Roger Morrison wrote:What Spong says in his latest News Letter:
Did Jesus really raise the dead? Is it biologically possible to bring back to life one who has been dead for four days? Does one have to make this assertion in order to be a Christian as literal minded believers seem to believe? Fundamentalists say that since stories that make this claim are in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God, they have to be true. They argue that since Jesus was the incarnation of the holy God, he was capable of doing anything that God could do. It is a circular argument which depends, of course, on the acceptance of the first of the five fundamentals, which asserts that the Bible is indeed inerrant since God is its author. People living in the 21st century respond to these absurdities by saying if that is what Christianity is all about then they want no part of it. As universal education grows, more and more people begin to embrace what we know about the way the universe works and more and more educated people take leave of their religious heritage, choosing citizenship in what Harvard's Harvey Cox called "the secular city," but I call the "Church Alumni Association." That sterile choice, which requires a closed mind, has risen in our time, I believe, because Christians have literalized their time bound and time warped explanations of both the God experience and the Jesus experience. Modern people can no longer believe the literalizations, because to believe literally violates their minds giving them the choice of sacrificing their brains or their faith.
Waddaya think: brains or faith? Can there be both? ;-) Warm regards, Roger
Roger,
It’s important to keep in mind the historical evolution of religious doctrines. Interpretation of specific biblical scripts do not agree. We have a range of
doctrinal shifts throughout the Christian history.
Dramatic shifts have produced a fractured religion over time. Had it not been for the Emperor Constintine the Great, we might never have heard of the religion. Because Constintine from a position of power declared
Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the late 300s, it has survived.
There have been many divisions, splits, and start-up groups since that time.
Not only did
Christianity influence political and intellectual life during medieval times, political and power structures influenced
Christianity as well. Constant struggles between the religion and rulers prevailed. When Muslims invaded the
Holy Land, European nations joined forces to fight them in the Crusades.
Even in the early years of the religion,
heresies (beliefs opposed to official doctrine) developed. While its difficult to document far back in to history of
Christianity, one of the great schisms (divisions) began in the 800s. The church at Rome and the church at Constantinople separated. In 1054, rivalries between the two groups resulted in a separation between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
Another significant schism occurred in the late 1300s. This schism led to rival popes and fractured
Christianity.
The most recent major schism occurred in the 1500s with the emergence of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther precipitated a break from the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants have divided over the past five centuries into more than 1,000 groups of various sizes. While the Roman Catholic Church began a counter reformation to reunite Christians, it has not succeeded.
Some
Christian groups have united, others separated, and still different groups have formed.
The significant thing about all these groups is that
each has tended to claim that
it is the closest to “true Christianity.” Since these groups don’t agree and since they claim different things absolutely,
none is reliable as representative of what people
wish to be
true Christianity.
Today, there is great competition for membership and of course wealth.
On your specific question, various interpretations can be found. Ancient religious scripts are filled with contradictions as well as inaccuracies. While the process of doctrinal shift is frequently slow and even painful for those indoctrinated in some particular religious myth, information tends to replace religious dogma.
One technique the religious employ is compartmentalization. That is, they have a kind of religion box. In that box, they keep all their unreasoned and unreasonable myths. About some things they are quite rational and pursue information. But about religious doctrine, they maintain a “closed door” insisting on believing that which lacks basis in known fact/evidence.
However, gradually and over time, culture/civilization tends to gravitate toward understanding through accumulation of information and knowledge. Because of virtually instant communication today, we can all become knowledgeable (if we choose) at the same time. A flood, hurricane, or tornado can be understood in a rational, informational way. God did it is generally less and less adequate as explanation.
“Brains” tend to prevail among the best informed. But with 6 billion people, more than half of which are in abject poverty and many near starvation, information is rather remote.
Since nature tends to resist a vacuum even of thought, it’s easier to make “faith” (religious dogma) win in impoverished, diseased masses of people. Since they lack the complexity of education, the simplicity of religion is much easier. “Faith” requires little “brain.” It appeals to emotions which even impoverished people have.
While there can be “both” even in the same person, the more information and the higher the level of rational understanding, the less attractive blind faith.
Keep in mind that humans have moved from more gods to fewer gods over time. Or, in response to your question, people have moved from greater reliance on “faith” to greater reliance on “brain.”
Education is about information and knowledge. Since “faiths” don’t agree, are in competition, and are unreliable “brain” is in search of consistent, reliable information on which even greater understanding can be built.
JAK