Yesterday we wrote about eucharist. I guess the question is "Can you be Christian and not believe in eucharist?" (in many senses: that it is not central to worship, that it is not "real" or that it has nothing to do with fellowship, to name a few) My guess is any number of Believers would strongly declare "Yes!" They think they are true Christians but eucharist is not on their radar.
In light of that, as a Word and Sacrament guy, my next question is related. "Can you be a real Christian without the New Testament?" (I mean the writings of sacred Scripture) I asked this question of my Bible study yesterday and they were hesitant to answer (knowing something tricky could be in the works), but with a little prodding they finally said, "no." My guess is my Evangelical friends who would call eucharist peripheral would answer the same way. Can't know Jesus without the Bible generally means the New Testament.
What about the apostles? Were they real Christians? Well they did not have the New Testament. It is tempting to say that 'they wrote it' but that is not true. In fact, it is probable that the only apostle to write a thing was Peter. [Paul is an apostle, though later in time and not one of the twelve. Some think John and Matthew, though it is unlikely.] So until the last book was written, around 100 AD or so, our New Testament did not even exist! Once all the books were written they still were not always collected together. Some were popular in one geographic area but not in another. Ancient times were different from ours. There was no internet, no access to mass media, no bookstores or libraries. What Matthew was writing in Syria(?) was not widely distributed because of the time and cost of copying such things. It was a painstakingly slow process and a church under 'pressure' had few resources to mass produce the sacred writings. (I read an author who was criticizing the existence of monasticism, he said it was an error. Hmmm, I thought to myself as he quoted from his bible, who do you think made copies of that Bible for one thousand years to insure it was around?) While most churches no doubt had some writings, I have no doubt few had all of them and some small, poor congregations were isolated and had nothing. In addition, it was the fourth century when the "Church" officially canonized Scripture. At that point there were some places that had additional works (like the Shepherd of Hermas) while others were reluctant to all of them (John, 2&3 John, Jude, James, II Peter are all examples. Revelation is the most controversial of all). [see The Church History , the final edition completed in 325, by the early church historian Eusebius, book 3] THE New Testament was actually clarified in reaction to a heretic (Marcion) who offered the letters of Paul and an edited version of Luke as the true revelation (to remove the taint of Jewishness found in some writings). Now let me be clear, the writings of the New Testament were generally agreed upon and the authority of those canonized writings is not under question or doubt. [in our own day there are still disagreements between branches of Christians on the number of books...]
I repeat, the issue is not the New Testament, it is the realization that all manner of early Christians would not have ever had access to the New Testament because it was impossible at that time. We live in a world of books, they lived in a different world.
The only Bible Jesus ever knew is the Jewish Bible. Rabbi Leman shares his journey to Christ as one centered in the Jewish Scriptures. As I have said before, when Jesus "opened the Scriptures" for His apostles He wasn't reading the Gospels and Paul!
I think Bible and Sacraments (especially eucharist) are central to Christian living. I also assume some are saved without either because they are in a faith relationship with God through Jesus. It is tempting for some to say that what is needed for salvation is the only thing that matters. I would respond that salvation in such a minimalist approach ignores Jesus promise to give us life in abundance. [Because a human with one leg is still fully human does not mean we should amputate limbs at will as unnecessary.]
Today I will read the Bible a lot (John in particular). At Morning Prayer and at eucharist I will read several excerpts from Scripture. I will also celebrate communion. I think what I am doing is ground level, foundational and essential to the Christian faith. If you prefer to minimize eucharist please understand your arguments call into question the centrality of needing the Scriptures (and vice versa).
Seeking Jesus in Word and Sacrament, encountering Jesus in Scripture and Eucharist: there is more to life than minimalism! Go for abundance!
>It is tempting to say that 'they wrote it' but that is not true. In fact, it is probable that the only apostle to write a thing was Peter. [Paul is an apostle, though later in time and not one of the twelve.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, Jeff, you continue to display your breathtaking ignorance.
Even an atheist knows that Paul was considered an apostle. Indeed, part of his letters are taken up with defending his apostolic status and comparing it with that of the original twelve.
Moreover, anyone knows that Paul's epistles not only comprise just over a quarter of the New Testament but that they were in circulation among the churches before the gospels were ever composed. Peter, or the author of the epistle attributed to him, even refers to them ("our brother Paul has written things hard to understood, which ignorant men have wrested to their own destruction"--one is tempted to wonder if the apostle was thinking about people like you, Jeff!).
So as usual, you continue to display your ineptitude and mislead your readers. It is beyond belief that you did not know that Paul was an apostle, that his works comprise such a large part of the New Testament, and that they were known at an early date, but then, facts kind of bore you, don't they, Jeff?
Tell me--have you ever wondered what it would be like to actually know what you are talking about, instead of just blurting out the first ignorant thought that occurred to you?
