Dear Miss Daisy.
I’ve read your article. I love your passion for Christianity, and your enthusiasm for its transformation. I also like very much your subtitle “Release the power of eternal faith with everlasting truth”, and your conclusion “The resurrection of authentic, transformative Christianity will result when Christians are transformed by the renewing of our minds in the water of the Word accurately read”. (There is no mention of the Bible there, although I think you are probably alluding to it at the end.) I suspect, however, that we will have very different understandings of what all this will look like. You use the words ‘hard read’. I suspect that much of what I write about Christianity, you might find a hard read.
Here are some observations on your piece.
You say, “We can surely agree that the Bible is the most accessible and comprehensive source of information about Jesus…” Can we? It may be accessible, but is it comprehensive? Here is just one example. Why is James, the brother of Jesus and, following Jesus’s death, the head of the Jerusalem Church until his execution, possibly therefore Jesus’s closest ally and confidant, hardly mentioned in the four gospels? Why are the 12 apostles considered more important than him? If James was head of this Church, should we not also assume that his brother Jesus was the head, or a member, of the same church? This would seem likely, given the importance of family in Judaism, yet this Church is nowhere mentioned in the gospels.
“…and that Christian theology is (or should be) Bible-based. We know the Bible presents the history of Judaism and early Christianity”. Well, sort of, or do we? You are very interested in Constantine and the Nicene Council. I assume you must be aware that we have no copies of the gospels dating to earlier that the 4th century. In the same way that you think Nicea distorted Christianity, why should we not also consider that the gospels we have inherited might also be a distorted edit of earlier versions of Christianity?
You say, “Biblical truth will guide us into unprecedented spiritual freedom”. Maybe, but can we be sure of what Biblical truth is? There are so many interpretations, and problems dare I say?
Let’s take one example. You seem keen on Paul, and quote a passage from Colossians. Christians nowadays talk of ‘Jesus Christ’, and think of ‘Christ’ as if it were some kind of surname. And that is almost what Paul seems to be doing here, or that is how we now tend to read it. However, I’m sure you’re aware that ‘Christ’ is derived from the Greek word christos which is a translation of the Jewish word for messiah. ‘Christ’ therefore means ‘Messiah’. So let’s see what happens when we use that word in your quote: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Messiah. For in Messiah all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Messiah you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority”. This sounds almost nonsensical to modern ears, or at the very least opens up the passage to other interpretations. What does it now mean? Is Paul even talking about Jesus? Can we be sure we know what he means by ‘Christ/Messiah’, or do we read the passage in the light of later (possibly erroneous) Christian theology?
I look forward to your essay on the Nicene Council. (I’ll reserve judgement until then, as I would like to see that before making any comment on what follows in your article.) You might be interested in a previous article of mine on Constantine and Nicea on Medium:
or on my website:
Would you have any objections to my publishing this correspondence as part of a longer article?
best wishes
Graham
