Redeeming Christ: An Indispensable Introduction

in #philosophy8 years ago (edited)

In light of the interest of this community in religious, philosophical and historical topics, I've decided to serialize and publish here a book that I've been working on for some time. Below is the introduction.  Additional chapters will follow over the ensuing days/weeks/months.  --Sean   


Redeeming Christ:  An Indispensable Introduction 


Seek the truth—come whence it may, cost what it will.
--Motto of Virginia Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Virginia  


I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson



For Literalist Christians, defined for purposes of this book as those for whom the Bible’s spiritual significance is inexorably linked to its historical veracity, spiritual truth and historical truth are one and the same thing. For these Literalists, the spiritual teachings of the Bible cannot be understood apart from what they believe are the actual, historical events chronicled therein. Whether we’re talking about the fall of man, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or innumerable other “events”, Literalists insist that their meaning, their significance, and their spiritual relevance can only be discerned by understanding that these things actually happened exactly as described in the Bible. As one Literalist has stated:


Christians believe that as wonderful as Jesus’ life and teachings and miracles were, they were meaningless if it were not historically factual that Christ died and was raised from the dead and that this provided atonement , or forgiveness, of the sins of humanity. (The Case for Christ at 26 quoting Bloomburg ). 



Consequently, Literalists contend that merely following the Bible’s or even Jesus’ teachings is insufficient: To be a “true” Christian, one must accept the historical record as offered in the Bible, especially the parts about Jesus’ physical birth, death and resurrection.  


Those who would interpret the Bible’s significance historically are also apt to believe in its infallibility. After all, if the events chronicled therein didn’t actually happen exactly as described, if the Bible is not a reliable witness to history, then discerning its spiritual message via an historical interpretation is folly. For this reason, most Literalists espouse the Bible’s perfection. Consider, for example, this statement from Jerry Falwell:


The Bible is the inerrant…word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.  (Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength at 26.)



As Falwell’s quote suggests, a natural inclination of those who read the Bible historically is to interpet it literally and insist upon its infallibility. And, if its spiritual significance is tied to the historicity of the events it purports to describe, as all Literalists contend, then there is little use seeking a more nuanced, spiritual, figurative interpretation of those events.  



Christianity’s Problem


For purposes of this book I will call the above-described belief that the spiritual meaning of the Bible can only be understood in light of its historical veracity and literal interpretation the “Paradigm of Historicity.” And I will call those who espouse such views “Literalists.”


Modern Christianity’s problem is that the Literalist contentions are  increasingly difficult for biblically knowledgeable, intellectually honest persons to accept. During the pre-scientific age in which Christian doctrine developed, it was perhaps reasonable enough for someone to accept the Paradigm of Historicity and all the church’s teachings that are derived from it. But today, that’s just not the case: No rational, biblically educated and intellectually honest person can countenance the Bible’s infallibility in matters of science or history. For those who doubt this, they need only keep reading the subsequent chapters of this book, as I will go to great pains to demonstrate why this is so. And for those who would condemn me for making such a statement, I would ask only that they first do me the courtesy of reading and reflecting upon the second part of this book.


Furthermore, once we admit that the Bible is not a perfect, infallible witness to history, we have reason to doubt the traditional historical interpretation and all theological principles derived therefrom. As Bishop John Shelby Spong has recognized:  


Again and again we discover painfully that our central Christian affirmations make assumptions based upon a literalized view of the biblical narrative that are no longer believable. Hence, when we cast light on those assumptions, they fall apart. They are not based on a reality we can grasp or believe. The Christian church, if unwilling to rethink and reformulate the very basic understanding of its faith, will increasingly not have much to say to a world that will understand neither our language nor our symbols. The Christian church is living now on the basis of capital from the past; traditional patterns of thought that have not yet been challenged sufficiently in the minds of the masses. That will not long endure.
The only churches that grow today are those that do not, in fact, understand the issues and can therefore traffic in certainty. They represent both the fundamentalist Protestant groups and the rigidly controlled conservative Catholic traditions. The churches that do attempt to interact with the emerging world are for the most part the liberal Protestant mainline churches that shrink every day in membership and the silent liberal Catholic minority that attracts very few adherents. Both are, almost by definition, fuzzy, imprecise, and relatively unappealing. They might claim to be [intellectually] honest, but for the most part they have no real message.  (Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, at 35.)