Disregarding insults and other nonsense -
ReplyDeleteThose guys did not need a written New Testament because they lived the new testament ... in the center of it. Of course, they spent a lot of time not knowing what was going on because it was all new. It wasn't a rerun for them as it is for us. We know where the tale goes; they didn't.
Thinking about salvation - In extenuating circumstances (you're going to die in the next twelve minutes!) hearing the Word and believing it is enough for Salvation. I think! But doing only doing enough to gain Salvation in normal hours may, in fact, not be enough. I'm thinking that being a Christian as in living a Christian Life may require Salvation, Sanctity, Devotion, Commitment, and Discipleship - in that order. None of which "earns" our Salvation, when God so dearly wants us to accept the forgiveness he so fully offers. And that may be the minimal.
Michael
ReplyDeletePaul is not one of the Twelve (often referred to as The Apostles)
He is called an apostle. But then I said that, didn't I?
It is sad to see you reduced to a frothing wild man.
You are boring and really need to see a counselor. Seriously. Please seek help and do not post again. thank you.
Jeff, you're half right--one of us does, indeed, need help! I've been applying my own poor efforts here to that end, though perhaps they're not enough.
DeleteI can't really blame you for being annoyed--it can't be easy, at your age, to be exposed as a radio with no batteries. And yes, I could simply not post again but, though you don't yet realize it, I actually do you more good than the, umm, not very clear-headed or well-informed individuals who tell you what a wonderful teacher of the Bible you are. I'm sure they mean well, but while you find my bitter pill hard to swallow, they're actually feeding you sugar-coated styrofoam chips. You may like the taste, but they're not really very nourishing.
I see you're suffering from a little confusion on the topic of your post, so let me try to help you out.
You raised the issue of how necessary the New Testament is to the church and rightly pointed out that the seminal age of the church had no New Testament. The point is well taken and certainly points to the issue of "sola scriptura" insisted on by people of a more Protestant outlook.
Had you simply contented yourself with your observation that most of the books of the NT canon were not composed until the latter part of the first century, you would have been on solid ground.
Unfortunately for your point, you said the following:
>What about the apostles? Were they real Christians? Well they did not have the New Testament. It is tempting to say that 'they wrote it' but that is not true. In fact, it is probable that the only apostle to write a thing was Peter. [Paul is an apostle, though later in time and not one of the twelve. Some think John and Matthew, though it is unlikely.]
When you said that, you wildly overstated your case and made yourself look very silly.
One could not tell, from your comment, that one apostle, Paul, had written about a quarter of the NT and that his letters were in circulation--effectively, the only NT scripture the church had--before the gospels were even composed. So when you said Peter was probably the only apostle to write anything and that Paul, though an apostle, was not one of the twelve, you simply made yourself look ignorant and foolish.
Sorry, bud, but you brought this on yourself. I wasn't prowling around hoping to catch you in a silly mistake--you all but trumpeted your hasty and ill-considered point for all the world to see. Come to think of it, just as you did yesterday when, writing about the sacrament as a priest of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church, you absurdly said that you didn't know what "spiritual presence" meant.
Don't try to blame this on me, Jeff--this is your doing. You draft things in haste without thinking, and I suppose, on one level, that's understandable, since you've learned, through experience, that you can say just about anything at all and many of your parishioners will nod their heads and say "Oh yes, Jeff, that was so deep, thank you..."
But I'm not them. Unlike many of your readers, I actually pay attention to what you say. I know you wish I didn't, but in the end, it's for your own good.
So now we're at the moment of truth. If you've even finished reading this, your finger is itching to press "Delete." It's kind of like the moment in the Matrix movies when the character decides whether to take the red pill or the blue pill. Which will you choose?
Yes, Jeff, I am very hard on you. And you don't have to listen to anything I say. But you would still be who and what you are. And the pity of it is that you could drop the inane, juvenile shenanigans and grow up. At your age, I would say it's high time.
Michael in the conversation someone said, "I don't believe in sacraments but I do think He is spiritually present."
DeleteMy statement that "I do not know what that means" means I do not know what it means when different people use the term. Nor do you. I hope that clarifies what I know.
I really am unable to communicate with you, as I thought I made it clear that I am tired of your comments. PLEASE stop was meant in a respectful way. You have no respect for me, which is fine. You say I am an idiot, which is your opinion (based on fact!!!!). My guess is it is time for you to return to your blog where you can write all you want about whatever you want. I think it beneath you to hijack free space on mine with my readership on the grounds that you are doing them a service by your constant ranting about my various failures.... You have been allowed to speak, disrespectfully, over and again. You have shown no sense of decency or respect and I am asking you to stop. Please go away and try to rescue some other "inane, juvenile" person. I am beyond your help, and you have no intention of helping me or anyone reading this blog. I know it and you know it.
"Hijack"? Is that what I'm doing?
DeleteIn my understanding, "hijack" means to forcefully take over something and prevent its true function from being realized. Is that happening here, Jeff? Am I keeping you from posting and making a fool of yourself? Am I keeping anyone else from posting and telling you how wonderful you are? As far as I know, this comment section of the blog is free to all, certainly to you, and also to your trusting admirers. The fact that one reader sees through you and points out that you are an ignorant buffoon and a poseur scarcely amounts to hijacking.
