Skip to content

Religious Commitment in USA – Down or Up?

August 23, 2016

A surface glance at news about religion in America could lead one either direction: more fervency and commitment or less.  An interesting article on this issue was posted today on the “Five Thirty Eight” blog of famed statistician, Nate Silver.  The title is “Religious Diversity May Be Making America Less Religious.”

The key word is “may”.  The author recognizes that cause and effect are difficult to discern. However, the pattern seems pretty clear that Americans are gradually becoming less religious.  This part isn’t news.

What’s more important than either celebrating or bemoaning this is exploring questions like, “How are religious changes affecting the personal psychology and spirituality of both religious and nonreligious people?” Or, “What may be expected for the future of your church or your denomination?”

These are among the questions I’ve spent most of my life exploring, in both formal and self-directed study, … seeking to find deeper truth for myself and learning how I might best support or guide seekers or people reeling from what is now often called “spiritual abuse”.  A few years ago I distilled some of this into a short book.  It was shown on this blog until recently but I didn’t otherwise promote it.  I’ve decided to put it out as a Kindle book around mid-September.  A link will be provided once it’s up and available.  In the next few posts, I’ll feature some excerpts or related material, such as the article link and brief comment above.

Today’s excerpt is from the introduction of my Spiritual Growth: Live the Questions, Love the Journey, and relates closely to the findings of the diversity article above:

So doubt is out in the open!

It was never fully hidden but now, for sure, the tendency of religious institutions to quash doubt and keep it under wraps has succumbed to an end-around play.  People can connect cross-country and around the world and do so anonymously if they want! This is a big, big help to many.  It is only one expression of a broad and accelerating shift in the way religion and spiritual life are viewed and practiced.

To a degree that is scary to some and exhilarating to others, “spirituality” is encroaching on the monopoly religion has held. People are moving around within religions or denominations as well.

In this book we will focus on the American aspect of this, but the changes are worldwide in varying forms.  Sometimes changes seem to be going in opposite directions in the Global South and in the more developed North and West as well.  I imagine these to be a reflection of stages of development with some reactionary stepping back.

Changes are taking place in contexts that are on different time scales – for groups as well as individuals.  Both must be seen together though our focus will be more on individual needs and processes.   The crucial part of my own questioning and revising my faith happened when the Internet was little known or used.  But, hey… I am now thrilled to have it as a means of interacting, researching, and finding out what others think.  It may prove to be the most significant tool, with its related technologies like smartphones, for the spread of spiritual information and interaction… far more versatile than the printing press!  (Don’t forget, the “new technology” of the printing press was a key part of getting the Bible to the masses five centuries ago.)

So what kinds of problems go with religious or spiritual doubt? What are yours?

 

Evangelicals for Trump! Huh? – Pew Survey

July 14, 2016

I just don’t get it!  Well, sort of, but not really.  See, I was an Evangelical for all my childhood and many adult years.  So I realize how strong the Republican ties and the suspicion or fear of “liberals”, and especially of both Clintons, can be.

I was surrounded and, though I never was anywhere near this attitude myself, I understood the reasoning for things like celebrating the “virgin birth” of Ronald Reagan.  Again, sort of.  But when it comes to Donald Trump, we’re in entirely new territory.  I mean, the man has virtually no redeeming social value, let alone spiritual.  And, through a lens of “Christian values” or “family values”, what can anyone see in him and his prospective presidency that would recommend him? (Not to even figure in all the down-side risks.)

None-the-less, a recent Pew Research study found that a strong majority of white Evangelicals support Trump.  Now, of course, a similar strong majority of black “Evangelicals” (those theologically aligned with broader Evangelicalism, though often not classified with white Evangelicals, as in this survey) are for Clinton.  This suggests that something other than religious beliefs is driving this split… and it may well have a lot to do with race.

