Alas, poor Canterbury
Thursday December 20, 2007
Categories: Christianity (general)
The Archbishop of Canterbury assures BBC listeners and Ricky Gervais that a lot of the Nativity story is more or less myth. Well, Rowan, good to know. To be fair, if you read the entire transcript of the interview, the...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
So we should look to the opinions of criminals, convicts and fundamentalist Islam for proper interpretation of Scripture? A novel aproach to Biblical exegesis, to say the least.
Well, it is a fact that the census of Quirinius happened 10 years after Herod died. Make of that what you will - most pastors simply ignore it.
Not to mention that the entire Virgin Birth doctrine is almost certainly based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint. But hey, we can't let prisoners know that, lest they seek answers in an even more fraudulent religion like Islam.
Joel,
According to the (highly questionable) doctor who held a fundraiser for Huckabee recently, a Christian Reconstructionist, no science or other discipline that fails to conform to the Bible can be true. So there. Case closed.
For an altogether different take on how to find meaning in scripture, Google up "holy highway" or "highway of holiness." Interstate 35, I-35, described in Isaiah 35.
"Meanwhile, down the street, in the mosque and madrassa, other children are being schooled in very definite notions about God and man by people who are not at all interested in the full range of human experience and values and not at all worried about whether Ricky Gervais disapproves. Happily, a man of Gervais' gumption would never think to challenge them, so it's all good."
With that kind of bizarre thinking, no wonder Steyn is in trouble in Canada.
It's ridiculous to decide that since a group of uneducated, spiritually illiterate men would like easy answers to eternal questions, that clearly only such a theology is correct. The Koran, the Bible, the Tao Te Ching, or any other piece of scripture can be interpreted with dogged literality, in the same sense that Paul Simon's song "The Boxer" can be seen as literally about a boxer hanging out in New York. Or the metaphor present in all of them can be made clear. It's not so much that the one is wrong. There's just deeper truth to be found in another.
But according to Rod, the only way to fight rigid religious fundamentalism is by creating...MORE rigid religious fundamentalists, but of a differing flavor. Fundamentalist rigidity is the problem...not the solution. But, since such theology appeals to the undereducated, the angry, and those afraid of elements of modern culture, we should preach it. That way, we can win.
Those who fight dragons should beware lest they become dragons.
Yeah, Daniel. Steyn should be put in jail in Canada for the above quote. Thanks for proving his point, by the way!
The point here is not that any religion having a real, penetrating, and demanding impact on its adherents is fundamentalist...the above posters think anything conservative is fundamentalist. Of course, they also want to restrict a person's speech--go figure.
What I got out of this is the sheer idiocy of a educated individual lecturing to a bunch of convicts in high-minded abstractions about theology (btw, you can get that in Catholic traditionalism, too). Why should they care? Furthermore, why would some poor soul in a third world country really want to be subjected to an overly-rationalistic and abstract version of faith? That doesn't equate to fundamentalism--it just means that religion is something which imposes demands on people and imbues a certain degree of definiteness rather than an intellectual hobby.
This is always something that I really fail to understand. If you ask me, the most suspect detail of the Nativity story is what Joel pointed out about the Roman census, not the fact that it involved a pregnant virgin and angelic visions. If you accept the fact that there's this great invisible God out there somewhere who created the universe, the earth and the stars and the 13.5 billion light years of space-time, out of _nothing_, the idea that He can find a way to make a kid without a sperm really doesn't strike me as particularly outlandish.
JPL is right that a religion should not be completely dogmatic, and this is true; but often, people do not really "interpret" the Bible so much as just discount it when they don't like part of it. For example, I find it _incredibly_ annoying when people say to me that the Bible forbids homosexuality "based on _your_ interpretation," as though "Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou lie with a woman" was so ambiguous. Not to start a whole argument about that issue, but I'm just saying, if you choose to ignore part of the Bible, just admit that you're ignoring it---don't pretend someone who reads it for what it says is somehow making things up.
God bless.