You might want to give some thought to your profile section, bud. It says thoughtful atheists welcome, if I recall. Well I *am* thoughtful, which is precisely your problem. I really do think about the things you write, and obviously, you don't--nor do you expect anyone else to, which is the second part of your problem. You really ought to say "Readers are welcome to post--but only if they are willing to overlook my ignorance help me pretend I know what I am talking about."
One day, Jeff, you may actually become a Christian. I've tried it, and it seemed it wasn't for me, but who knows but what it may fit you. But you need to actually read the Bible with understanding first, and not with your fingers itching to hit the keyboard and parade your absurd misconceptions in front of everyone. If that ever happens to you for real, you will be amazed at how much different your thoughts are and will wish that this silly blog could somehow vanish from everyone's memory.
Michael,
DeleteI have read many of your comments on these blog posts and there are countless things I have wanted to respond to and haven't. I really am curious as to what, in your opinion, is necessary to "actually become a Christian." Christians are believers and followers of Jesus Christ. Regardless of how stupid you think Jeff is, it blows my mind that you claim that he isn't actually a Christian and that you've "tried it" and found "it wasn't right" for you.
I also find it silly of you to assume that you know how Jeff is feeling by claiming his finger is "itching to press 'Delete.'" It saddens me that you have overestimated your own intelligence to the point that you believe you know the thoughts of others. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your comments on this blog make you look like a madman and make Jeff look better by comparison.
I do not understand why you care so much or what your goal is. You seem like a very hateful person.
>I do not understand why you care so much or what your goal is.
DeleteMadison, I care about what is true and what is not true and believe every reasonable person should share that concern. In your dad's case, he very foolishly misrepresents Christianity and, thus, demeans it. Although I disbelieve Christianity--and all religion--altogether, I still believe it deserves the respect of having a true account given of its beliefs, and what Jeff says and writes falls conspicuously short.
I would be equally exasperated if I came across a congregation of devout Muslims and realized that their imam was misrepresenting Islam to them as Jeff misrepresents Christianity to his hearers.
I'm glad you asked the question, because both Jeff and some of his defenders seem to be under the impression that I am seeking to convince people of atheism or to get Jeff to stop believing Christianity. I have no such goal. As St. Paul says (in another context), "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind," and I agree. I precisely *don't* want anyone to adopt atheism because I "argued" them into it, which I don't seek to do. I believe atheism is the most rational way to look at the world we are in and that religion is a delusion, but that is up to each person to decide for him- or herself.
I was raised in Christianity for years, have read the Bible through two or three times, have read some of the Church Fathers, most of C.S. Lewis, and other, related works. I get equally exasperated at the sort of atheist who wants to denigrate believers for no reason but personal pique. That is not my motive, no matter how it may seem.
To do justice to this subject requires more length than this site will allow in one post, so I will have to post several times. I'll stop for the first time here.
(Continued)
DeleteI visited St. Andrews for 3 months in 2011 and was welcomed by many there. When I started attending Jeff's Wednesday night Bible study, I was, I admit, dismayed at what seemed like rather shallow exploration of the passages on Jeff's part--it was difficult for me to see that he had gained any more insight than I had gotten for myself upon 10 minutes' examination of the text, earlier in the day, but I put that down to a pastor's busy schedule. I also learned that Jeff was a graduate of the University of Louvain, or Leuven, one of Europe's most distinguished universities--you may have heard that when Henry VIII wanted an informed theological opinion of the permissibility of his proposed divorce from Katharine of Aragon, around 1536, it was Jeff's university that convened a panel of theologians to examine the question.
In deciding to visit a church, something I hadn't done in years, I deliberately picked St. Andrews, in part because of its theological conservatism, which is not generally to be expected in the Episcopal Church, and in part because I remembered Jeff himself from a brief encounter in 2000, when he was at St. Mary's Cathedral. He had preached a bold sermon on tithing that evidently rubbed some people the wrong way--I actually ran into him afterward and remarked, "You'd better be careful--if you preach like that, you'll never be bishop!" Indeed, he felt it necessary to get up the following week and apologize if he had offended anyone. For my part, I saw nothing wrong with it.
My experience of St. Andrew's was mostly positive and, though I disbelieved what was being preached there, I had no particular intention of leaving--until I was astonished to hear Jeff preach that God does not know the future.
At first, I thought I had misheard. That is obviously contrary to what the Bible says. A passage in Isaiah has God saying "I know the end from the beginning; my purposes are firm, and I will accomplish what I intend." A passage in Jeremiah, I believe, has God saying "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you for my own." Matthew 17 or 18 has Jesus saying "Of that day [when Jesus will come again] and that hour knoweth no man, not the angels, no, not the Son, *but the Father.*" Acts 2 has Peter preaching to the crowd on the day of Pentecost, "Him [Jesus] by the determinate counsel and *foreknowledge* of God, ye delivered into the hands of sinful men." Paul says in one his epistles, "Whom He [God] foreknew, them He predestined...."