However, I do think other factors are involved as well.  I’ll not speculate on them for now. But I’d be very interested in readers’ thoughts on some of the factors driving so many Evangelicals to a choice I’d say is clearly against principles they supposedly believe in.  Not that they have to therefore support Clinton… they have other options.

What do you think? I’d like to deepen my insights on this.

The God Jesus Believed In – Review of Jesus’ Abba by John B. Cobb

June 30, 2016

Wow! What an accomplishment Jesus’ Abba is! Not just a summation of the life-work of a great 90 year-old theologian.  It’s also a guide for devoted, activist Christians, and an appeal to those rejecting a God who wouldn’t be recognized by Jesus.

Jesus' Abba

I struggled with how to characterize this book, as it doesn’t closely fit any of the usual categories of similar non-fiction, whether theology and ethics, Christian living, advice for leaders, etc.  It does seem to cross several subject-area and genre boundaries, so I will merely stick with the statement above.

In John Cobb’s usual manner, he drives right to the foundations: “We are called to worship one God, the God of the Bible.” (xiii of Preface)  This is standard fare for traditionalists but may startle some progressives. And how do we know this God? Through the Bible itself: “It needs to be studied with all the critical tools that we use when studying other great literature.  When this is done honestly and well, I have long believed, we find that the Bible is the greatest literary achievement of the human race and that keeping its wisdom alive is a matter of great importance.” (xii)

And its wisdom, for Cobb, is not just the liberal ideals that fit well in a strictly rationalist modern worldview dominated by atheistic science.  He admits to affiliating, generally, with the Christian liberal tradition while he is also “distressed with the direction it has taken… it has become harmless. But… it has little to offer.” (xiii)

In this fairly short book, Cobb then proceeds to show how God, particularly as revealed by Jesus, is “personal” and meaningful to him and can be to both those of more traditional leanings and to liberals or progressives.  Knowing God this way is not just for our personal satisfaction but to inspire and lead Christians to “…the action required to save humanity from utter catastrophe.” (xiii)

The Great Importance of this Book

All this in just the preface, which should probably be titled “Why this Book is Incredibly Important”.  Here Cobb gives powerful summaries of the six chapters of the book.  At the end he tackles the question of whether his understanding of Jesus’ Abba (Father or “Papa”) might be a step back in “appreciating other great wisdom traditions”, the dialog among faiths.  If we love God as Jesus’ Abba, just the opposite, he says.

Jesus’ Abba is clearly intended for a general audience although there is a lifetime of scholarship slipped between its covers.  It lacks both footnotes and a bibliography.  Therefore academics may be displeased.  But I see this as an effort to keep the focus on the point of the book: Understanding and following God the way Jesus did.  Accordingly, the effort to direct it to Christians of all types and levels of knowledge as well as to unbelievers.

King or Father?

So how does Jesus seem to understand the God he is referred to in the intimate familial terms of his day?  From both Hebrew Scripture and later Christian theology, we might expect him to address God as King or sovereign in some form.  But that, Cobb shows us, is the result of Christians quickly using the biblical concept of the kingdom of God to focus on God as its ruler, an all-powerful King.  Going further, he dissects the New Testament Greek phrase, basiliea theou (kingdom of God): it could have implied a political region and ruler.  “But if God is like a father, then his region or land will not be a kingdom.  We might describe a father’s basiliea better as the family estate.” (p. 2)

Merely an academic distinction? Cobb doesn’t think so and he supports his point well.  But is there a better English translation (and way of thinking) than “kingdom of God” and its being “at hand”? Given the lack of a precise term, he says his “… proposal is ‘commonwealth’.  Jesus’ message is that the ‘divine commonwealth is at hand.’ Everyone should reverse directions and join in this new possibility.  There is no reason to think of the God whose basiliea this is, as a monarch!” (p. 2)

While I was raised and spent many adult years in Evangelical circles, I’ve been largely aligned with progressives for several years now.  So “commonwealth of God” was not new to me.  But never before reading this book had the term or concept seemed so warm and inclusive and made such good sense to me.