First, even if Steyn loses his case in Canada, he's not being sent to jail. But the kind of Islamohysterics that leads someone like Steyn to utter such nonsense is what has gotten him into trouble in a country that polices intolerance differently than in the U.S. It's idiocy of the highest order.
Well, Joel, a simple Google search of the phrase "census quirinius caesar augustus" turns up some interesting possibilities. A bigger question, though, is why the people who reject the Bible altogether are the ones who insist that it ought to be strictly historically accurate? If you don't believe a word of it, why on earth should it matter whether the Biblical author got the historical details right or not?
And jaybird, explain to me why Isaiah would bother to record a prophecy which said, essentially, "Hey, look, some young woman will have a son, and will call him "God-With-Us." Unless I'm greatly mistaken, it's not at all mysterious or unremarkable for a young woman to get pregnant, and it wasn't back in Isaiah's day, either. So why bother prophesying about it? I'm sure countless young women had sons from Isaiah's day onward; there's not much to that particular prophecy without the whole "virgin birth" thing, is there?
What those "uneducated, spiritually illiterate" men were reacting to was the level of damnable falsehood that faithless intellectuals try to peddle condescendingly at them.
"What those "uneducated, spiritually illiterate" men were reacting to was the level of damnable falsehood that faithless intellectuals try to peddle condescendingly at them."
OH! I see. Hence, when they seem to be readily accepting the Muslim's statement that the Koran has the plain, obvious truth laid out in it, they are NOT reacting to "damnable falsehood" from "faithless intellectuals". Instead, they are probably responding to "damnable falsehood" from "heretical Muslim fundamentalists".
What they need of course if "accurate teaching" from someone who holds Erin Manning's particular views about the Bible, and the Christian faith.
So, on the one hand, we can come to the odd conclusion that these people seem to respond to "damnable falsehoods", regardless of the source. Or, more sensibly, we can decide that, much like Erin, they seem to prefer simplistic, literalistic, and spoon-fed "truth", regardless of the particular flavor. You know, I bet if I'd told them the REAL truth could be found in the Bhagavad-Gita, or for that matter the Satanic Bible, they'd prefer that too. Anything rather than live with complexity, ambiguity, and the simple reality that we have far more questions than we ever will answers when it comes to matters of faith on this side of the grave.
Oh, and as an aside, whether it's wrongheaded or overly optimistic, I think it rather unchristian to condemn the woman's attempt at prison outreach as "damnable falsehood", and that she is a "faithless and condescending intellectual". If so, an awful lot of "Christian" charity has been conducted in a similar vein.
Cute, JPL. I'm sure it must be obvious to anyone who reads what I write that I'm all about the simple and spoon-fed, kinda like those anti-intellectuals JPII and Benedict XVI, both of whom would likely cower before your powerful all-seeing intellect.
No, what those men in prison were responding to was the level of faith presented to them, not the simplicity or complexity of the teaching. The Muslims they encountered likely lived their faith, including its rigorous prayer demands. The Christian they encountered was apparently trying to re-frame the Gospel to read, "Well, if God had *really* so loved the world, He/She/It would have sent a Ph.D., and there wouldn't have been all of that silly nonsense about "taking up one's cross" or all those odd (but assuredly mistranslated) notions about prayer and worship and sacrifice."
People whose lives have been stripped down to the basics, such as the poor or the sick or the dying or the imprisoned, rarely have much tolerance for the Ph.D. approach. Maybe that's why Christ assured us He would be found among the poor, the sick, the dying, and the imprisoned, and that what we did for their sake we did for His--because in their "simple" faith in Him we find Him.
And, JPL, I was careful NOT to reference the woman specifically. There have been plenty of people peddling these views, after all.
I used to do prison ministry. I cannot imagine what the blazes this woman thought she was doing bringing this sort of crap to men in prison. They're guys from the street in need of something solid to hang their hats on and change their lives with. Just the fact that she was sitting there getting into the idea of all the grey spaces in the bible would scream to the men that this was irrelevant to their lives. If they wanted any of that, they could go into the prison library and read philosophy.
