04.05.10
Posted in Religion at 5:06 pm by Karl
The title of this post refers to my reaction to an evolution versus creation controversy currently enveloping a West Coast Adventist institution of higher learning; it’s an allusion to the course that controversies in the Adventist church have historically taken and my dismay that this too might conclude similarly. Our doctrinal and theological debates are often acrimonious and are seldom ‘resolved’ until the party or parties responsible for challenging or calling for reconsideration of the existing orthodoxy are removed or remove themselves from the community.
The La Sierra University contretemps is a topic of debate/discussion on a number of Adventist-oriented blogs (e.g., http://spectrummagazine.org/). My comment and reflection on what it means and how it might play out arises only from the fact of my membership in the wider Adventist community.
There’s a very informative and, to my mind, instructive interview (a transcript is also available) that Adventists who are more interested in respectful and thoughtful dialogue than in scoring debating points on the religion/science question might benefit from. Titled, “Asteroids, Stars, and the Love of God,” it can be found at http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2010/asteroids/transcript.shtml.
There’s much to commend an approach which recognizes religion/spirituality and science as being separate pursuits; at least that’s an approach that commends itself to me. In this perspective, the Bible is my source of spiritual, moral and religious instruction. I seek information/instruction about history, geology, mathematics, physics or other scientific disciplines elsewhere.
As usual, television (3ABN) and the Internet have been used to keep the controversy going. Seems to me our church has failed to learn the lessons from past controversies; its leaders and laity seem incapable of addressing disagreements without tearing the institution apart and causing disillusion, especially among its young and thoughtful membership.
Permalink
12.19.09
Posted in Religion, Spirituality at 8:52 pm by Karl
Today is a Sabbath unlike most of the many others I’ve spent since 1969. If memory serves, my church, Sligo Church, has failed to hold services on only two or three Sabbaths in the last 40 years due to inclement weather. So today’s closure due to heavy snowfall is a relatively rare event.
As I watch the snow pile up—15″ to 19″on the sunroom roof just beneath my daughter’s old bedroom window—I am multi-tasking: oscillating between watching the Loma Linda University Church’s broadcast, skimming an article in The Times Literary Supplement‘s online site (Times Online), and making these journal notations. Though seemingly incongruous these varied activities in their way help heighten my appreciation of Sabbath rest in general and this Sabbath in particular. How so?
On this day when I’m free of compulsion to do work of any kind, by virtue of these varied activities I have serendipitously lighted on several sources that have each contributed to my spiritual enrichment. The absence of the need to keep some appointment or complete some imposed or voluntarily assumed task liberates my mind to wander anywhere it pleases, alighting on ideas that resonate or fascinate at the given moment in time.
I serendipitously found one such fascinating idea or insight in the 18th December 2009 essay by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in the aforementioned Times Online. Sacks’ essay is titled, “Credo: Thank God for the Courage to Live with Uncertainty” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6962016.ece.
I consider the piece a type of “Psalm of Thanksgiving:” successive paragraphs begin:
I thank Him for the love that has filled our home… I thank Him for the blessing of grandchildren… I thank Him for those rare souls who lift us when we are laid low… I thank Him for the gift of being born a Jew…
The two “verses” of the psalm that I find so resonant and fascinating then follow:
I thank Him for the atheists and agnostics who keep believers from believing the unbelievable, forcing us to prove our faith by the beauty and grace we bring into the world…
I thank Him for the gift of faith, which taught me to see the dazzling goodness and grace that surround us if only we open our eyes and minds. I thank Him for helping me to understand that faith is not certainty but the courage to live with uncertainty, not a destination but the journey itself…
This last sentence puts me in mind of Hebrews 11:1; in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible it reads:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.
There’s an unmatched lyrical, poetic quality to the KJV version. But the same text in Today’s English Version (TEV) gives it a little ironic twist that is echoed in the sentiment expressed in the last sentence in the above excerpt from Sacks’ essay:
To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see (Heb. 11:1, TEV).
Amen!
