Reese 2007-03-08
From Summa Bergania
from David Bergan
date Mar 8, 2007 2:23 PM
subject Orthodox, Schmorthodox
Hi Michael,
I have to be careful with my words because my inclination on these sorts of issues is to (try to) make them supremely reasonable. But I'm not sure that that is the way it really is... or how God wants it. Let me go ahead and lay out my case from reason first, and then afterwards try to explain what I mean in this cautionary preface...
1) Who cares about orthodoxy? Neither of us are group thinkers... we don't appeal to the collective for any decision. If remaining orthodox was either of our goals we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would note your beliefs in a cold and detached manner like how your banker notes your sums, and then go back to singing songs in unison with a thousand anonymous voices. We would worship Mary's perpetual virginity, quote Scripture to end thinking, and read Revelations like a weather forecast. Our goal is not to conform to orthodoxy, but to understand orthodoxy... and where necessary, correct it. I know that I don't agree with Luther and Augustine on all things theological... but it's in no way a relevant reply to hear you tell me so. I don't agree with Luther? Well, neither do you. Now let's get back to discussing resurrections, sacrificial lambs, and your hellbent desire to connect the two.
2) I hate to beat the dead horse, but please explain for me in syllogistic step-by-step detail, how you connect the literal resurrection to the Paschal lamb. I am totally confused how a man raising from the dead confirms some ritual with lamb sacrifice. I can see how the analogy fits with Jewish tradition (and might be helpful for Jewish believers converting to Christianity), but I don't see how you and I are required to accept that analogy by accepting the resurrection. It seems perfectly logical to accept the resurrection on historical grounds and view the Paschal lamb tradition just as I had laid out in previous emails... as one more tradition that Jesus conquered.
3) "The orthodox among us would say it is bad form to believe that God would have left the fate of the universe in our hands by allowing us the power to affect the outcome of Golgotha."
In my humble opinion, Luther and Calvin took Romans 8 a little too far. Christ's main message (repent) suggests that we are all capable of choosing between good and evil. Old Testament stories (like Jonah) also show human free will. The Arminian/Calvinistic debate is well known and I think it's going too far to say that either side can be conclusively labeled 'orthodox'.
4) "I believe your interpretation is more beneficial, more in line with a 21st century mindset, more nuanced and capable of evoking inspiration within the believer."
I hate to think of mindsets as being conformed to their century... and reject this dubious honor your bestow on my interpretation. My contention that Christ died to show God's love for us is as old as Christianity. My contention that He literally rose to show God's power over death is no younger. Moreover, I find that nothing is more nuanced than Catholicism... read their Catechism, examine their cathedrals, and you will almost find more subtlety than God Himself planted in creation. I am not a Catholic, but this just shows that sensitive thinkers have recognized these issues for 2000 years. There is nothing theologically new about this century.
5) "I also believe that a literal resurrection would seem to prove the orthodox point of view and negate yours."
See point 2.
6) "I believe that if the resurrection is literal, so is Leviticus"
Har?
Certainly someone who has read the New Testament as much as you have recognizes that the first order of business was chopping away the senseless rules and regulations. Acts is almost entirely about how they decided whether or not Christians could eat red meat. To insist that Leviticus is literal based on Jesus's ministry is like saying that the the Kama Sutra is literal based on the Shakers' ministry.
7) "if the resurrection is literal, there is no hope of inter-religious group peace; and, in the post-nuclear age, that will lead to some bad shit. If the resurrection is true in metaphor, there can be peace in the valley someday."
Apparently this is pretty important to you... but I still don't see the link. When it's convenient, tell me a little more about why a particular historical event will lead to us blowing up the earth. I think peace is important, too... but as the documentary you sent me suggests, it's our economic interests that are causing war, not our religious ones.
8) What makes blood so yucky to you? I'm the most squeamish guy in the class when it comes to watching live surgeries... I'm hoping to have the courage to watch my wife through childbirth someday (and hoping that they partition the business end of the hospital bed from her face and hands). But you're a combat medic... blood is just another flavor of kool-aid for anyone in the medical profession. What in its essence do you object to? The hemoglobin? The plasma? The idea of wasting of blood that could have been donated? If the liturgy read that we were washed in the water (saliva?) of Christ, does that somehow make it more palatable?
I'm not sure that I'm (yet) advocating this particular atonement position, but the concept isn't completely unreasonable. A person can be dirty from playing in the mud, or he can be dirty from playing in the whore-house. He can't clean both of those stains with a hot shower... so in a hyperbole that only those remarkable writers of the Bible could pen, they trump the first concept with the second... they up the ante from water to blood.