Many of these men have hit the end of the road and realize that how they function, what they value and how they relate with the world doesn't work. So they want something that does. Whether the bible should be taken literally, seriously or figuratively isn't really relevant to them and the fact that this woman even used such an approach with them just shows how utterly out of touch with their world she was.
And if she had any idea whatsoever about what she was doing and what mattered, when the Muslim guy started up, she would have said, "wait a minute. You want answers? You want to know what's real? Then let's put this stuff away for a minute and talk about what I know is real. There is a God. His son Jesus died so that you would know Him. And He rose from the dead after being killed because He wanted you to know that He is more powerful than death. I know that God and you can know Him to. Islam is all well and fine, but all it has to offer is rules to live by. My God can change you from the inside out. My God can give you peace and joy and patience so that you can live the life you want to live rather than just follow the rules someone wrote down way back when."
Guys from the street don't trust anyone unless someone they know is willing to vouch for him/her. The fact that this woman couldn't present a strong defense for God (not for a literal reading of scriptures) is what would turn these guys off rather than a desire for fundamentalism and simplicity.
Once a man has a conversion experience, starts growing in his faith and making real changes in his life, then he might care about bible exegesis. But if he's not even through that door, it's an absolutely insane place to start.
Daniel--considering the idiocy I've heard you utter on this blog, you ought to be worried when the the current fetish of the state will shift against your interests.
All you've done is called him an Islamaphobe--is that supposed to impress upon us all the rightness of your proclamation.
Daniel, could you please provide a detailed explanation of how what Styen said in the magazine article which is the subject of the complaint runs afoul of laws policing "hate speech" (the offense being claimed) in Canada?
Oh, and if you could provide an explanation of why every other Muslim group in Canada has condemned the CIC's action if Styen actually did violate Canada's hate speech regulations?
Thanks so much in advance for your response. I'd hate for anyone to think that you were basing your opinion on anything less than a full understanding of the situation or anything!
Erin, that whole argument is ridiculous. They certainly are NOT responding to how the guy lives his Muslim faith. There's no indication of that at all in the story, and, in point of fact, if he's in prison, odds are he did SOMETHING un-Islamic. What they are responding to is a faith presented as a system with rigid, clearly-defined rules; a clearly defined in-group to which they belong, and a clearly-defined out-group, which they consider themselves superior to and potentially persecute. The exact same qualities which they admire and respect and respond to in the prison gangs to which they often belong.
The woman was of course bring foolish, believing that they would respond to the level of information she was providing. But that doesn't mean the information is wrong...only the audience.
Had the woman presented them with dearly-beloved doctrines that either of the the Popes you had mentioned had found relevant, such as the Interior Castle of St. Teresa de Avila, or perhaps The Pilgrim's Progress; or Karl Barth or Teilhard de Chardin or almost any other level or flavor of sophisticated theology, they would have rejected it just as wholeheartedly. And had she instead begun spouting the certain, clear, action-oriented philosophy of the Aryan Brotherhood, Asatru, or the Reverend Phelps, they likely would have given it greater credence.
Their acceptance of it has nothing to do with living "godly lives", and everything to do with mythic-membership thinking common at a certain level of consciousness and education.
Also, it's always entertaining watching people demean PhD's and education in general in favor of "that old time religion" and the "simple" gospel. Religion has been saved by the mystics and the scholars..."old-time" religion has been largely pogroms, witch-burning, Crusades, etc. Compared to faiths which appreciate learning and scholarship, such as Judaism, American Christians often seem so hateful towards anything that smacks of higher learning. You'll have to travel far to find even the most Orthodox of Jews who will use that same sneering tone when speaking of PhD's.
Erin:
And jaybird, explain to me why Isaiah would bother to record a prophecy which said, essentially, "Hey, look, some young woman will have a son, and will call him "God-With-Us." Unless I'm greatly mistaken, it's not at all mysterious or unremarkable for a young woman to get pregnant, and it wasn't back in Isaiah's day, either. So why bother prophesying about it? I'm sure countless young women had sons from Isaiah's day onward; there's not much to that particular prophecy without the whole "virgin birth" thing, is there?