An emphasis on God as Father and head of a familial community makes the effort to de-gender our language about God tougher.  Cobb addresses this, self-consciously choosing to “re-gender” (his term) God in the book, despite his long efforts in the other direction.  But he reminds us of the strongly feminine aspects of Jesus’ Abba.

So goes Cobb’s treatment of the various issues about Jesus and God that often divide or provoke conflict: What was Jesus’ mission? (Why traditionalists and modernists both have trouble with his healing work but needn’t.) What was (or wasn’t) his resurrection? In what sense may Jesus have been Messiah? These are treated briefly with keen insights… briefly so as to maintain focus on how Jesus saw and related to God as Abba.  

What Happened to Jesus’ Abba?

This new intimacy with God, coming via Jesus, quickly faded.  Cobb jumps ahead from Paul’s churches to medieval times for most of this historical retracement.  He keeps it basic and readable, moving quickly to the modern period, which he marks from the development of science as our leading mode of inquiry into life and the nature of reality.  Here we find one of the few, and indirect, mentions of process philosophy and its influence, with a specific mention of its architect, Alfred North Whitehead.   I note this for those not familiar with Cobb, as he is well known as a key developer of process thinking within Christian theology.  Process theology is actually infused throughout the book, though not by name and not generally in technical terms.

Along the way of laying out the big picture issues of God and Science (upper case), the point is made that God is not above-and-beyond nature, occasionally overruling it, but right within it, helping potentials to be reached. “Abba is at work.” (p. 45)

Chapter 3 is “Personal Experience of Abba”, covering the ways most people, perhaps all of us at some time, sense the divine.  Leaving aside the “five senses” for a chapter, here the point is inner experience, something not measurable and sometimes difficult to describe.  Cobb lets us in on this dimension of his own life.  He discusses “companionship” with God as Abba.  Then “the call forward”, the ability we have to make choices and thus, progress and find meaning in our lives.  In this he appeals, in part, to common sense… to the way we naturally speak and think of actually having choices or “free will”, even if these are often limited and only partially free.  Intellectuals and scientists following a strict determinist view are denying any meaning in life.  But they seldom press consistency on this very far, the author reminds us…. Even if doubting that we have meaningful choices, we still live as if we do.

Now, does anything guide the direction of the call forward if not a God who pre-determines? Yes, inspiration! Nothing like guidance to record an “infallible Word of God” as in common (mis)conception of the inspiration of biblical authors.  Rather, Cobb explains, “If we open ourselves to the call forward and do not resist or question it for some period of time, what happens in and through us will be the realization of the best possibility available moment by moment.” (p.61)  This is inspiration – sometimes noticed and dramatic, often not.

I really appreciated the section on healing.  Cobb not only accepts that Jesus spent much of his ministry healing others, he believes genuine faith healing continues today, although there is much showmanship and exaggeration now, as there was in reports in Jesus’ day.  He lays out the whole-person kind of understanding of health that one would expect from a man steeped in Process thought – the inclusive-of-all-phenomena approach that has guided the formation of Cobb’s understanding of Jesus, God and the Bible.

Cobb wraps up chapter 3 with a nice summary of Western philosophy in relation to the problems of science and faith… in just a few pages.  But he invites the reader to skip over this if preferred – continuity will not be disturbed.