As more and more people realize that the Bible is demonstrably fallible and that it is not a reliable witness to history, many of today’s educated Christians find themselves at a crossroads. They feel that they must either convince themselves to believe the unbelievable, or else abandon the faith. As Spong has noted:


The options, our people are made to feel, are either to live in continued ignorance or to abandon the church altogether for life apart from any religious convictions.  (Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, at 10.)



Not surprisingly, many are taking the second option. As Sam Harris has noted:


[I]t is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly [rid itself of religious faith.] Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. (Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, at 38-45)



Many Literalists see the growth of their churches, and the decline of their more "liberal" cousins, as evidence that the Literalist interpretation of scripture is correct. But this is silly. Literalists can feel good about their growth only because they turn a blind eye to the millions of educated persons each year who, unwilling to adopt the anti-intellectual attitude required by the Paradigm of Historicity and unable to find any meaningful alternative within Christianity, abandon the faith altogether, if not in name at least in practice. Among the those who best understand the Bible and its origins, Christianity is in steep decline. To repeat Spong, "The only churches that grow today are those that do not, in fact, understand the issues and can therefore traffic in certainty." 


Christianity Doesn’t Have to Die Along with the Paradigm of Historicity


In my view, the reason that no intellectually honest and spiritually satisfying alternative to Christian Literalism has presented itself over the centuries is due to death grip that the Paradigm of Historicity has had on the minds of even those Christians who can no longer accept it. Non-literalist churches have abandoned the paradigm, and to some degree the theology that developed around it, but they have replaced it with...nothing. At least nothing of substance. So, their message is inherently "fuzzy, imprecise, and relatively unappealing."  


The admittedly ambitious purpose of this book is to remedy this situation. After engaging in an exhaustive examination of history and the Bible designed to undermine once and for all the Paradigm of Historicity and all teaching derived from it, I will seek to revive the dead patient by articulating an intellectually-honest, practically workable, clear, relevant and spiritually-nourishing alternative interpretation of Christianity. This alternative will be “historically grounded” without being “grounded in history.” What I mean by this will become clear as we proceed. 


In the first part of this book I’ll examine some of the ways in which interpreting the Bible through the Paradigm of Historicity has shaped our received version of Christian scriptures, doctrine and symbols.  


In the second part of this book, I’ll provide an overwhelming number of logical and historical reasons for dispensing once and for all with the Paradigm of Historicity and, more importantly, all teaching derived from it. I will demonstrate that an historical interpretation of the Bible is logically untenable, historically unworkable, and was almost certainly never intended by most of its authors. And toward the end of this second part, I’ll pose what are sure to be some disturbing questions for some: Must the Bible be historically true to be spiritually true? What if, in actuality, the Bible was never intended to convey primarily historical fact, but rather to encode spiritual truth in allegory? What if reading the Bible as history actually hampers our understanding of its meaning? In short, if we dispense with reading the Bible as a history book, would we arrive at a different conclusion as to its meaning?  


In the third and fourth parts of this book, I’ll demonstrate that, freed of the Paradigm of Historicity, the Bible actually encodes exciting and beautiful spiritual truths that have great relevance, appeal and practical significance for us today. Citing to the Bible itself as my primary authority, I’ll articulate a radical and beautiful interpretation of scripture that I pray will transform a generation of Christians.


And finally, throughout the book, I’ll demonstrate that my interpretation is actually an original interpretation, albeit one that has been suppressed by the Church for centuries. And, I’ll also show how this interpretation is consistent with the teachings of a staggering number of the world’s religions, including some Christian denominations.  


