Ship of Fools: The Church, not Christ, is the "Great Moral Teacher"

Thread: The Church, not Christ, is the "Great Moral Teacher" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022983

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

A popular theme these days is to say that one does not believe in Christ as such (i.e., in Him being the Son of God and all that jazz), but that one appreciates Him as a Great Moral Teacher. Some even claim that they are Christians by virtue of considering Christ to be the Greatest Moral Teacher That Has Ever Lived.

I think this is rather mistaken, based simply on the evidence we have about that Jesus Christ. If we actual read the New Testament assuming that Christ is not the Son of God, then we basically encounter a madman and a wave of craziness among his closest followers (though one might wish to argue that among the disciples Christ's lunacy already was a bit damped). Hardly anything Jesus ever says is readily acceptable. Yes, we may find the occasional bit of sanity, like a version of the Golden Rule. But then he will preach something like the Sermon of the Mount, and who can take that far out stuff as some kind of literal instruction?

Well, total nutjobs like St Francis of Assisi perhaps can... Most of us will need some "interpretation" to make this teaching "accessible" for our "normal" lives. And the same thing happens over and over again. Who actually lets the dead bury their dead and runs after Christ? Even that most popular saying of Jesus, "love your neighbour as yourself" is actually beyond us, taken literally. Perhaps you manage to love your spouse as yourself, perhaps. Your neighbour? He can be rather pleased if you are nice to him, really. And yes, immediately you will come up with some remembered spin that does seem to make sense of this strange commandment. You will have some reasonable perspective or the other to take on this. That's my point.

So we all read the NT with massive filter banks in place, which makes the whole exercise generally palatable. Yet where do these filters come from? From the Church, of course. The very job of the Church has been to interpret Christ's teaching to us in such a manner that the average middle class family can somehow manage to think of itself as "Christian". The main job of preachers is to make the glass dark enough so that we do not see too much of God just now. The Christian message has to be made human, liveable. And it's not Christ doing that - we are talking about a guy there who decided that it would be a good idea to get Himself crucified. It is the Church (hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit...).

The "pearl of great price" is in fact a very good analogy for what is happening. The oyster is the Church, and Jesus is the irritant. It is the oyster that puts layer upon shiny layer around the irritant, to contain the irritant. And in the end we have a beautiful pearl. Now, the world desires this pearl, it likes the shine. It does not actually desire the irritant as such. So really, the "Great Moral Teacher" that many people are happy enough to accept is not really Christ. It is the Church, the ongoing and often enough strained effort of countless humans to render Divinity - or insanity - more human. That is what people are actually appreciating there.

The only way one can appreciate Jesus Christ Himself is as the Son of God. Only if He was truly Divine, then His words and actions may be something other than viciously crazy. But the Great Moral Teacher that people like to follow is not Him. It is the Church, the reverse Babel, the attempt to build a tower down from the suffocating heights of heaven to the earth that we live on. People who associate themselves with that effort hence should call themselves Churchians, not Christians. Even if they never go to Church...

WWJD? Something that you cannot or will not do. What can you do instead? Ask the Church.

Posted by Mary Marriott (# 16938) on :

'Ask the Church.'

It is good to be able to have a meeting for clearness as and when.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the "Great Moral Teacher" that many people are happy enough to accept is not really Christ. It is the Church

Except that these days most people don't accept that. And in many cases for good reason. Most churches' "moral teaching" is fairly transparently self-serving and often at odds with the morality that individuals, communities and society are working out for themselves.

In historical terms I imagine a case can made for Christian tradition to have hosted what we consider positive moral developments. But for practical political purposes, Church voices in ethical debates are generally undermined by precisely their claims to Divine authority. Theology that is unable to credibly distinguish between myth and historical fact makes Christian institutions appear as much total nutjobs as St Francis but without his positive PR.

Which is very sad, considering the commitment to good at the individual level within most Christian traditions.