Chapter 4 is “Can Science Get Along with Abba?” In a word, “Yes”.  But to do so Science must be rid of the reduction of reality to only material objects. (Of course, this “materialism” eliminates God, but it’s more than just that.) Subjects also exist and affect reality.  They even do things we think of as “paranormal” or beyond the five senses.  A hint at how Cobb answers the Science-and-Abba question is here: “The discovery of a call forward in ourselves suggests that everything that lives is called to live, to live well, and to live better. If the one who calls is God, it is reasonable to think that the one who calls all things is God.  And this gentle caller, who lures and does not force, is best understood as Abba.  Abba seeks the realization of intrinsic value.  This is Abba’s working in us, and it is Abba’s working in all living things….” (p. 100).  The summary of the tension in science and faith in this chapter is extremely well done and helpful.  Having read several books on this issue, I can think of nothing that expresses better both the problem and the “answer” – the lowering of the sense of conflict.  Worth the price of the book in itself.
Chapter 5 moves from the mainly conceptual to the deeply relational, “Does Abba Call for Christian Exclusivism?” In a work, “No.” Rather, God’s call is for “deep pluralism” involving mutual respect and dialog toward understanding, not aimed at converting.  Cobb here lays out both the shared-belief foundations and a roadmap of processes for this.  He speaks about both the Abrahamic traditions and the eastern ones, particularly Buddhism.  I happen to know that for decades he and others with similar perspectives have pursued dialog with Buddhists and, more recently, with the tradition of Confucius and others in China.  (The Chinese happen to be quite open although they must be careful in the use of God language.) Cobb includes some very positive remarks about contributions Christians and other Westerners can receive from “indigenous wisdom” as well.

The final chapter brings us to our uncertain, potentially dire future: “A World in Crisis Needs Abba”.   Cobb affirms the progress of history, though not in the typical end-of-history (eschatology) view of Christendom.  Rather, here is the positive sense of mission (being “missional”), reflecting Jesus’ view of the intentions of his Abba.

I view the section in this chapter, “Abba’s Power and Ours”, as the pivotal concept of the entire book.  Clarifying his belief that God’s power is persuasive rather than coercive in any way, Cobb says that such power is empowering and liberating.  It expands rather than limits human choices.  Here we come to an insight into the reason for the book’s negatively-framed subtitle: “The God Who Has Not Failed”.  “… God is always confronted by a world which, to a very large extent, determines its own future.  Attributing control to ‘God’ has had terrible consequences.  The controlling God has failed.” (p. 139)

How does Abba’s empowerment come? In what forms and processes?  Much of that involves communities and “communities of communities”.  Cobb spends several pages on this, including another personal vignette into a unique community of the latter part of his own life.  And he tackles the largest of communities, the nations of the world, as well.  Here is no simplistic globalism nor naïve liberalism, although one could fairly say philosophies of this general nature are involved.  A naïve kind of conservatism might suspect Cobb of perspectives he does not have.  For example, on higher education he hopes we can “… abandon the absurdity of value-free scholarship and enlist our universities in serving a desperately needful world and in preparing students to do so as well.” (p. 154) In this final section, he lays out several hopes for world cooperation and compassionate, sensible action – things I consider feasible. Having already applauded the posture and work of Pope Francis, and writing just after his impactful encyclical of 2015, Cobb, a life-long Protestant, wraps up saying that if some of this is achieved, more might join in celebrating Francis’ work and “… just perhaps, more people will join him in the worship of Abba.” (p. 154)

In a brief postscript, Dr. Cobb reminds us he has not and cannot prove the existence of Abba, but that “belief in Abba makes a lot of sense today.” (pp. 155,6).  It is a more reasonable, sensible and satisfying option than accepting the modern worldview and leaving God and the Bible aside entirely.  And there are many things, including some beliefs about God that we can disprove, such as a God who is both all-powerful and all-beneficent.  He says, “The basic argument of this book is that, although many ideas associated with God and Christian faith have been disproved, Jesus’ teaching about Abba has not…. I commend a faithfulness to Jesus that shares Jesus’ confidence in the love and empowering power of Abba.” (pp. 156,7)  Amen.

Don’t let my summation suffice.  Get this book and read it! You will be stretched… and grown!

Grand Scale Culture Wars – Part 8 – Linking Current to Ancient Authority

June 14, 2016

The beginning of this series dealt with a great modern battle.  The typical supernaturalism of Western religion clashes with the pure naturalism of much of science and secular culture.