All these passage make it inescapable that God knows the future.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteBut even if it weren't for these citations, really, how could God *not* know the future, and still be God? Believers and atheists alike know that time is one of the four physical dimensions; God cannot possibly be *inside* it, as we are, or He simply becomes another tenant contained in the very creation He is supposed to have made, in the first place. As I wrote to Jeff at the time, to believe in such a God is not to believe in the Lord of all but in a cosmic handicapper of horse races, a supernatural player of the stock market.
Moreover, if you think of it, if God does not know the future, what is the believer to make of Bible prophecies? What can they possibly be, under such an understanding, but educated guesses? I asked Jeff that, as well.
His reply was "I don't really see that as a problem."
Now I'm sorry, because I know he's your dad, but that is not merely wrong, but juvenile. There's simply no other way to look at it. It is being silly and light-minded about a serious matter.
By the way, you needn't take my word for all this. If you look at Jeff's posts for December 6-10, 2011, his essays on this subject, and my questions (and his responses) are still there.
I was amazed. Of course I'm used to Episcopal clergy playing fast and loose with Scripture, but remember, I had come there precisely because my recollection of Jeff was that he very seriously cared about the integrity of Christian doctrine, and here he was, openly flouting one of its most basic points, and with what seemed to me to be a rather cavalier air.
To be fair, such casual mishandling of Scripture is not peculiar to Jeff, nor would I ever think it was. Before I ever heard of Jeff or St. Andrews, I heard a well-educated and articulate Catholic priest assure his hearers once, about 20 years ago, that "There is no such thing as 'the will of God' in the Bible--the concept of 'will' was invented only by German theologians in the 19th century." I'm not kidding.
No one said a word. His audience just smiled and nodded--as did yet another priest, standing nearby! I spoke up (it wasn't a sermon, but a lecture) and asked him what he made of the Greek word "thelema" (a word for "will" used frequently in the New Testament--it is the word used in "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done...") but he seemed to have misheard me and thought I was referring to something else, and I did not pursue it.
To be frank, incidents like that, and others, have half-convinced me that even "sincere" Christians really don't know what they believe and just sort of half make it up as they go along. Jeff is just one example. Again, Christianity, true or false, deserves better.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteIn any case, Jeff's response that it was no problem for Bible prophecies to become just educated guesses was my first clue that I was dealing with someone who really couldn't be regarded with respect, because he couldn't even respect the Gospel he was supposed to be upholding, and that is what I still feel.
To be sure, Jeff thought he had reasons for believing as he did. He said the future might not yet exist *to be* known--by God or anyone else--so that it would be no more disrespectful to God to say he didn't know the future than to say he couldn't make 2+2=5. That thought is not intrinsically illogical, but it still fails to account for the presentation of God in the Bible as the One who "knows the end from the beginning."
Jeff's second reason for believing the way he did was to bring up kenosis. Kenosis is a term that refers to the self-emptying of Christ the Son to walk among mankind. It is a specific term with a specific meaning. I was amazed to discover that Jeff had simply decided to extrapolate from this to a general meaning in which God the Father emptied himself of part of his power, including his foreknowledge (or, if he did not exactly deprive himself of it, he at least closed it off from himself) so as to give mankind the dignity of co-creating with Him.
Now this idea is rather touching in its sincere desire to reconcile some problems in theology, but it is not orthodox. It is not Christianity, Madison. It is based on a very elementary--and very silly--mistake: the idea that kenosis applies, not just specifically to Christ's self-emptying to become incarnate, but to God the Father's dealings with mankind in general. That is simply not supported in the Bible.
Now imagine how it looked to me to see a man nearly my age, and the graduate of a theologically distinguished university, making such an ignorant mistake--a mistake that, I assure you, would get any first-year seminarian immediately pulled up short and corrected by his professor. I simply could not believe I was reading something meant to be taken seriously.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteI then said to Jeff that if he were to float this idea to orthodox theologians, I had no doubt it would be considered heretical.
His reply amazed and dismayed me even more--he said something like "I don't know--I haven't asked anyone else."
To say that such an answer is unsatisfactory is an understatement--unless Jeff slept through his seminary classes, he cannot failed to have been exposed to orthodox Christian teaching about the nature of God and His attributes. So to profess, as he seemed to be professing, to be a sort of theological Robinson Crusoe, off on his own little island, with only his own thoughts to guide him, was nonsense.
To show you how seriously I took the matter, I later watched the videotape of a sermon that Jeff preached on the same topic "Does God Know the Future" on January 22, 2012. The link no longer works, but it was stored there for a while, as tapes of all sermons are stored. I then set down and wrote a letter giving an account of the whole matter to an Episcopal priest I knew from 30 years ago--a man who, in fact, is the former president of an Episcopal seminary--asking him if "Open Theism," which is pretty much what Jeff was preaching, was considered orthodox.