I agree, it doesn't seem like much of a prophecy to me either. Maybe people were more easily impressed a few millenia ago. But the fact remains that if the author of Isaiah wanted to specifically denote a virgin birth in 7:14, there was a perfectly good Hebrew word he could have used: bethulah ("virgin"), instead of almah ("young woman"). In any case, the birth of the "prophesied" child is reported in the next chapter of Isaiah and there's no reason to think this passage refers to the birth of Jesus, some 700 years later... unless you simply decide that it does, which Christians obviously do. I guess that's why it's called Faith. But it looks like an obvious case of mistranslation to me. Your mileage may vary, just my 2¢, etc.
Interestingly, Jaybird, Mark Shea posted on this prophesy today:
markshea.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html#1473422366180880976
(Add the usual.)
I find this particular conversation most un-edifying, but...
Rod quoted Mark SHEA, not Mark Steyn.
Sheesh.
Jaybird, point of information. The authoritative text of the Old Testament for Orthodox Christians is the Septuagint. We happen to think the Masoretes got it wrong ;-)
I'll say this - Mark Shea certainly burns a lot of bandwidth in explaining away why Isaiah said "young woman" instead of "virgin" if that's what he really meant to say. But what would apologetics be if it weren't for convoluted explanations of what seem to be clear-cut cases of Biblical error?
P.S.: I wonder if hard-boiled, street-wise convicts would be more likely to agree with my interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, or Mark Shea's? I think you'd have to admit, my brief paragraph is probably a lot closer to the sort of cut-and-dried/no-ambiguity needed explanation that these dudes are supposedly looking for than Mark's formidably dense explanation.
jaybird, no one is talking about "cut and dried/no ambiguity" - that's your either/or postulate.
I swear that there are people on this board who sit around and ask themselves, "how can I disagree with what is being said in a way which completely misconstrues what is actually being said? And if I can do it in a way that is insulting to religion, then so much the better!"
Yeesh!
rebeccat:
“They’re supposed to be experts, right?” says Tyrone. “So then why are they giving us all this stuff about not having any answers? I mean, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. not to have answers! And if they don’t have any answers, then who does?”
Others chime in with contempt for the equivocating liberal scholars Breyer so admires. Finally, a Muslim convert speaks up. “See, this is what I’m telling you, man. The Koran is the place to go for answers! . . . I became a Muslim because the Koran has the most truth in it. You don’t argue about what it means. You read it, and you know what to do. The Prophet got the word directly from God.”
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot like an example of someone lokking for some hard-and-fast answers to the Big Question. But I guess that's just my wishy-washy, squishy-squashy liberal interpretation of the Text.
I also don't think I insulted anyone's religion here - I simply pointed out an example of a likely error in the Bible.
Jaybird, would it be necessary for the Bible to be inerrant for you to be a Christian? In other words, you see the options as either literal Biblical truth or no truth at all?
This post strikes me as the utilitarian argument for religion. Truth doesn't matter, only certainty and results. Not really a good argument for the truth of your religion.
"Jaybird, would it be necessary for the Bible to be inerrant for you to be a Christian? In other words, you see the options as either literal Biblical truth or no truth at all?
No, not really. I grew up as a Catholic, and I certainly didn't believe in inerrancy then. I think there's plenty of things in the Bible that are likely true - I think it's very likely that a wandering rabbi/healer named Jesus (Yeshua) in first-century Palestine, who was executed for treason by the Romans, but I think all of the miraculous/Son of God stuff is mythical. So I'm probably not too different in my take on it than the liberal Christian lady that Rod mocks in his post. But I don't call myself a Christian, because I honestly can't say I believe in the tenets of the Nicene Creed.
"What those "uneducated, spiritually illiterate" men were reacting to was the level of damnable falsehood that faithless intellectuals try to peddle condescendingly at them."
