I think it is curious (a word that in itself is rather curious) that Meyers – like Doug Pagitt and Bruce McLaren, whose books we have read – is coming out of a fundamentalist background. And I do mean Fundamentalist. As in Church of Christ Church of Christ
The point: Meyers, now a very liberal and progressive UCC pastor, has come a very long way from his roots. The faith to which he is reacting is very fundamental, but it is still fair to say that MOST of Christianity, even the more liberal brands, have until recently held to some very fundamental creeds: biblical authority (and perhaps even inerrancy), the divinity of Christ, a literal/bodily resurrection, the historicity of Jesus’ miracles, and so on. What Meyers is saying (and Marcus Borg and others said earlier) is that it is time for liberal churches to start telling people what liberal pastors for a very long time have been learning in seminary. That is, let’s trust the flock to understand what scholars have been saying, in order to have a faith that is intellectually sound. It is a daring proposition.
Meyers’ goal in the book is to answer this question: How can our faith become biblically responsible, intellectually honest, emotionally satisfying, and socially significant? (p. 7) And that is a great statement; that is what people, if they are interested in exploring Christian faith, are looking for – and have not found in the traditional formulations and experience of the Christian church.
Meyers is going to raise the issue that we began with long ago – the issue of “knowing” what is true:
“Our clues will come not from holding the text under the magnifying glass of modernity, where veracity equals truth and mythology equals falsehood, but rather from what philosopher Paul Ricoeur called a “second naiveté”—the posture of hearing truth in stories that are not and never were intended to be taken literally.” (p. 31) (Italics mine)
Elsewhere he says . . .
“The truth of which Jesus speaks is wisdom incarnate, not [mere - me, sorry] intellectual assent to cogent arguments made on behalf of God. Indeed, a quick glance around this broken world makes it painfully obvious that we don’t need more arguments on behalf of God; we need more people who live as if they are in covenant with Unconditional Love, which is our best definition of God.” (p. 21).
The first chapter – Jesus the Teacher, Not the Savior – includes a good summary of what contemporary liberal scholarship says about Jesus and how we got from an itinerant preacher in Palestine
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteWould any of the UWO Religious Studies professors, such as Kathleen Corley, be among the "scholars in our part of the theological Christian world?" Who are you referring to?
You're right, my phrase may not be very clear. The Protestant theological world exists on a continuum from Extreme Fundamentalists to Evangelicals to Moderates to Liberals/Progressives. The Fundamentalists affirm the Bible to be not just God's Word, but God's words . . . every one of them delivered from God to us, inerrant in every way. (There is still the problem of translation, but that is another matter.) They further affirm that their interpretation of those writings includes the divinity of Christ, Virgin Birth, and so on. Progressive/Liberal Christians see the Bible to be a human document -- a reflection of what a whole variety of people over a very long time describing their experience with God. The Word may be heard in these writings, as the Spirit makes the words come alive. But those words are subject to scholarly research, the conclusions of which Meyers summarizes very well. By "our part of the theological world" I mean that liberal/progressive end, and that is where (so I think) resides Kathleen, with Marcus Borg, John Crossan, Bishop Spong and many others.
DeleteIt seems to me that something like Derek Parfit’s approach to Kant, as described in this passage from the introduction to Parfit’s book, might be a reasonable way to approach the Bible or Jesus:
ReplyDelete“Whereas many commentators explicitly present themselves either as critics of Kant or as defenders of his view, Parfit’s approach is different. He treats Kant’s texts as a rich fund of claims, arguments, and ideas, all of which deserve to be treated with the same seriousness that one would accord the ideas of a brilliant contemporary, but many of which require clarification or revision, and some of which are simply unworkable.”
--Parfit, Derek. On What Matters : Two-volume set (Kindle Locations 230-233). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CaTCWUvNr_EC&lpg=PT19&vq=%22Whereas%20many%20commentators%20explicitly%20present%20themselves%20either%20as%20critics%20of%20Kant%20or%20as%20defenders%20of%20his%20view%22&pg=PT19#v=onepage&q=%22Whereas%20many%20commentators%20explicitly%20present%20themselves%20either%20as%20critics%20of%20Kant%20or%20as%20defenders%20of%20his%20view%22&f=false
Do you know of any Bible scholars or churches that take such an approach?
I think you're right. The challenge, as always, is the process of clarification and revision . . . and knowing which are "unworkable," or perhaps no longer so. Liberal churches like FCC take that approach precisely, and this is exactly what Meyers is calling churches to be doing.
DeleteRalph