I never heard back from the man I wrote to, but it is possible I was writing to an e-mail address that he no longer used.
What that told me, on its face, Madison, is that Jeff is not a Christian. This has nothing to do with Jeff, per se--*no one* can be a Christian who does not believe that Christ is the Son of God, and no one can believe that God is God if God does not know the future. That's pretty basic. To say that God does not know the future contradicts what the Bible says about God and what would have to be true of *any* Deity, Christian or otherwise, who stood above, outside, and anterior to, physical reality, which includes time. If God is just another being inside the whole set up, as we are, he may be very interesting, but he's not God.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteSo I found myself encountering, again, a man my age, theologically educated, but blithely waving away one of the most fundamental things that must be true of God and, when asked if that wouldn't be considered heretical, basically replying "Dunno, never really checked."
It is that flip, heedless, lackadaisical attitude that makes it impossible for me to respect Jeff. I know that must offend you to hear that about your dad, but there it is.
Now despite my dismay over that instance, I thought "Oh well, the man did show some other good qualities, and I'm not going to attend there any more, so just forget it." And I didn't look at his blog for about another year. When I did, I actually defended him. He said some parishioners had been criticizing him for not seeming good-humored enough, and I thought at the time, "But one thing that does seem to be true about him is that, even with the limitations of his theological understanding, he does seem to have a passionate devotion," and I posted something to that effect on his blog. If you care to check it, you can find it in late October or early November of 2012.
I even decided to try visiting St. Andrews again for a couple of Sundays and did so. I'm sorry to say that on one of those Sundays, Jeff spent part of his sermon talking about *Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.* I'm serious. I know that a sermon is not a graduate philosophical dissertation, and I know Jesus himself used homely metaphors, but there is an intrinsic weight and dignity to the truths that are supposed to be represented in religious doctrine. Lincoln was famous for telling jokes, but he didn't tell any at Gettysburg, and if you are preaching about the dealings of the Creator of the World with mankind, then Snow White wouldn't really be the thing your mind would gravitate to--that is, if you took the whole thing with sufficient seriousness to begin with.
Perhaps I should have left well enough alone and simply never looked at the blog again, but for better or worse, I did, last June or July.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteWhen I checked Jeff's blog last summer, I found him writing on the Steubenville rape case. I assume you know that this was a case in which a young woman went to a party, got drunk, and was serially assaulted, while unconscious, by several boys there who, moreover, took video of the whole thing and joked about it. Attempts by the girl's family to seek justice were met by stonewalling by the town authorities, because the boys were local sports heroes.
Of course the girl shouldn't have been in that circumstance to begin with and, to be sure, there is a doctrine in law of "contributory negligence." Just as obviously, that doesn't excuse the heinous nature of what the boys did.
Either Venus or Serena Williams made dismissive comments about the girl and what happened to her, and readers on the Internet complained. Perhaps you are familiar with all this already.
Jeff wasn't. By his own admission, the only thing he knew about Steubenville was that it had once been associate with charismatic renewal, years ago. All he knew was that he read pointed comments by a tennis star seeming to promote the need for moral vigilance and chastity and, when he read that people objected, took this as prima facie evidence of the world's degraded moral standards.
Do you agree?
Do you think it's fair to imply, as Williams did, that the girl actually got off rather lightly? Do you think William's comments were "actually pretty darn fair and balanced"?
Because Jeff did.
The fact that he knew nothing about Steubenville didn't stop him from having an opinion about it, nor did it even seem to occur to him that he needed to read up on the matter before including a post on this as part of his "Journey in Faith." That is why I asked him, recently, if he ever thinks first, or if he just blurts out the first uninformed thing that occurs to him. Remember, I'm talking to a man only a few years younger than I am. This has nothing to do with Christian vs. atheist--it's a matter of exercising adult judgment.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteBut in the matter of Christian vs. atheist, let's consider for a moment, Madison, that to anyone familiar with the Bible who is considering this incident, one story from the Bible all but leaps out at you. It certainly does to me, even as an atheist.
That is the story of the woman taken in adultery.
The poor girl at Steubenville actually seems to deserve even more forbearance, if possible, than Jesus showed to the woman taken in adultery. The girl in Steubenville was unconscious when she was assaulted. She was not a willing participant or conscious of what was happening to her as was, presumably, the woman in the Bible.
Those who wanted to stone the woman taken in adultery were correct on technical grounds. But after it was all over, Jesus said "Woman, where are thine accusers...neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more."
Don't you think the girl in Steubenville deserved as much consideration as the woman in the Bible, especially from Christians, and especially in an essay written by a priest?
I brought this up to Jeff. His response? "I don't see the connection."
Again, don't take my word for it. You can go read it for yourself.
Are you still surprised that I say Jeff is not a Christian? A *priest* who, presented with a story of a young girl suffering sexual assault, and when a reader has brought up to him, what he ought to have thought of himself, the woman taken in adultery, responds "I don't see the connection"? Good grief.