Yeah, nothing screams out faithlessness like a seminarian who does prison ministry. That's so much lower on the intellectual and spiritual food chain than preening sanctrimony on a weblog. Guess what, Erin, I bet she also doesn't even cook her own Thanksgiving meal and instead orders in from a restaurant (thus rejecting the faith and gravy recipes of her ancestors)! That scarlet woman.
"Rod quoted Mark SHEA, not Mark Steyn."
My mistake. Still . . . a goofy thing to say.
Oh, come now, Mark in Houston. I have great respect for people who do prison ministry. But some people are more prepared for it than others, and I respectfully suggest that people who spend all their time deconstructing the Bible to shore up their own somewhat heterodox theories (which are mainly unrecognizable when viewed by mainstream Christianity) are no more prepared for prison ministry than a recent college graduate with a Masters in English Literature whose area of expertise is the poetry of the Romantic period would be to handle a classroom full of inner-city seventh graders.
Isn't there some saying about good intentions not being sufficient, or some such thing?
This book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, got a respectful and long review in that well-known fundamentalist sheet... the London Times Literary Supplement...
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198210764&sr=1-1
Erin,
explain to me why Isaiah would bother to record a prophecy which said, essentially, "Hey, look, some young woman will have a son, and will call him "God-With-Us."
Here's a pretty good synopsis of the standard Jewish explanation (this particular text comes from http://www.messiahtruth.com, an anti-missionary website, but it's the explanation that I have seen in multiple Jewish sources over the years).
The seventh chapter in the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah. Around the year 732 B.C.E., the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the Northern Kingdom of Israel, led by King Peqah, and the Kingdom of Syria (Aram), led by King Retsin. These two armies had besieged Jerusalem. Isaiah records that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. G-d sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – G-d would protect him and his kingdom and that their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.
It is clear from the narrative in this chapter, that Isaiah’s declaration (Is 7:14-16) was a prophecy about the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies from the north. The verses Isaiah 7:15-16 state that, by the time this child (whose imminent birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14) reaches the age of maturity (“… he knows to reject bad and choose good …”), the kings of the two enemy nations will be gone, in fact, they will be killed. Two Biblical passages, 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9, confirm that this prophecy was contemporaneously fulfilled when these two kings were assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the name of the child in Isaiah 7:14, Immanu'el, is a sign which points to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their otherwise certain demise at the hands of these two enemies. Clearly, Isaiah 7:14 is a near-term prophecy that is part of an historic narrative, and which was fulfilled in the immediate time frame, not some seven-and-a-half centuries in the future.
You didn't criticize her for just being somewhat unprepared for prison ministry, you called her faithless and condescending. That's a very different critique, which I notice you are backing away from and changing the subject from.
Whether or not her views are heterodox to mainstream Christianity wasn't the issue in your line of argument, and even if it was, as others have pointed out above, the fact that her preaching was a little too nuanced for an audience of thugs isn't a knock on her. She made her best efforts to reach an audience, and sometimes the audience won't accept it. That's true of prison ministers who teach mainstream Christianity, whatever that is (different denominations I'm sure would have different definitions of what that means), as well as for ministers who teach religious teachings with a little more nuance to them than what some prison-house Islamist (or internet Defender of the Faith) might want to hear.
Daniel wrote: "My mistake. Still . . . a goofy thing to say."
Spoken like an expert.
Well, that's quite a beating up of Chloe Breyer. She's evidently a person on a journey away from Christianity to a liberal form of Judaism. What good does
But according to Rod, the only way to fight rigid religious fundamentalism is by creating...MORE rigid religious fundamentalists, but of a differing flavor. Fundamentalist rigidity is the problem...not the solution. But, since such theology appeals to the undereducated, the angry, and those afraid of elements of modern culture, we should preach it. That way, we can win.
I don't think that's quite correct. But if you take Shea's ideas, the entry about Putin and Russians below, and various other strands of things advocated here, the central idea is the efficacy of willpower. It is a 'value' and method of embattled religious groups worldwide.
"Willpower" is a synthetic entity. Operationally, it's prioritizing and de-restraining of desire and impulse to act, subordinating and restraining (i.e. at least partly rejecting the demands of) intellect and conscience. It is a successful strategy under some circumstances.