[ 12. April 2012, 11:28: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I basically agree with your general principle here, Ingo, though no doubt we have disagreements about the mechanics of interpreting the Bible in the community of the Church. The question I have is how to defend this theology when the Church has shown itself, again and again, to be not very good at knowing or teaching sound morality.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I'm a bit confused IngoB - are you saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing? And are you saying that it is an unavoidable state of affairs or that things might be (ought to be?) different?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But then he will preach something like the Sermon of the Mount, and who can take that far out stuff as some kind of literal instruction?...Even that most popular saying of Jesus, "love your neighbour as yourself" is actually beyond us, taken literally.

Are you familiar with Dallas Willard's take on Jesus' apparently unrealistic instructions in the Sermon on the Mount? Willard's view is that Jesus was describing what our lives will increasingly be like as we more closely follow Jesus and submit our whole being to His rulership. I've found it tremendously helpful as a way of resolving the gulf between my present condition and Jesus' words when taken as literal instruction.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So we all read the NT with massive filter banks in place, which makes the whole exercise generally palatable. Yet where do these filters come from? From the Church, of course. The very job of the Church has been to interpret Christ's teaching to us in such a manner that the average middle class family can somehow manage to think of itself as "Christian".

I'm hesitant to ask this, but is the paragraph above serious or are you having a clever dig at how the Church has consistently diluted Christ's message? I'm really not sure the New Testament is meant to be palatable...

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
WWJD? Something that you cannot or will not do. What can you do instead? Ask the Church.

You are having a dig, aren't you? [Big Grin]

If so, I think you're spot on. If not, I'm really really sorry for thinking you are. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

I agree with the bit about Jesus not being a great moral teacher. Outside the context of divine grace, many of Jesus's teachings would offend a basic sense of justice. I'm not sure what I think about the second part of the argument.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Is he supposed to be a great teacher in terms of pedagogical style or in terms of the principles he espouses?

ETA: In other words, is this a great teacher or a great set of morals?

[ 12. April 2012, 12:33: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I made the same point as the OP in my Easter sermon. Obviously, I agree. People who believe Jesus is a great ethical teacher haven't really thought the teachings of Jesus all the way through.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
People who believe Jesus is a great ethical teacher haven't really thought the teachings of Jesus all the way through.

Yes, whenever someone says, "I live by the Sermon on the Mount", I check them out for plucked-out eyes and lopped-off hands. If the person is intact, I start to get sceptical.

Some of Jesus's moral teachings are abhorrent and horrific. And, as IngoB and others have said, insane. Only the context of his preaching of the kingdom, and of our life within the Christian community, can allow us to start to get a handle on them.

The question for me is, how is the Church to do it? It could do it magisterially, with threats of excommunication and hellfire. It could do it nurturingly, without seeking to blame, punish or exclude. It could do it, I dare say, all sorts of ways.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The question for me is, how is the Church to do it? It could do it magisterially, with threats of excommunication and hellfire. It could do it nurturingly, without seeking to blame, punish or exclude.

And which of these does Jesus seem to employ, and how?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Taking the gospels as a whole. Jesus did both.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the "Great Moral Teacher" that many people are happy enough to accept is not really Christ. It is the Church
Except that these days most people don't accept that. And in many cases for good reason. Most churches' "moral teaching" is fairly transparently self-serving and often at odds with the morality that individuals, communities and society are working out for themselves.

Of course, the morality of individuals, communities and society is never transparently self-serving.

I would also point out that the question of whether a great number of people accept something is a different question from whether that something is true.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the "Great Moral Teacher" that many people are happy enough to accept is not really Christ. It is the Church
Except that these days most people don't accept that. And in many cases for good reason. Most churches' "moral teaching" is fairly transparently self-serving and often at odds with the morality that individuals, communities and society are working out for themselves.
Of course, the morality of individuals, communities and society is never transparently self-serving.

I would also point out that the question of whether a great number of people accept something is a different question from whether that something is true.