Sorry, Madison--Jeff's grasp of Scripture and its teachings is like my knowledge of sports. The Bible says "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds" as one part of the Christian life.
It is rather embarrassingly obvious to me that Jeff's mind has quite simply never undergone such a transformation. If it had, he would not write the things he does.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteSadly, I didn't have long to wait for further confirmation of the ways in which Jeff's thinking is not congruent with Christian thinking. It wasn't long until he wrote about Trayvon Martin.
I've got some experience in this. I have never carried a firearm, but I was once in an occupation that required me to walk alone and unprotected through bad parts of town at night, and I have been threatened. I was, in fact, confronted by three young African-American teens while walking the Greenline some months ago.
I support society's right to defend itself. Having said that, I also know, from statistics, that many whites have a "shoot first, ask questions later" toward a lot of blacks. Jeff's essay on this topic was, as I recall, to say the least, not helpful. He seemed to be implying that there was a justifiable reason for whites to presume that blacks in general might be scary. I don't find that reasonable, but what leapt out at me was this comment:
"The good news [for young blacks] is that this sort of thing [being shot to death] won't happen often."
Again, don't take my word for it. You can read it for yourself.
Can any reasonable person read such a sentence and not find it shockingly flip and insensitive? Can anyone possibly take such an opinion as the product of thoughtful deliberation by a man of mature years--moreover, a *priest*?
I know I can't.
Do I think Jeff is a crypto-Klansman? Certainly not? Do I find it reasonable, from reading his own words, to conclude that he is a rather heedless, immature individual who rushes inappropriate comments into print without stopping to reflect? Absolutely. I'm sorry, but his material simply won't bear any other interpretation. I promise you, Madison, that if you, at your age, turned in an essay in a college class about Trayvon Martin and if it included the sentence "The good news is that this sort of thing won't happen often," your paper would come back with a notation from the professor, "Ms. Marx, kindly see me in my office."
I'll mention one more instance, and then I'll get to the end of my long reply.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteBecause Jeff's blog shocked and angered me so much, and because I really wasn't trying to make it my lifetime occupation to correct someone who, if anything, seemed rather self-complacently comfortable with the shape of his thinking, I left off reading the blog for another few months.
And then, around the middle of December, I came across a post where Jeff referred to John the Baptist as "JBap."
Remember what I said about "heedless, flippant, and immature"?
As I asked Jeff, would he refer to the Father of Our Country as "Gee-Wash"? To the parents of Jesus as "Mar-Jo"?
Jeff replied that it was a momentary slip that resulted from his having failed to take the time to correct his notes because he had to go to a funeral.
But in fact, a different post from a week before showed the same abbreviation.
Now you may or may not be thinking at this point, "Michael, do you go scrutinizing everyone word for word to try to catch them out in mistakes?"
No--I merely pay attention. I don't think Jeff does. And I don't think he expects anyone else to, either, and that is part of the problem.
I do, certainly, think that big things show up in little ways. I was struck, reading a book by the late Katherine Graham, former publisher of The Washington Post, about a story her mother told about Herbert Hoover, our 31st President. While Hoover listened to someone play a piano recital consisting of a Beethoven piano sonata, he absent-mindedly clinked the change in his pockets. Yes, that sort of thing tells me a lot about who someone is.
So yes, I find Jeff sadly wanting. He blithely dismisses the whole idea of God's foreknowledge, doesn't seem to care what the Scriptures teach about it, seems to have forgotten what he must have learned about it in seminary (or doesn't care), casually refers to a great figure of spiritual history as "JBap," gives his approval to the shockingly insensitive comments of a tennis star about a girl who was assaulted and then humiliated all over the internet, and assures black youth that the "good news" is that they will not be killed often.
I know he's your dad, Madison. But in my view, he's a flip, heedless, 15-year-old boy, lightly toying with weighty things of whose weight and significance he has no grasp, nor does he care to.
Yes, I'm angry and exasperated. Not because he won't give up his faith and see things my way. But because he gets up and presents himself as a teacher of a faith that he obviously doesn't understand and doesn't take that seriously.
Very well, then if I think that way, why am I here, and what do I want? That was your original question.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteThe first part of my answer is to reiterate what I said at first: I care about what is and what isn't true.
This does not only apply to Christianity vs. atheism but to anything. Indeed, I visited a Humanist discussion group that I enjoyed to a certain extent but eventually left because some shallow, uninformed individual started making a lot of factual claims about George Washington that I knew were simply not true. They had nothing to do with Washington's religious beliefs, but about other aspects of his life.
But facts are facts. I respect those who respect them, and I feel the opposite about those who play fast and loose with them.
But supposing that's true, why would I necessarily look in on this blog and bother to make comments? Well one reason is that I suspect that there must be at least one other person out there who, when reading Jeff's ill-considered and sometimes silly points, also says to himself or herself, "Wait a minute...that doesn't really add up...but...I dunno...the guy's a priest...who am I to dispute his theological knowledge..."