But since it cannot actually change realities, it becomes route to dissolution or disaster under others. The Soviet Union did not fail for lack of Slavic will, Nazi Germany for lack of German determination, nor the Bush-Cheney agenda for like of a Texan equivalent.
Your quips must make you a joy at parties, Max.
"... a lot of the Nativity story is more or less myth..."
yes...
and it's not just "crooks" who seem to need Myths in order to feel secure about their belief in God...
what's up with that?
I mean...
there are no known details about God...
though there surely can be an embracing of faith and hope in the Reality of God while at the same time not embracing any of the multitude of worldwide Myths...
it's not just those "crooks" who must live with no answers...
perhaps in Myths there are claims of answers...
but in Reality there are no answers about God...
that's why religious "experts" disagree...
all that remains is to take the fact that there are no known details about God and to live with faith and hope in the Reality of God even without any of the mythical details that are claimed about God all over the world...
Merry Christmyth and Happy New Year to all...
jay, I take it nuance isn't your thing. Ah well, I could write a book spelling it out for you, but I have life.
Prison ministry is very interesting and I think important, but it can be a complete waste of time for all involved if the people coming in aren't willing to deal with the prisoners as they are and not as they think they ought to be or as they presume they are based on the fact that they are criminals. This woman didn't belong in prison minstry and I dare say that many of the posters here don't either. Which is fine. But sometimes it's better just not to talk about things of which you have no real knowledge. IJS.
Rod:
Your clear animus toward Chloe Breyer's father makes your analysis of her theology somewhat untrustworthy.
As for the main question:
If to be a Christian one must be a fundamentalist, than I never have been a Christian and never will be one. Seems to me like an easy way to drive people to Hitchens and Harris.
BTW, the idea that calling Christmas "legend" and "myth" is insulting strikes me as preposterous. First of all, we have no proof of every single detail (even, especially, whether Mary had indeed never been touched by Joseph or any other man).
Secondly, and most importantly, "legends" and "myths," Joseph Campbell might remind us, are the animating stories that inspire ourselves and our societies.
In a religious context, regardless of whether the exact events took place in history, how could the story of Christmas, the animating story ("myth" if you will) of Christianity, possibly be any more "true"?
Mark in Houston, here are my EXACT words:
"What those "uneducated, spiritually illiterate" men were reacting to was the level of damnable falsehood that faithless intellectuals try to peddle condescendingly at them."
Did I say this particular woman was faithless or condescending? No. Was I speaking about these particular prisoners in this particular situation? Actually, not necessarily; I was paraphrasing something JPL wrote in a comment posted at 5:26, where he referred somewhat dismissively (and in a rather elitist vein) to "group of uneducated, spiritually illiterate men" as wanting only the easy answers about faith.
I know nothing about Chloe Breyer except what was written here. I am extremely familiar, however, with faithless and condescending intellectuals who believe much as Jaybird does above, that Jesus was some sort of itinerant preacher who never intended to claim divinity or be worshiped--only unlike Jaybird (who is to be commended for his honesty) these calamitous idiots call themselves Christian (and even, sometimes, Catholic) and peddle their heretical nonsense with all the arrogant elitism masquerading as scholarship that can be summoned from--well, let's just say from a place these people contemptuously dismiss as a later embellishment, as they do with anything in which it would be inconvenient for them to believe.
My point, then, has less to do with Ms. Breyer and more to do with the notion that this "version" of Christianity is unlikely to inspire faith or devotion, but extremely likely either to produce yawns or provoke anger or contempt, depending on the audience upon whom it is vomited forth. Now, if you want to persist in seeing me as primarily interested in attacking a particular person when I've done nothing of the sort, go right ahead. The truth of the matter, as Rebecca has alluded to, is that prisoners are among the many people who will see through this nonsense and recognize it as the spiritual wasteland it is, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Quite honestly, I find that rather commendable of them.
