nonsense, to me, as well.
I tried living my life without "god," tens years of that sort of life-style. And I have seen hundreds of guys like me, living as if there is no "god" and their lives are as screwed as mine was. So, we all have our personal testimonies. You gave up on your faith at a fairly early age, or so it seems. My departure from God was an adult decision, and my return, a decade later, was based on the "nothingness" I felt, that had replaced God in my life.
And nothingness is where you are headed. Me - maybe the same, but I don't think so.
In the mean time, you have no moral authority to order my faith, to exclude my conscientious decisions or to order God out of the government of which I am a part. As a believer, I have no prevailing authority to order you about, either - but, if you are going to use the excuse "I am offended," then I will do the same and the two sides will never have a meeting of the minds . . . . unlike our Founders, so many years ago.
Personally, I an a pantheist, science ad nature, unity and kindness. Restricting my self to a human created god, like jesus and so many messiahs before him in human history, is limited. And the infinite universe makes perfect sense. I can see how it wouldn't to some - infinity is a hard concept to grasp, and especially for those who would subscribe to traditional religion that elevates man to an arrogantly high level of importance ... as if the universe were created solely for us. Our species is so far very very young, mere blip on the screen, and will likely not prove to be as successful as other organisms on this planet in the long run in terms of survival.
ReplyDeleteYou sound so authoritarian in your very personal version of existentialism. And, of course, the universe is neither infinite in scope or duration, if you believe in the conclusions of men such as Einstein.
ReplyDeleteAs per "infinity," itself, finite cannot begin to understand in - finite. Logic is the rationale of the mind based on comparative realities. We have absolutely nothing in our world of thought, science, mathematics, or faith that allows us to actually consider, logically, any aspect of the infinite precisely because of its logical novelty.
I have never met anyone in the faith community who believes that the universe was "solely" (or otherwise) created "for us." Straw man to the max. As far as the wild success of "other organisms on this planet," that is the stuff of comic books.
Understand that you have no intellectual standing when it comes to the evaluation of either pantheism or the claimed divinity of Jesus . . . . . neither do I. And that, is where "faith" comes into view. All of what you said in the above is a matter of personal faith. so you DO believe in the validity of faith, and, in such, are no different in terms of logical vitality than I . . . . you just don't choose to believe in God.
No, my view of god is not limited to man created stories, legends, ancient writings, etc... God is a force bigger than all that and one that we have just begun to glimpse through science and observation, so much remains unknown. And yes, the universe is infinite, not to mention the different dimensions of time and space difficult to comprehend. If our universe is finite, then it is just one of an infinite series of universes (google multiverse). We are unable to prove that because of our limited vision, which largely depends on the speed of light and cosmic ray detection. What all this shows is that man is a very small, very young and troubled species that believes god created us in his own image. Epitome of arrogant.
ReplyDelete