The intensity of the conflict only flashes bright on certain issues.  Otherwise, it simmers below the surface.  But the lack of more careful and nuanced discussions on it leaves many in difficult positions.  One is confusion.

If you’re not thinking much about issues you may be fine.  But if you are a curious, thinking person and not a specialist in these areas, you may well be confused.  You may be sitting uncomfortably on the fence: “Do I believe my creationist pastor and friends or my evolutionist professors?”  Maybe you feel compelled to choose between “black” or “white” when little-noticed gray is also an option – maybe a more realistic and useful one.

Maybe both the pastor and the evolutionist professor have part of the truth? And “gray” comes from combining these parts? Here black might be supernaturalism and white, naturalism; in common parlance, “religion” vs. “science”. Few people know any labels for gray, but in terms of creation-evolution specifically, one might be “theistic evolution”.

What I’m calling supernaturalism is represented well in traditional Christianity, and arguably in typical theism, which would include Judaism and Islam.  It is usually the kind of God in these faiths that is objected to by their more progressive members and by atheists.  There are relatively few atheists who believe no kind of God exists. (Typically surveyed at less than 10%, and they tend to come and go.)  However, much of our science-influenced culture takes up a position against religion-based theism.  Religious people often counter-attack.  Off we go, wasting energy on both sides.

Worse still, religion is portrayed, especially to college students, as rigid and anti-science. (This is not entirely without basis, when generalizing; but it is still unfairly poisoning the well.)  Such students often can’t even imagine an intellectually viable type of faith.  It all contributes to a culture seen as anti-religion.  At the same time, a majority of Americans are actually religious.  If not that, “spiritual but not religious”.  Christians tend to react to an anti-religion perception.  Among other things, they become overly suspicious of science.  Case in point: a correlation between climate-change denial and conservative faith – not nearly 100%, but fairly strong correlation.  We’re in a crazy vicious cycle that sparks facets of our culture wars and fuels them ferociously.

Now, let’s rejoin the prior line of history I’ve illustrated, and apostolic authority. The time of Christ and the century or so following was a particularly creative, fast-moving time.  For one, in politics – mainly Imperial Rome and resistance to it. Also in religion/philosophy.  I combine philosophy with religion here because we often separate them too much.  In that time, both Judaism and budding Christianity were not just religious.  They had more in-depth borrowing from Greek and Persian thought and even paganism than we often realize….  Can one read the famous opening chapter of the Gospel of John without seeing the philosophical sophistication? “In the beginning was the word [logos], and the word was with God, and the word was God” (John 1:1 – “logos”, beyond our “word”, was a deep, foundational Greek concept). Wow! The nature of everything; thought/word in creation; God and humanity come together.  All here and in the verses just following.   Heady, “hearty” stuff.  I remember being impressed by it first as young as pre-teen age.

A big question is, of course, if the disciples of Jesus actually thought on this level.  And if they saw Jesus (“Word”) as God.  Many books have been written covering arguments pro and con on this and related New Testament issues.  It’s complicated.  So I’ll side-step the arguments at this point.  No question, though, that thought forms and ways of worship and religious outreach were rapidly changing.  This began prior to but was accelerated further by the loss of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E., destroyed by the Roman army.

It’s also tough to pin down when the Gospel of John was written and put in the form we have it (agreed almost universally to be the latest of the Gospels).  At the very latest it was within a century of Jesus’ death.  More likely within 70 years or so, but well after the destruction of Jerusalem and the re-alignments and belief adjustments it caused.

Now we have almost completed the connection of modern supernaturalism with ancient authority.  The lynch pin in the connection seems to be apostolic authority. In the next part, we will examine how special authority was created for what would become a fixed canon of New Testament writings via the concept that Jesus’ Apostles spoke uniquely from God and for God.  Connecting certain teachings and writings to them came to give the ideas and documents an authority above others.