Permalink
11.18.09
Posted in Religion at 5:45 pm by Karl
I was just skimming Harvard Magazine (via Newsweek) when I came across the citation for the recent Boston Globe article by Harvey Cox, Hollis Research Professor of Divinity at Harvard University, which is the title of this post (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/08/why_fundamentalism_will_fail/?page=1). According to Cox, one reason fundamentalism (of both religious and political stripes) will fail is that it is inherently fractious. Cox provides examples from the 19th century up through our contemporary period in support of this conclusion.
Citing the examples of Thomas Merton, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and the Dalai Lama, Cox says,
For none of these profoundly religious men did the appreciation of other faiths weaken their anchoring in their own. In fact each said that it enhanced it.
This is a timely observation—and bit of wisdom, I would venture—discovered coincidentally at the same time the Believers & Doubters group is studying The Case for God by Karen Armstrong. We recoil from a stultifying orthodoxy in our particular Christian communion, yet are equally put off by what some see as “cafeteria style” religion. In this regard, Cox notes that a trend in North and South America away from “organized religion” into Pentecostalism and to more generalized spirituality has dangers of its own:
The plethora of emerging new spiritualities has its own problems, of course. They are often intellectually incoherent or melt into a self-centered narcissism. They can become vacuous and faddish. (Madonna and other Hollywood celebrities are now “into Kabala,” the ancient Jewish mystical tradition.) They can become highly individualistic, lacking any vision of social justice. Esoteric and snobbish at times, they often fail to reach the poor and dispossessed people for whom Jesus, the Buddha, and the Jewish prophets had such concern.
This observation of Cox’ reminds me of the article by the late Jaroslav Pelikan titled, “The Will to Believe and the Need for Creed” (http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/pelikan/pelikan-willtobelieve.shtml). Pelikan quotes the late Professor Lionel Trilling of Columbia University as follows:
It is probably true that when dogmatic principle in religion is slighted, religion goes along for a while on generalized emotion and ethical intention—’morality touched by emotion’—and then loses the force of its impulse, even the essence of its being.
One does not have to subscribe to the need for creeds to support the sentiment expressed by Trilling. It could apply equally to doctrines of the church, without which we’re subject to “emotion.” A problem is posed for the believer, however, when the church fails to rethink its belief in the light of science or new understanding of scripture. What’s a believer to do when the church’s view on an issue conflicts with the scientific evidence and no issue of ethics or morality arises from a belief in the particular scientific information?
Permalink
Posted in Religion at 7:50 am by Chris
The following article is located at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1994/issue43/4302.html
How We Got Our Bible: Did You Know?
Little-known and remarkable facts about the history of the Bible
David M. Scholer is professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. He is author of A Basic Bibliographic Guide for New Testament Exegesis (Eerdmans, 1973).
Friday, July 1, 1994
The oldest surviving manuscript of any part of the New Testament is a papyrus fragment containing verses from John 18; scholars estimate it was written about 125.
We may have sayings of Jesus that are not recorded in the four Gospels. They come from books that never made it into the New Testament but which nonetheless contain some reliable historical information. Extra-biblical sayings that might be from the lips of Jesus: “The one who is near me is near the fire; the one who is far from me is far from the kingdom”; “There shall be divisions and heresies”; “No one can obtain the kingdom of heaven who has not passed through temptation.”
Many early Christians, to discover the answer to a problem, would randomly open the Bible, read the first line their eye fell upon, and consider it a divine message for them. So popular was this practice, it had to be repeatedly condemned by early church councils.
The word Bible comes from the Greek word for “papyrus plant” (biblos), since the leaves of that plant were used for paper.
In the ancient and medieval worlds, some Christians memorized large portions of Scripture. Eusebius of Caesarea said he once met a blind Egyptian who “possessed whole books of the Holy Scriptures … in his heart.”
The Roman Catholic Bible is larger than the Protestant, but the largest Bible in Christendom belongs to the Ethiopic church. It contains the Old Testament Apocrypha and books such as Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Joseph Ben Gurion’s medieval history of the Jews and other nations, Ethiopic Clement, and the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant.