I would like to think that my objections will stick in the mind of such a person in a way that he or she can't simply dismiss, and that eventually, will lead to better understanding. I do not mean by that, that I hope another reader will stop being a Christian. That is not what I am here for. My comment to Christians is always "By all means, put yourself into it, heart and soul. Only then will you discover how it actually works out in your life." I suppose it's possible that my having been here might have the ironic result of making other readers feel even more devoted to their faith, because they imagine they're defending Jeff against me.
But what, concretely, do I wish would happen? I think that is the kernel of what you are getting at.
If I could make any outcome happen that I wanted, Jeff would meet me in Bishop Johnson's office, and I would describe the matter about God's foreknowledge to the Bishop and get him to read Jeff's blog posts, and then I would ask him if he considered such teaching orthodox and was content to have it taught by a priest in his diocese.
I don't know Bishop Johnson and have met him only once. If he is like my general impression of Episcopal clergy, he would clear his throat, hem and haw around, and say that after all, there are all kinds of ways of looking at things, and everything wasn't cut and dried.
If that happened, I would thank him and Jeff for their time, walk out, and Jeff would never hear from me again, on any topic. I would feel the same about his views, but they would, in a sense, have become the responsibility of his bishop.
(Continued)
(Continued)
DeleteIf, on the other hand, the bishop surprised me and did the right thing, telling Jeff that such teaching was unacceptable and that he was to get up and publicly retract it, I would hope that Jeff would do just that.
To be sure, that still wouldn't solve the basic problem, which is, in my view, Jeff's immaturity. As I told another reader recently, I believe that in the context of family dynamics, Jeff is a mascot. A mascot, in that context, is the family clown who diverts everyone's attention from a situation they can't face, by inane diversions. Of course he doesn't fulfill that function at your house, because he's the dad. But I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that that was true of his early life.
Whether or not that is so, it seems to me indisputable that at his age, with his intelligence, and with his education, his behavior is a discredit to his faith and to his office. Whether anyone could do anything about it, I don't know. I understand that my own efforts were counter-productive, because they were so harsh. But sometimes, the truth is so glaring that it has to be said. Even as an atheist, I can appreciate the spirit of the biblical prophet who said "His word was as a fire in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and could not stay."
I plan on reading the past posts that you have mentioned, reading my own Bible and thinking for myself before I respond to what you have said.
DeleteI completely agree though, if you read the Bible with attention and think for yourself, you are not likely to be a Christian for long. But if I am wrong and you remain one, you will at least have done what the Prayer Book says: "to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them," which every educated person, believer or not, ought to do.
DeleteMr. Huggins, that is quite a series of posts. Goodness gracious so many grievances. Someone who imagines, as you apparently do, that an Episcopal bishop, especially the one you refer to, gives a rip what one of the priests in his charge teaches about God's foreknowledge, is surprisingly naive. You are a man of contradictions--may I say that? On the one hand, you seem to profess atheism. On the other you rather priggishly insist on consistency from those whose beliefs you reject. But, your standards seem rather idiosyncratic. I don't really care how you present yourself, nor apparently do you, but at least you have reduced the personal insults a smidgen. Thank you for that. On the matter of God's foreknowledge: Would you agree that that there is more than one opinion, eve among the so-called "orthodox" Christians, on the matter? For example, if Judeo-Christian God is so all-knowing, why does the Psalmist say, "Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me and lead me in the everlasting way..." Is there room, even among blightedly ignorant Christians, for disagreement on that? By the way, nice prayer book references, my man. Read and mark indeed.
Delete>Goodness gracious so many grievances.
DeleteReally only one. Someone is playing at being a priest.
>Someone who imagines, as you apparently do, that an Episcopal bishop, especially the one you refer to, gives a rip what one of the priests in his charge teaches about God's foreknowledge, is surprisingly naive.
You need to read more carefully. I said I anticipated that the bishop would vacillate and that if he did the right thing, it would surprise me.
>You are a man of contradictions--may I say that? On the one hand, you seem to profess atheism. On the other you rather priggishly insist on consistency from those whose beliefs you reject.
That is not a contradiction. The closest thing I have to a religion is the principle that A is A. A thing is what it is--not its distant cousin. When people understand and adhere to that--atheist, Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim, we get clarity. Jesus said "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." To get there, you have to care about the truth, in the first place.
>On the matter of God's foreknowledge: Would you agree that that there is more than one opinion, eve among the so-called "orthodox" Christians, on the matter?
No.
>For example, if Judeo-Christian God is so all-knowing, why does the Psalmist say, "Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me and lead me in the everlasting way..."
Because the passage is not implying that God is searching for the purpose of finding out what he does not yet know. If you read the whole Psalm, you will find an earlier verse where the writer says that God already knows his thoughts "afar off." The Psalmist says "search me" only to show that he is submitting to the probing presence of God's spirit, which reveals "truth in the inward parts," as I believe it also says in Psalm 51.