However, critics of early church activity and creation of the New Testament often distort the historical record of how things developed as much as do literalist Christians.  This feeds into the same action-reaction cycle I mentioned earlier, wasting precious resources and hardening attitudes.  That is why both skeptics and true believers need to see this critical period of history more clearly and apply it wisely.    (To be continued in Part 9.)  

The Privileged Cruelty of Religious Right Sex Rules

May 28, 2016

As usual, psychologist and social/religious critic (and former Evangelical), Valerie Tarico expresses the problems with conservative Christianity in its views of sex and sexuality with great insight. Well worth the time to read.

ValerieTarico.com

No sexReligious conservatives want an exclusive right to dole out the privilege of sexual pleasure and intimacy on their own terms—and leave a lot of people out.

Sexual intimacy and pleasure are some of humanity’s most cherished experiences. The so-called “best things in life” include natural beauty, fine dining, the arts, thrilling adventures, creative pursuits and community service. But love and orgasms are among the few peak experiences that are equally available to rich and poor, equally sweet to those whose lives are going according to plan and to many whose dreams are in pieces.

Religious conservatives think that these treasured dimensions of the human experience should be available to only a privileged few people whose lives fit their model: male-dominated, monogamous, heterosexual pairs who have pledged love and contractual marriage for life. Some true believers—especially those in thrall to the Protestant Quiverfull Movement or the Vatican—would further limit sexual privileges…

View original post 2,234 more words

Is Revelation’s God a God of peace?

May 14, 2016

Although I’ve studied the Bible a whole lot, I’ve been among those guilty of largely ignoring the book of Revelation. That’s at least partly because it is so enigmatic for most of us far from its original context and recipients. But although I question it being by the Apostle John, as tradition has tended to claim, I do believe there was wisdom in its inclusion in our New Testament. My old friend, Dr. Ted Grimsrud, here offers a beautiful and powerful insight right in line with my own understanding of the power of our non-coercive, loving God, evidenced in the vulnerable Lamb. This is well worth the time to read!

Peace Theology

A sermon preached at Community Mennonite Church Lancaster

May 8, 2016 by Ted Grimsrud

The book of Revelation is a mystery, right? Scary, intimidating, fantastic, wacky, off-putting. When Kathleen and I first moved to Harrisonburg 20 years ago, we attended Park View Mennonite Church. We learned there how back in the 1950s, the Mennonites in Harrisonburg had intense conflicts about the interpretation of Revelation. So, in good Mennonite fashion, they decided they needed to stop talking about it. So, those who grew up after that had no exposure to Revelation. However, maybe, also, Revelation is fascinating and even inspiring. I think it’s worth wrestling with, and it may even have special importance for we who live today in the center of the world’s one great superpower.

What are we looking for?

When we take up Revelation, though, just like any other religious text, so much depends on what we are looking…

View original post 3,114 more words

“Grand Scale Culture Wars” – Part 7 – Authority by Apostleship

May 10, 2016

“What in the world does ‘apostolic authority’ have to do with me today?”

The concept still impacts us all… nearly 2000 years since its inception. We last covered what “apostolic authority” was about – that conveyed by contact with Jesus.  It came to include Paul, although some of his letters make clear that in his lifetime he had to fight to be regarded, among his followers, as an authority on par with the original Apostles and leaders in Jerusalem, mainly “President” James, not the Apostle James.  (Paul had not known the earthly Jesus… not the only reason for his tenuous status.)  All this took place prior to the Jewish War of 66-70 C.E., ending in the death or scattering of the Jerusalem Jesus-followers when Jerusalem was burned and largely leveled. With this pivotal development, the structure of Judaism, along with Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian practice, was radically changed. 

Suffice it to summarize with this for now: The massive disruption of the Palestinian Jesus-as-Messiah sect, which seems to have still been Jewish Law-observant, opened the way for Luke and others to incorporate more of Paul’s theology and upgrade his status.  His teaching had set aside Jewish Law as required for either Jewish or Gentile Jesus-followers (Post-war, this increasingly involved “Christians” largely severed from Judaism). Paul’s letters, which we know were not all collected and preserved, were placed in higher regard and gathered best they could be.  This was a couple decades or more (probably over three decades) after their original, probably limited circulation.