I agree with Erin's comment that prisoners do see through a lot of nonsense. I've worked inside the security perimeter of a prison for over 12 years now and I've met some truly dumb criminals in my time but most them are pretty savvy in the street smarts department if not in the book smarts area. If you come into a prison and start preaching whatever (and it doesn't necessarily have to be religion) and don't believe in what you're saying the inmates will cotton on to you in no time. Prisoners, like most folks, want answers not questions, they can come with all sorts of questions by themselves without any help from misguided do-gooders. Prison life is extremely structured and prisoners as well as staff find that reassuring, even if the crab and moan about it. That's because it helps to insure their safety and security. A lot of inmates find faith inside but lose it outside. Prisoners know how to butter up the volunteers that come in but if that volunteer doesn't believe in what they're doing and preaching the prisoners will not respect that person, and believe me, respect is important in prison culture.
Merry Christmyth
godisaheretic, do you go over to the Islamic boards and tell the Muslims here Happy Ramalies or Merry FalseHaj? That's pretty rude in any context. Of course, I just think you're rude. Daniel would have you thrown into jail or heavily fined for being so insulting and intolerant of other people's beliefs.
Erin, thanks for reposting your exact words, which I posted above in my comments. It's pretty obvious from a plain reading of the text that you were attacking the people peddling what you consider to be damnable falsehoods, which from this context obviously included Chloe Breyer. Like I said above, you're backing off from that and trying to change the subject.
As far as the spiritual wisdom of prisoners goes, I'd agree that sometimes wisdom can come from places we don't expect, but let's not get all noble-savage here and act as though the prisoners have special insights that an Episcopal seminarian won't. I suspect if this was a story about prisoners rejecting a mainstream Christian minister's words in favor of Islam or something else, you and others here wouldn't be so quick to be "understanding" towards the prisoners. However, I will admit that perhaps in dealing with prisoners, one must give more simple answers to the big questions, if only to make sure that giving such answers will encourage the prisoners to reform. I don't have much use for fundamentalist Christianity or Islam, but if belief in that is what it takes for some thug to give up a life of robbery, rape and murder, I can live with that deal. Some people aren't cut out for more genteel and subtle forms of religious expression.
MiH: "I don't have much use for fundamentalist Christianity or Islam, but if belief in that is what it takes for some thug to give up a life of robbery, rape and murder, I can live with that deal. Some people aren't cut out for more genteel and subtle forms of religious expression."
Well said. I don't doubt for a second that trying to teach prisoners Christianity via the Jesus Seminar is a really bad idea. But they probably wouldn't be very impressed by the puzzles and conundrums of Quantum Physics either.
Erin: "I am extremely familiar, however, with faithless and condescending intellectuals who believe much as Jaybird does above, that Jesus was some sort of itinerant preacher who never intended to claim divinity or be worshiped--only unlike Jaybird (who is to be commended for his honesty) these calamitous idiots call themselves Christian (and even, sometimes, Catholic)..."
As back-handed compliments go, that's one of the better ones I've received.
Pulling out the old Chloe Breyer card again, eh? Your blogging has become lazy as of late. I liked the funk, though.
Those prisoners were right, the experts don't have the answers when it comes to religion. No one does, and anyone who claims he does is fooling himself or playing a con game.
All we have are questions, yearnings, and guesses, and if we are lucky a leap of faith at the end, but we don't have answers. Chloe may have made the mistake of not "knowing her audience" but she wasn't wrong about there not being any answers.
Alicia, The answer is Jesus.
Jesus, redeemer. Jesus, savior. Jesus, Son of God.
Jesus, little babe of Bethlehem.
Jesus who lived and loved us more than his own life.
I admire your faith, Sheilagh, but not your certainty. Certainty has led to millions of senseless deaths.
And who wants to fill your life, not only with wisdom and love, but with strength and the power to endure adversity.
The greatest thing about our God is that He's humble. Humble enough to wait. To wait for you to ask Him in.
"Look I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to eat with him." Rev 3:20
Merry Christmas.
Alicia, Missed your posts.
