Aug 11
Christianity’s Next Reformation — Aside Number 1
My series on Christianity’s Next Reformation¹ has prompted Gerald R. Baron to start one of his own (introduction here). This will hopefully be an interesting conversation. So, in addition to my own series, I’ll offer some asides, commenting on each of his articles, as and when they appear.
Baron begins with a long exposition of what we have in common, with which I have no disagreements. He is also correct in saying that I lean “more toward Eastern ideas as well as toward the esoteric and gnostic ideas somewhat related to early versions of Christianity that were rejected as heretical”, (although I would say that esoteric Christianity is not just an early version).
He then says: “As a Christian holding basic beliefs consistent with traditional and orthodox teaching, Graham has prompted me to go beyond our shared beliefs and explain why I hold ideas that he, along with many others as is evident on Medium, reject as outmoded, unsupportable by known facts and experience, and which appear to be based on a source — the Bible — that has been discredited as unreliable, incoherent and which teaches a fantasy. If this is not an accurate explanation of the prompts I have been sensing, then I am quite certain Graham will correct me. I hope he will”.
If that is what he considers to be my position, then he has somewhat overstated the case, so will attempt to correct him here, since that is not my estimation of the Bible.
He says that he can summarise the core beliefs of Christianity in four statements:
- (Creation) A God who is Good created the universe and all things
- (Fall) Humans are created beings unique in reflecting the image of God, but who out of their free will have chosen rebellion against their creator
- (Incarnation) Jesus the Messiah was and is the visible presence of God forming the Second Person of the Trinity
- (Restoration) The life, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah ushered in the long promised Kingdom of Heaven (or God) and is a foreshadowing of the ultimate restoration of creation.
My initial and less relevant response is that, even though I may not believe any of those statements, at least in the form in which they are expressed, I am still happy to call myself (a highly unconventional) Christian, therefore that wouldn’t be my definition of a Christian. (I don’t actually have one, but I’m happy to agree that Baron is here defining a conventional Christian.) Secondly and more importantly, how can we possibly know whether any of this is true or not? What is the compelling evidence which justifies these statements? If the answer is, because that is what it says in the Bible, then we are immediately confronted by the question, what exactly is the Bible?
As we know, many Christians consider it to be infallible, or the Word of God, or some such formulation. This is an idea I cannot take seriously. I certainly don’t agree with everything in his vision of a new Reformation, but on the question of why we should not consider the Bible the Word of God, one can do no better than start with the views of Keith Michael (who is seeking his own new Reformation and who was the inspiration for my own series), for example in this article, at the end of which he offers a free download of his book.
All this is not to say that the Bible is not an incredibly important book, with lots of fascinating material in it, but it remains a book written and compiled by humans, who obviously had a certain agenda. In my view, it therefore has to be scrutinised and deconstructed, to try to get to the bottom of what these writers were saying, as well as exploring the texts that could have been included but weren’t. I personally don’t trust the judgment of the early Catholic Church. It is therefore an over-the-top exaggeration to say that I think that the Bible has been “discredited as unreliable, incoherent and which teaches a fantasy”. I do, however, think that statement might apply to some of its contents.
The Bible contains some contradictions and incoherent, even nonsensical, passages at a narrative level. Possibly the worst example of this is the Mission of the Twelve found in Matthew 10, which I wrote about at length here, and summarised here. Baron’s response to this was: “If one wants to go looking for inconsistencies and contradictions in the whole of the bible, they will find fruitful ground”, and that his “belief in the essential coherence of the biblical story is not tied to interpretations of specific texts”. It’s good to see therefore that he is not one of the more Fundamentalist Christians on this point, and has some reservations about the text.
In the same correspondence, he expressed his understanding thus. He rejects the idea that “God almost literally took the pen in the hands of the human writers and guided their every move. Or, in a mysterious way, told them what to write”. Inspired by C. S. Lewis, he prefers the understanding “that humans were writing with various levels of insight and spiritual understanding, and certainly with limited information on physics and history. But God then used what they had written to convey his messages and his truth to those with ears to hear”. It seems to me that this is a fairly obvious act of faith for which there is no evidence. More importantly, it is not really all that different from the first two rejected options. It still suggests that a theistic personal God is capable of writing or influencing books, and that it is He, not humans, who is the real author of the Bible, even if the message only gets through via a back door.
At the end of his article Baron has a section entitled ‘Why believing in the Christian story is better than not’. One of his fourteen examples is: “It is better to believe that God is good than to believe that God is evil, or neither good nor evil”. One might reasonably ask, what does ‘better’ actually mean in this context? Is it merely a synonym for comforting, or appealing, something that merely makes us feel better? Baron says that, like me, he seeks to know the truth, “a complete understanding of our world and our lives in it”. Why would he then settle for merely comforting ideas? Perhaps it might be better to wake up and consider the uncomfortable idea/possibility that God might not be good, and is perhaps the ultimate source of everything that exists, beyond good and evil, an impersonal Ground of Being.
CONCLUSION
Baron says: “When one throws the baby out with the bathwater one is left with nothing but an empty tub. Such efforts in the past, leading toward a form of Christianity more amenable to the secular, humanist spirit of our time, have inevitably led to an insipid faith that has no power to change lives nor offers any value in addressing what is wrong with our personal lives, relationships, and communities from local to global”. I completely agree, although I would say that some of what Baron considers to be baby is actually the bathwater.
He confirms, however, that we are unified in our mission. We are both against a form of Christianity which seeks to be amenable to the secular, humanist spirit of our time. We both seek instead a deeply spiritual one which has the power to change lives, addresses what is wrong with our personal lives, relationships, and communities from local to global. We are both seeking a religion which can unite the world. We’ll have to wait and see whose vision is more credible.
======================================
I hope you have enjoyed this article. I have written in the past about other topics, including spirituality, metaphysics, psychology, science, Christianity, politics and astrology. All of those articles are on Medium, but the simplest way to see a guide to them is to visit my website (click here and here). My most recent articles, however, are only on Medium; for those please check out my profile.
===================================
Footnote:
- introduction, part 1, part 2, and part 3.