It appears that it was mainly the work of Luke in Acts of the Apostles which conferred lasting apostolic authority on Paul, decades after his death.  The book of Acts, read comparatively with Paul’s letters, clearly shows an agenda of smoothing over, largely disguising, the serious conflict that existed between Paul and the Jerusalem authorities.  Luke’s accounts so blatantly go counter to Paul’s of the same events, at points, that some scholars seriously doubt Luke even possessed Paul’s letters (and was not the supposed traveling companion that some believe he was).  He had sources of fair detail about Paul, but not necessarily Paul’s own writings, or many of them. Paul wrote before the Jewish rebellion against Rome, Luke after.  Thus, Luke shows a strong desire to present Christian faith as superseding Judaism and harmless to Roman rule.  This was somewhat an issue but not so clear or urgent for Paul.

As to Luke perhaps not having Paul’s letters, we tend to forget that it was expensive and time-consuming to reproduce documents, one copy at a time.  The result: only those judged particularly important were much copied and able to survive long-term.  Some of Paul’s writings were permanently lost. (In 1 Thess. he references a letter later lost.) By the time of Luke’s writing perhaps not many of them were collected and widely enough copied to be available to him.

On the other hand, if Luke did possess at least some of what we have by Paul, he may have suspected what turned out to be true, even largely to this day: Hardly anyone would notice or care about discrepancies between his accounts and Paul’s, or discover his bending of the real history of the earliest Church.

Whether once created and then lost, we have no documents similar to Acts covering the period from Jesus’ death to the time of Paul’s final imprisonment and journey to Rome (early 60s)… and unfortunately, nothing similar for a couple more centuries. There were theological writings giving limited historical clues, and a few archeological finds pertinent, but no attempts at historical accounts of Christianity until the early fourth century from the “father of Church history”, Eusebius.

So the great PR accomplishment of Luke was creating the impression of a quickly and fully united Christian Church, with Paul essentially a late-adopted 13th Apostle. Misleading as it was, this was picked up and perpetuated by subsequent church leaders within the proto-orthodox and later orthodox (dominant) wing of a multi-faceted Christianity.  Incorporating Paul within a faith that was supposedly united in both theology and practice through the years of the Apostle’s lives (roughly up to the mid 60s C.E.) set the stage for making a loose category of authority by “apostleship” (meaning commissioning by Jesus).  And of course there is also a natural tendency to put greater value and trust in the initial generation of any new movement.  Thus the early and strong effort to connect the four eventually canonized gospels (and other books) with the original disciples of Jesus, even when there must have been little to suggest it.

This apostolic standard of authority was eventually, from mainly the later 2nd century to the later 4th century, used to help establish and validate a canon for the New Testament.  It would confer “Scripture” status on not only the writings of Paul, but ironically, on others which seem to differ significantly from Paul (particularly “James”, not surprising as contrasting with Paul, representing the likely perspective of the loyally-Jewish James).  The special authority of apostleship for composing Scripture has to have been invented well after the fact.  Still, it became a powerful tool to help separate writings that generally agreed on major theological points from those which didn’t (“heresies”).

The result of encoding apostolic authority was a New Testament considered inspired and historically reliable, at least eventually if not in the first or 2nd century before its writings were fully collected. As we will see in later articles, this development assisted the creation of black/white, in/out, heaven/hell dichotomies that soon came to characterize Christian orthodoxy.  This is critical in terms of our larger subject of often-conflicting worldviews and the cultural battles they spawn.  (Part 7 to be continued.)

Is this presentation of early Christian history and the development of our New Testament different than what you’ve encountered previously?

Do you see how battles for authority were going on, especially if you now read its books with this in mind (especially the 7 or so “genuine” letters of Paul and Acts)?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,444 other followers