Yes, but the massive failures of the Church in even the most basic of moral realms simply leaves it with absolutely no moral authority for anyone other than IngoB's proverbial raving lunatic.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

your title: The Church, not Christ, is the "Great Moral Teacher"

Surely Jesus taught his disciples to "come out from among them" - Jesus always directed the disciples to "seek and find" God - not "seek and find the church"

I believe God is in the business of Fathering His Son in 'whosoever' - Jesus taught - pray (ask) "our Father" not 'pray (ask) the church'

I don't think Jesus tried to be a "Moral teacher" I think He lived a life in obediance to all He was taught by God, He recieved from God the promise of God - SPIRITUAL LIFE and tried to share this "life in abundance" with others to show what a transformed life - at one with God - meant - isn't this life far more than being moral?

Also I think there are lots of metaphors in scripture, so for example" plucked-out eyes" and "lopped-off hands" could mean look and see something in a different way and as soon as you do something offensive (against the way of Christ) you lose the life God gives.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The question I have is how to defend this theology when the Church has shown itself, again and again, to be not very good at knowing or teaching sound morality.

This would said by those who insist on looking at holes rather than donuts. Or to change the metaphor, I suspect that those eager to hang the church must use rope that the church has given them.

I think that this O.P. of Ingo's is especially brilliant even for him.

It's always surprised me how few potshots Jesus Himself usually receives from atheists. They might furiously deny Him any metaphysical stature, and some deny His existence altogether, but they tend to give His ideas a wide berth, when, if taken literally, some of them would be as easy as anything else to ridicule. To find them grappled with, you have to go to church long enough to note how often preachers must begin a sermon on the Holy Gospel by practically wiping sweat from their brows, and musing what a difficult saying it is their duty to discuss this week.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Hmmm. If the Church is being guided by the Holy Spirit, then the teaching is that of Christ.

If the Church is the body of Christ, ie the people who share in the love of Christ, they will surely listen to the Head.

Teaching and preaching is surely to help illuminate, to share the light of Christ, not to keep others in the darkness.

There is no greater moral teaching than to love God with everything we've got, and to love others as ourselves imv. It's not easy, but it is possible with God's help.

Posted by Mary Marriott (# 16938) on :

This is not great moral teaching.

Church failures are not new - holy spirit or not.Surely we need humbly to factor our human failures as church in to all these discussions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9199453/Australias-most-senior-ranked-Catholic-says-Jews-intellectually-and-morally- inferior.html

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mary Marriott:
This is not great moral teaching.

Church failures are not new - holy spirit or not.Surely we need humbly to factor our human failures as church in to all these discussions.

But "the Church" as an institution doesn't commit sin. Individual Christians do. Therefore, although I agree that an individual Christian's moral witness may be impaired by his shortcomings, I'm unclear as to how this takes away from the excellence of the Church's moral teaching. In fact, to think so seems to me like imputing guilt by association.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Of course, the morality of individuals, communities and society is never transparently self-serving.

To some degree, no. That's what makes it moral. The problem is the Church claims its teaching is not self-serving - "it's in your best interest because God says so".

quote:
I would also point out that the question of whether a great number of people accept something is a different question from whether that something is true.

Morality has little to do with what is true. It's about agreement and choice.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But "the Church" as an institution doesn't commit sin. Individual Christians do. Therefore, although I agree that an individual Christian's moral witness may be impaired by his shortcomings, I'm unclear as to how this takes away from the excellence of the Church's moral teaching.

Probably the greatest moral precept with respect to institutions is, "A fish rots from the head." Perhaps meditating upon that will provide you the clarity you seek.

--Tom Clune

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But "the Church" as an institution doesn't commit sin. Individual Christians do. Therefore, although I agree that an individual Christian's moral witness may be impaired by his shortcomings, I'm unclear as to how this takes away from the excellence of the Church's moral teaching. In fact, to think so seems to me like imputing guilt by association.

Of course, with all issues like this, there's probably considerable breadth in what we all mean by 'C/church'. Do we mean an institution like the worldwide Anglican Communion, an institution like Nottingham Vineyard Church, the world-wide body of Christians, everyone actively involved in a church...?