My certainty won't lead to any senseless deaths. It's leading to life. :)
And it not 'mine' really. It comes from the gift of the Holy Spirit which I completely unexpectedly received and am truly greatful for. I suppose if this was all just an intellectual exercise I'd have my doubts and the words would leave me empty.
But what you may or may not ever know, is that there is a way that the living God can be a part of your own life. And it's not by reading words, or kneeling and reciting prayers, it's by accepting the reality and the answers of the Living God and inviting the Holy Spirit into your heart. All you need to get started is a teeny tiny smidgeon of faith, the bible says "the faith of a Mustard seed, and you can move mountains' A mustard seed is about as big as this period .
God will do the rest. Don't get lost in all the very human men and women who lost sight of God and did bad things. Look instead at the manger and see if you can believe . . . . . . . . . .
Merrier Christmas
Thanks for standing up for what you believe, Sheilagh. I can only say, "I don't know" - and remain honest with myself. I know what I wish to be true, and if wishing and yearning would get me to believing, then I would have been there a long time ago.
I believe Jesus was a different category of man -- unlike anyone born on Earth before or since. But whether he was more than human I can't say and don't know. I continue to read the stories about him in the Gospels and the New Testament, and continue to struggle with what it means to be a Christian, but as a "Christian agnostic," that's as far as I can venture, except to say:
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
MiH, I'm probably just going to drop this, as people determined to see me as acting in bad faith will do so.
But I'm a careful writer. I didn't write "...*this* faithless intellectual woman..." on purpose. I'm not going to judge her personally no matter how misguided I think her approach may be. I was taking the opportunity to talk about people who call themselves "Christian" while only believing as much as Alicia or Jaybird (who don't call themselves "Christian") do. Like many Christians, I've had to put up with such people in teaching and preaching roles, and I find them extremely tiresome and silly; I wouldn't inflict them on prisoners.
You can see that as a "backing away" if you like, but like I said, I try to be excruciatingly careful in how I word things. If I had meant to get personal about Ms. Breyer, believe me, you'd know it.
Alicia,
Nice post.
Merry Christmans to you too!
Daniel wrote: "Your quips must make you a joy at parties, Max."
True dat. It's a gift.
Thanks Alicia. Sorry for the delay in getting back to post. Hectic time of year.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too.
To me agnosticism is a glass half full place to be.
Here's a quote to mull over. It's for thinkers. From a thinker.
Faith seeking understanding.
It was the motto of a great scholar and saint at the beginning of the 1st century - St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). It's the opposite of our current cultural quest 'Understanding seeking Faith'.
Here's the reasoning for accepting St. Anselm's POV: Given the limits of our finite humanity, we cannot hope to really fully understand the infinite God. But if we make a declaration of faith, however conditional. If we believe there is a Higher power than ourselves. And submit our lives and our will to that higher power. Greater understanding will come through the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
It really really will.
I just want to encourage you to try switching to the motto of St. Anselm just for a day and see what happens. Step out of the culture of 2008 and into another philosophical tradition. You really have nothing to lose and everything to gain. (* See Pascal's Wager.)
God bless you on your journey. Seek and you WILL find.
Peace,
-Sheilagh
"Faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum)" — points to catechesis as the lifelong, active and loving pursuit of a deepening knowledge of Jesus Christ.
I think a preacher needs to know his audience, and what they need. For some people like myself if you do not represent yourself as being human and fallible you'll lose me. So if you say that your NIV bible or KJV bible contain zero interpretations I probably wont listen to you. This is because I know that they are translations, and translators sometimes pick words that are a best fit even when trying to do a pruely literal translation. For example love in english contains several definitons the greek word agape is very specific in meaning of unconditional love, but yet it is usually translated as love.
Others want answers not questions. And for some questions there are answers. For the questions that don't have answers there are other ways to answer the question without resorting to ignoring the bible, or telling the petitioner about the grey areas. For one you can try to understand what is really troubling them and see if there is a story in the bible that helps. Sometimes simply rephrasing a question makes a big difference, and takes out the uncertainty.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.