The cost of a Bible in the 1300s might easily amount to a priest’s whole yearly income.
The medieval church did not object to Bible translations; by the early 1500s, there were Bibles in most European languages. But the church opposed the work of Wycliffe and Tyndale because these translators held “radical” views.
When English Bibles were first published, people were fascinated with them. One Essex man recalled that “poor men bought the New Testament of Jesus Christ and on Sundays did sit reading in the lower end of the church, and many would flock about them to hear their reading.”
As Erasmus was pulling together his celebrated Greek New Testament (1516), he could find no ancient Greek manuscripts of the last six verses of Revelation. So he made his own “backward” translation—from Latin back into Greek! For centuries, in fact, some Greek New Testaments still concluded with Erasmus’s Latin-to-Greek translation of these verses.
The Bible’s chapter divisions were created in the early 1200s by a lecturer at the University of Paris. Its current verse divisions were not fully developed until 1551.
Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German in a blitz of only 11 weeks.
Tyndale’s translation introduced many new words into the English language, such as longsuffering, peacemaker, scapegoat, filthy lucre, and even the word beautiful.
William Tyndale’s first English New Testament, finished in 1525, had to be printed outside of England and then smuggled back inside barrels of flour and bolts of cloth. Catholic bishop Tunstall of London bought up most of Tyndale’s first edition in order to stamp out Tyndale’s “heresy”—but the proceeds financed new editions!
When the King James Version was published in 1611, the Geneva Bible was by far the most popular English Bible. It was the Geneva translation, not the King James, that was used by William Shakespeare and the early American Puritans.
Copyright © 1994 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christian History magazine.
In light of our conversation regarding the Bible on last Sabbath, I thought this piece
could bring some additional context to our dialog. It is from Christian History.
CLASSIC FAITH FOR MODERN TIMES
The Light to Our Paths
Prefaces to English Bibles celebrate the Bible as God’s gift to believers.
Compiled and introduced by Leland Ryken
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Christians don’t usually read the prefaces to their English Bible translations. This is a great loss, for in addition to the technical matters of translation philosophy and practice, these prefaces contain much that is edifying about both the Bible and its influence in a Christian’s life.
This is especially true of the early English Bibles of the 16th and 17th centuries, starting with William Tyndale’s New Testament (first published in 1525). A second major English Bible in the Tyndale tradition was the Geneva Bible, popularly known as the Puritan Bible (1560). The climax of this tradition was the King James Version of 1611.
The prefaces to all three of these English translations are cast in the form of a letter to the reader. Embedded in the technical information about the translations are gems of devotional fervor and stylistic flair. The following excerpts from prefatory letters cover three separate topics, one from each of the English Bibles mentioned above.
The Christian gospel as joyful tidings (Tyndale’s New Testament)
Evangelion (that we call the gospel) is a Greek word; and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh a man’s heart glad, and maketh him sing, dance, and leap for joy. As when David had killed Goliath the giant, came glad tidings unto the Jews that their fearful and cruel enemy was slain, and they delivered out of all danger: for gladness whereof, they sung, danced, and were joyful. In like manner is the Evangelion of God (which we call Gospel and the New Testament) joyful tidings; and as some say, a good hearing published by the apostles throughout all the world, of Christ the right David, how that he hath fought with sin, with death, and the devil, and overcome them. Whereby all men that were in bondage to sin, wounded with death, overcome of the devil, are with out their own merits or deservings, loosed, justified, restored to life, and saved, brought to liberty, and reconciled unto the favour of God, and set at one with him again: which tidings as many as believe, laud, praise, and thank God; are glad, sing and dance for joy.
The Bible as an inestimable treasure (Geneva Bible)
[The Bible] is the light to our paths, the key of the kingdom of heaven, our comfort in affliction, our shield and sword against Satan, the school of all wisdom, the glass wherein we behold God’s face, the testimony of his favor, and the only food and nourishment of our souls ….