9) Which leads us to a salient question: How do you suggest that humans clean themselves of the stains of sin? How do we restore our innocence so as to bridge the separation from God's holiness?
10) You might be tempted to answer that with some sort of appeal to a wholly intellectual forgiveness... I ask God to forgive me and He does, there's no need for blood/communion/Jesus/etc. However, we need to consider that we aren't only spiritual beings, but physical also. I am capable of loving my wife exclusively with my mind, but no sane person would pretend that my mental love is sufficient for a healthy relationship. Without speaking, kissing, hugging, and sex, it isn't a fulfilled intimacy. In the same way, our approach to God must similarly include a physical aspect. Is water necessary for baptism? No, I am sure that God can name His children in total dryness. Is kneeling necessary for prayer? No, we can talk to God while driving a car or watching TV commercials. However in both of these examples, the intimate aspect is diluted. It is better to use water for baptism, so that one can feel God's choosing. It is better to kneel, so one can address God humbly and exclusively without distractions. It is better to sing praises than to murmur them.
It is in this manner that I find that rituals like communion are good for Christian followers. Perhaps they aren't essential in the strictest sense, but intimacy with God, like intimacy with your wife, relies on certain physical actions.
And this is where we swim into inky waters. Religion has never been solely an intellectual pursuit. All the evidence shows that the most primitive religions have very little to do with dogma and logic... they are founded instead on supernatural mysticism. We call them primitive for their lack of reason, but I don't believe that reason was intended to replace the mysteries. In one sense, rituals are more meaningful than logic, even through they can't stand up to logical scrutiny. When you evaluate the instances of truly rational religions (the philosopher's religion of Greece or the Enlightenment's deism), they feel a sort of emptiness. No I can't prove what's empty about them from a logical point of view, but my spirit knows that there is more to religion than a set of Euclidean-like theorems. The one true religion will have elements of the occult because the occult has elements of truth. Marriage has an element of the occult, too, in the same way.
I can't explain how eating Jesus's body and drinking His blood will forgive my sins... but I can't deny the uncanny presence (and uncanny relief) I feel sometimes when I take communion. (Nor can I explain how having sex produces an intimate closeness with my wife.) And from the right perspective, it isn't inherently gross. God, creator of the Earth and human beings wants us to eat food. With every meal we consume different varieties of plants and animals, which fuel us for physical activity. Sure if blood grosses you out, then that fetish won't allow you to eat a steak or hamburger... but it cannot be denied that meat is an acceptable fuel for human beings. However, in all these foods, none of them fuel our spirit, and none could except God Himself.
With the wrong perspective it seems odd that God would want His creation to consume Him like they eat a cow. But if He indeed made us consuming creatures, He wants us to eat. And if He indeed loves us, He wants us to eat that which is most beneficial to us. A pagan philosopher religion places God on the distant mountain, enthroned and uncaring with human activity. Because of His sovereignty, there is no way that such a God would ever condescend to becoming food for His creation. But the revolutionary message of the New Testament turns those temples upside down so that they are standing on their steeples. God loves us so much that there is no limit to His humility. He desires our love and betterment so much that He a) condescends to the form of a human b) condescends to be raised by a poor family c) condescends to being born in a barn d) condescends to living in material poverty all His life e) condescends to being hounded by religious authorities f) condescends Himself to sneers for staying among prostitutes and tax-collectors g) condescends to washing His pupil's feet h) condescends to being betrayed by one of His pupils i) condescends to being falsely imprisoned j) condescends to physical punishment and k) condescends to crucifixion. No self-respecting Zeus would do that much. No human would do the same for his ant farm. For God to submit Himself to the elements of communion is just one more way to show His condescending love.
I still see no reason why good men should want to oppose this message. We should all want it to be true that our creator loves us so much that it hurts to think about what He is willing to do for us. And we should all want it to be true that His death wasn't the end... but the beginning of God's glory on Earth.
Kind regards,
David
--David Bergan
"A Christian told me, 'I cannot be perfect; it is hopeless; and God does not expect it.'
"It would be more honest if he had said, 'I do not want to be perfect: I am content to be saved.' Such as he do not care for being perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect, but merely for being what they call 'saved'."
—George MacDonald (Unspoken Sermons II, paraphrased)
Categories: Email | Reese | Favorites