Via comments, I invite the reader to offer constructive criticism or feedback, and especially to correct any errors or mistakes I may make.  


Best,


Sean

Sort:  

I am interested in your commentary on the historical accuracy of the Bible. One point of note, you quote Lee Stroble (The Case for Christ) who was an atheist when wife became a born again Christian. In his own effort to disprove the historical accuracy of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, determined there was too much evidence in favor of the events being historically accurate than there were against. Even among atheist historians, the life and death of Jesus are not disputed, but only his resurrection which leaves the question, "Why would thousands of individuals risk their lives to follow the teachings of man, the crux of which rely on his resurrection, if he did not in fact rise from the dead?" Consider Paul, for example, who was a devout Jew and well respected Roman citizen. He tarnished his reputation to follow The Way. Why?

I am interested to see how you address these questions. For the record, I am a literalist leaning Christian, but accept more scientific explanations for many phenomenons in the universe. Evolution, for example. From my perspective, there is enough evidence in the creation story of Genesis to assume a poetic interpretation of the text, rather than a historical one. I, for one, welcome open debate over the more fluid aspects of Christian beliefs. There are a few I will not budge on. The aforementioned, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus being one, but I welcome the debate!

Very excellent questions, and thanks for asking them.

I have read Strobel's work and am familiar with his journey. But, alas, I'm unpersuaded by his logic and analysis. I will explain why that is in subsequent posts, and I hope I do your questions justice as I do so.

Thanks again,

Sean

I'm very interested in reading your book. Your passion for the subject and a powerful sense of integrity come across powerfully in your introduction. I do have one question for you. Why is it important to you to re-interpret the bible or try to find some new meaning for Christianity in order to give it new life? It is a religion in decline, not just because of the choice you must make, (insanity or pointlessness,) but because it is tarnished and lacks relevancy for many. If there is anything to be discovered or understood about the world, our place in it or our purpose, why can't new thinkers do it with fresh eyes, heart and minds? Your book may provide a highly valuable historical analysis with deep insights into the spiritual messages it contains.....and that may help some people, but it wouldn't change anything for me. People do not need Christianity or any religion to be spiritual. I wish you the best of luck. I'll do my best to keep an open mind.

A great question, and thanks for asking.

First, I very much agree that one does not need religion to be spiritual or enlightened or saved or freed. In fact, organized religion is often a barrier to these things.

With that in mind, let me give a bit of a long-winded answer to your question: My thesis, which will become more apparent as the book unfolds, is that almost all religions begin their life not as religions per se but as systems for the development of consciousness, or transcendence of ego. In short, they begin their life as a way of helping their followers "wake up".

However, the process of waking up can only be experienced subjectively, not formally taught. Teachers can facilitate the process with verbal lessons, but often such facilitation becomes a hindrance rather than an aid largely due to the limitations of language. Language is simply not capable of describing life in the awakened state or of sufficiently illuminating the way of realizing it.

Because of this, each awakened teacher invariably resorts to symbolism, or figurative language. We see this, for example, with Zen koans. I have, in fact, resorted to figurative language here when I used the words "wake up" two paragraphs above. By "wake up" I didn't mean, of course, merely awakening from literal sleep. Rather I meant something similar but different, something spiritual.

Figurative language can be an effective guide to the awakening student exactly because the words usually fail to make literal sense. They are a literal contradiction. And, it's exactly this failure of the words to make sense literally that is SUPPOSED to signal the devotee to search for additional, hidden meaning or to view the problem or the saying from a different perspective, a different level of consciousness.

Spirituality and enlightenment degenerate into religion when these useful symbols fail work. This most often happens when the devotees latch on to the literal meaning of the symbol offered by the teacher and refuse to move beyond it even despite its literal impossibility. In short, suspending all reason, and foreclosing all possibility of additional spiritual growth, they begin to insist that the impossible is actually possible. How? Because God.

