Seeing things differently
I note that in the weeks following my Easter column there were two very different responses published in this paper. I do not usually join in such discussion but on this occasion am thinking some background might be helpful.
Carl Purdy expressed some concern that my approach to Jesus’ resurrection might be confusing, assuring us that there really was a bodily resurrection. He was affirming the usual fundamentalist approach, held by many.
Modern day Christian fundamentalism goes back just over 100 years. It evolved in response to Darwin’s Origin of Species, published in 1859. For several hundred years the Christian claim to be the only route to truth was being undermined by the rational/scientific method of exploring reality. Darwin capped it off by figuring out through careful observation that all nature, including humanity, has evolved over the ages. This was very different from the church’s belief that humanity was made special, unique, and complete.
The Catholic church was the first to respond. The First Vatican Council, in 1870, officially pronounced the Pope infallible when speaking ex cathedra. They now had an absolute authority with which to defy Darwin.
The Protestants were slower off the mark. The conservative wing of the church held conferences at Niagara-on-the-Lake from 1878 until 1897. But it wasn’t until 1910 that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, USA, announced the five fundamentals of Christian belief: 1. the inerrancy of the Bible; 2. the virgin birth of Jesus; 3. Christ’s death is the atonement for sin; 4. the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and 5. the historical reality of Jesus’ miracles.
The Protestants now had an infallible book to match the infallible Pope, both to counter Darwin and evolution. Various branches of the church, with differing interpretations, adhere to these fundamentals. They provide a foundation for living for many. I assume that Mr. Purdy holds to these beliefs.
Earl Sharpe’s article questioned Mr. Purdy’s beliefs, deeming that there was no proof. I add that he was firmly in support of my approach, for which I thank him.
The liberal branch of the Protestant church came out in support of Darwin and evolution. Since about 1800 they had been examining the Bible with the tools of modern research. This approach removed the Bible from the realm of the supernatural and treated it like any other historical literature, exploring background, context, authorship, etc.
The same year, 1910, that the fundamentals were declared, Albert Schweitzer published his Quest for the Historical Jesus, in which he was skeptical that the real historical Jesus could ever be found. However, the Jesus of the gospels remained for him a model of how we should live. He had both a brilliant mind and a sensitive soul, which he expressed through his various pursuits as theologian, musician, organist, medical doctor, and missionary to Africa. He was a fine representative of the liberal church.
There was fear that the liberal church was all too liberal. Karl Barth, in his Epistle to the Romans, especially the 1922 edition, affirmed the supremacy of God and the primacy of the Bible. Many in the liberal church, including Emily and me, were educated under his influences. Fortunately we focused on other scholars less hard-line than he was.
I call him a fundamentalist in sheep’s clothing.
Then there was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in a few letters to his friend, Eberhard Bethge from a prison cell in Berlin in 1944, asking, “Who is Christ for us today?” and noting that “God is being pushed out of the world.” These questions have dominated my and many others’ thinking ever since.
The 1960s brought the social revolution, when the exodus from the church began and still continues. Since then we have been introduced to mythology (Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God); to Carl Jung (Answer to Job); to a human Jesus by Jesus Seminar Scholars; to the glory and wonders of the universe (Thomas Berry, The New Story). And, indeed, a Universe Story is evolving.
So we have two very different points of view, with many variations within each. To carry on a creative discussion there must be some basic agreement, which here seems to be lacking. We live in separate worlds. That’s fine as long as we don’t interfere with one another.
Live out your faith, whatever it may be, with deep respect for one another, the earth and the good of humanity.