>Is there room, even among blightedly ignorant Christians, for disagreement on that?
I'm afraid ignorance is the exact word here. You don't understand the passage.
>nice prayer book references, my man.
The Prayer Book is a monument of English prose and devotional literature. It is sometimes said of Episcopalians that they are surprised, upon first reading the Bible, to discover how much it quotes the Book of Common Prayer. You may be in a similar state of knowledge.
I didn't realize you were planning to post again, and I'm not sure why you would, since you are plainly out of your depth. Madison's questions are serious, and since I've raised these matters, I felt an obligation to respond. I don't anticipate that we'll end in agreement, but we may at least arrive at some degree of understanding, even as philosophical opponents. You, on the other hand, don't seem to understand the matter in the first place. I can't say that surprises me in an Episcopalian in particular or a Christian in general. Perhaps you also should become a priest.
Ol Dave
ReplyDeletebut "those guys" extends for many generations. I agree they lived in the New Testament. I do not deny the centrality of the New Testament. I am saying that it is as similar to the eucharist in my eyes. And it is pretty clear that any number of committed Christians were New Testament-less for a couple of centuries, even if they had heard the preaching (affectionately referred to as "Tradition" by us catholic types).
I certainly think what you lay out is a suitable explanation of "the life" as a believer. My tendency is to say we are saved by grace (entry into the Kingdom is a free gift, we enter by faith/trusting God. However, once you are "in the kingdom" there is a set of expectations. The proverbial "rules of the road (or Way)" which Paul refers to when he says "no fornicator/idolator/etc. will be in the Kingdom.") We cannot earn entry into the Kingdom, but we can get 'kicked out'
The New Testament and the sacraments are the foundation/base of The Way. The reality is lots of Christians do not read or celebrate. That is not good. I am advocating something deeper--that something to which you make note of. Peace friend!
Here's the March 13 Huggins comment without argumentum ad hominem (inside the brackets):
Delete[You raised the issue of how necessary the New Testament is to the church and rightly pointed out that the seminal age of the church had no New Testament. The point is well taken and certainly points to the issue of "sola scriptura" insisted on by people of a more Protestant outlook.
Had you simply contented yourself with your observation that most of the books of the NT canon were not composed until the latter part of the first century, you would have been on solid ground.
Unfortunately for your point, you said the following:
>What about the apostles? Were they real Christians? Well they did not have the New Testament. It is tempting to say that 'they wrote it' but that is not true. In fact, it is probable that the only apostle to write a thing was Peter. Paul is an apostle, though later in time and not one of the twelve. Some think John and Matthew, though it is unlikely.
When you said that, you overstated your case.
One could not tell, from your comment, that one apostle, Paul, had written about a quarter of the NT and that his letters were in circulation--effectively, the only NT scripture the church had--before the gospels were even composed. So when you said Peter was probably the only apostle to write anything and that Paul, though an apostle, was not one of the twelve, you simply made yourself look ignorant.
Come to think of it, just as you did yesterday when, writing about the sacrament as a priest of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church, you absurdly said that you didn't know what "spiritual presence" meant.]
--end of brackets--
When you take out the invective, what is left is not really a relevant or thoughtful response to Jeff's post. In fact, it's kind of a milquetoast comment. The insults are perhaps intended to make the responses look more intelligent than they really are. Which leads one to suggest that Mr. Huggins is perhaps attempting to provoke an irrational response to his ravings and thereby wreck Fr. Jeff's credibility? I don't know, but it's hard to imagine one would take the time to post without some purpose in mind. Posting with no purpose except to stir the pot is, I think, known in the "blogosphere" as "trolling." The conventional wisdom is that the antidote to trolling is "don't feed the trolls."
Not that I care how atheists promote their faith, but if the purpose of the extreme comments is to win people over to his point of view, it seems like a throwback. Insult and vituperation were tactics employed by atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the last century, which I believe were publicity stunts. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but I think most smart atheists have abandoned this approach in favor of reasoned argumentation--which by the way O'Hair was pretty good at when you ignored her venom. I can't really say Mr. Huggins is displaying evidence of that, but there's always hope people can grow. Christopher Hitchens is an example of the more modern, progressive approach to atheist proselytizing. Not that Hitchens didn't have an acerbic wit. But, his emphasis was more on wit than insult, I think. It is not for me to say how atheists recruit new believers, but it's interesting to think about the effectiveness of various approaches to recruitment.
>not really a relevant or thoughtful response to Jeff's post. In fact, it's kind of a milquetoast comment.
DeleteIf that is really what you think, you are definitely the kind of reader Jeff hopes for. Thanks for sharing!
It's really what I think. Most of your comments were strange and tangential. And you know what he hopes for... how? Claiming to read someone's mind is not something I would expect from a respectable atheist.
DeleteFriend, you have definitely proven my point about the kind of person who takes Jeff seriously. Thanks for your time.
Delete