This corruptions of symbols with literal interpretations has happened throughout history time and time again, resulting in religion after religion coming into existence. As the old once-helpful symbols become literalized and therefore fail to offer any transcendent usefulness, new religions with new symbols (ultimately describing the same process of awakening as the old) are born, and the process repeats.

So...now to answer your question: I'm not trying to save religion or rescue Christianity (as that term is popularly understood). Quite the contrary: I'm trying to force people (through facts, logic, reason and history) to stop insisting that the impossible is possible. Only then, once Literalism is abandoned, do we stand any chance of mass awakening.

It's true, I could instead try to simply approach the subject with "fresh eyes, hearts and mind"--that is, with fresh symbols-- but those symbols would ultimately be similarly corrupted by literal interpretations. All I would have done in the process is start a new religion, which doesn't interest me in the least.

Instead, I'm seeking to undermine Literalism. The persistent corruption of spiritual symbols via Literalism is always the enemy of true spiritual awakening, and Christianity is among the most persistently literal of religions. It's true that people don't need Christianity or any religion to be spiritual, but they do need symbols to be spiritual, or at least to attempt to learn spirituality, the path of waking up, from others. By undermining the persistent corruption of symbols--that is, Literalism, I simply hope to break the cycle and plant the seeds for eventual mass transcendence.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly! It was very rewarding to read and I take your point about perpetuating the transformation to literalism in attempting to articulate an 'awakeneing.' The only thing I'll ask before patiently waiting to read your book is.....if religions are the spawn of miscommunication, (and I appreciate that this can happen over considerable amounts of time,) have you given any thought to the possibility of different approaches to spiritual guidance (assuming this persists in being necessary.) For example, concentrating on improving education with a very light touch. The point being that I think there are potentially many approaches that can support a person's journey that will not yield the kinds of miscommunication that leads to religion. Although I accept miscommunication can and probably always has been encouraged by those who are just waiting to use people. The less 'guidance' the better then perhaps?

Honestly, I had not pondered the possibility. I like the idea, though I struggle to think of specific "light touch" examples that don't involve language. Ultimately, the challenge is one of language--how to convey the experience of the ineffable in such a way as to lead others to experience it. Perhaps we should avoid language altogether and focus upon other means of communication--touch, sounds, psychedelics, etc.? You've got me thinking.

Without meaning to be oversimplistic, actions may speak louder than words. I genuinely believe that actions, or the lack of them can have a profound and deep impact. An action that engenders a powerfully visceral response does not necessarily need verbal articulation. It's funny that so many advocates for self-awareness and spiritual awakeneing suggest meditation. Mediation is an activity that is generally undertaken in peace and quiet....certainly without the need for talking. Just some additional thoughts to throw out there! ;))

What you're saying reminds me a lot of Charles Babbage's ninth Bridgewater Treatise. In chapters 4 and 5, he makes arguments reconciling the book of Genesis with the impossibility of Earth being 6000 years old.

It's hard to quote him because his sentences are usually very long, but that work of his is what pops in to my head when I read your post. Here's one quote that is relevant:

If, when speaking of the creation, instead of using the terms light and water, he had spoken of the former as a wave, and of the latter as the union of two invisible airs, he would assuredly have been perfectly unintelligible to his countrymen:—at the distance of above three thousand years his writings would just have begun to be comprehended; and possibly three thousand years hence those views may be as inapplicable to the then existing state of human knowledge as they would have been when the first chapter of Genesis was written.

Very cool. I'll be looking forward to reading more of this book as time goes on. I gave up a literalist reading of the Bible a while ago and since then I've come to question a great many tenets of my faith. I began to doubt the concept of the trinity and through this came to doubt the validity of the canon, especially since both of these doctrines are rooted in the same place and time. It will be nice to see that I'm not the only nutcase with this many questions and doubts.

Pulls up chair, with anticipatory looking in eyes, can't wait to get into the meat if it....