Therefore, as brethren that are partakers of the same hope and salvation with us, we beseech you, that this rich pearl and inestimable treasure may not be offered in vain, but as sent from God to the people of God, for the increase of his kingdom, the comfort of his Church, and discharge of our conscience, whom it hath pleased him to raise up for this purpose, so you would willingly receive the word of God, earnestly study it and in your life practice it, that you may now appear in deed to be the people of God, not walking any more according to this world, but in the fruits of the Spirit; that God in us may be fully glorified through Christ Jesus our Lord, who liveth and reigneth for ever. Amen.
Bible translation: Making the fountains of water available (King James Version)
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed ….
It remaineth, that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end. Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not … Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours; O receive not so great things in vain, O despise not so great salvation! …
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are to do thy will, O God. The Lord work a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen.
Leland Ryken is professor of English at Wheaton College.
Permalink
11.09.09
Posted in Religion, Spirituality at 9:37 pm by Karl
Since October 24, the Believers & Doubters group have been discussing Karen Armstrong’s most recently released book, The Case for God. Over the course of the group’s study I’ll occasionally post my interpretation and understanding of what she has to say and my reactions based on this understanding.
Just prior to starting in on The Case for God I finished reading Armstrong’s fascinating and informative memoir, The Spiral Staircase. It’s a record of Armstrong’s spiritual journey and is useful, if not indispensable, background to understanding the interpretative framework she employs in writing about religion generally and the subject of this study in particular. This book is quite timely coming at a time when books by prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have achieved best seller status.
Following is what I take away from my reading of the introduction to The Case for God. It sets the tone and framework for the chapters which follow.
1. Our talk about God today is often rather facile. Religion is complex. For one thing, it’s inaccurate to call God the Supreme Being, for he’s not a being at all, she says. People of God will admit that God is transcendent, but we scarcely know what this means. Sages preferred to say God was “Nothing”–a way for them to express the mystery that God is, the notion that God was not just another being. Armstrong says that because we modern people have access to written scriptures and other religious writings mystery is alien to us while premoderns found it quite hospitable.
2. Premodern cultures (i.e. prior to the 17th century) had two ways of thinking about, speaking or acquiring knowledge: mythos and logos (reason), as the Greeks referred to them. Logos was necessary for survival while mythos helped them cope with those aspects of the human predicament that were outside the capability of mythos. According to Armstrong, myth was not something primarily to be believed because it was true. Rather it was something to be acted out–a program of action. Put into practice, myths can tell us something profoundly true about ourselves as human beings.
3. Like myth, religion was not something that premodern cultures thought about but something they did. For Daoists, for example, religion was a “knack” that they acquired through constant practice. Like any knack or skill religion requires practice and as such some people will be better at it than others.
4. Religious knowledge became primarily theoretical beginning in the 16th and 17th centuries. This is when theologians began to adopt the criteria and methods of science applied to religion. The meaning of “belief” changes to become “credulous acceptance of creedal doctrines.”
5. This rationalized interpretive approach to religion has resulted in two distinctively modern phenomena: fundamentalism and atheism. Fundamentalism, the literalistic reading of scripture, is an effort at producing rational, scientific faith.
6. Armstrong believes that the “new atheists” are reacting to a fundamentalist conception of religion, thereby weakening their critique, because fundamentalism is a “defiantly unorthodox form of faith.” These new atheists are not radical enough, Armstrong avers. In support of which she makes the remarkable statement that “Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians have insisted for centuries that God does not exist and there is ‘nothing’ out there; in making these assertions, their aim was not to deny the reality of God but to safeguard God’s transcendence.”
As I understand her position, Armstrong does not deny the reality of God. She in fact says that “If a conventional idea of God (which I take to include the concept of a personal God, which she doesn’t subscribe to) inspires empathy and respect for all others, it is doing its job…Because God is infinite, nobody can have the last word…Quarreling about religion is counterproductive…”
Religious as well as secular people have both lost sight of the value of unknowing, says Armstrong. Both need to take account of the long religious tradition of recognizing the limits of our knowledge and the value of reticence, silence and awe–a sentiment with which I heartily agree.
Permalink