And is it just me who gets a bit irked by use of the capital C in this kind of context? To me, it implies that the writer is referring to their own institution (e.g. the Catholic Church, but it could be any denomination) while downplaying the contribution or relevance of other Christian streams. Or do people often use 'Church' to mean 'worldwide body of Christians'?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Probably the greatest moral precept with respect to institutions is, "A fish rots from the head." Perhaps meditating upon that will provide you the clarity you seek.

--Tom Clune

I am meditating..... hey, is the head a what or a who?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I am meditating..... hey, is the head a what or a who?

Depends on the fish.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

That's far from obvious from a sample of the the commentaries on the net. The head is a who.

So in this case, the head would be the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or most aptly Jesus Christ Himself. And we are to meditate on the corporate influence of their personal corruption? [Confused]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That's far from obvious from a sample of the the commentaries on the net. The head is a who.

So in this case, the head would be the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or most aptly Jesus Christ Himself. And we are to meditate on the corporate influence of their personal corruption?

Apparently, the exercise has not proven fruitful for you. Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I can grasp that you probably want us to meditate upon the head as a what, i.e. the church, and the fish as society at large. But is that the original, literal meaning of the precept, or are you insisting upon a particular interpretation like a one-man church?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I can grasp that you probably want us to meditate upon the head as a what, i.e. the church, and the fish as society at large. But is that the original, literal meaning of the precept, or are you insisting upon a particular interpretation like a one-man church?

I have no idea what you are asking.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

The issue is whether it is legitimate to acknowledge moral precepts from a given source as interpreted by some other authority.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The issue is whether it is legitimate to acknowledge moral precepts from a given source as interpreted by some other authority.

I'm sure that is clear to you, but I still don't get your point. What does this have to do with the original post of mine to which you responded? Or have you moved on from that?

--Tom Clune

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The issue is whether it is legitimate to acknowledge moral precepts from a given source as interpreted by some other authority.
I'm sure that is clear to you, but I still don't get your point. What does this have to do with the original post of mine to which you responded? Or have you moved on from that?

--Tom Clune

The answer depends on what your original post might have to do with Ingo's original post. He was celebrating the church's role in our being able to find the teachings of Jesus edifying rather than ridiculous. Now I'm asking, do you want us to meditate on the apparently direct meaning of the parable of the head and the fish, or on an interpretation proposed and mediated by yourself? Your answer might have some bearing on the larger issue.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

This is not really addressing the OP directly. But I can't help wondering if there might not be better reasons for wanting to learn more about Jesus than for his moral teaching. Karen Armstrong and her ilk don't preach his divinity, but neither do they thinks he's mad. That ridiculous dichotomy has been dead in the water for years, surely? Oh shit, I always mix my metaphors when I get annoyed. [Frown]

[ 12. April 2012, 20:12: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The answer depends on what your original post might have to do with Ingo's original post.

Ah! I wasn't responding to IngoB at all. I was responding to the post that I quoted, which was from Fr Weber.

--Tom Clune

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

P.S. - and this does address the OP. There seems to be basic misunderstanding about how we understand anything about Jesus in the first place. Everything we think we know about him is in the bible, already filtered, altered, improved, misunderstood, and distorted by the church. The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Ok, but I still wonder, because I believe (agreeing with you to some extent?) that in a sense, institutions can sin. This mystery has been a theme of several theologians, e.g. Reinhold Niehbuhr in Moral man and immoral society. As an institution, we shouldn't expect the church to be an exception, and alas it isn't. But that realization doesn't give us a practical way to get along without institutions. The world seems to be stuck with them.

Sometimes we can attribute the corruption of the church to the pope, e.g. the 15th-16th-century Medici popes who provoked Luther's understandable protests. Medieval Panorama by G.G. Coulton goes into great detail as to dishearteningly stubborn moral shortcomings prevalent in England, although he even-handedly acknowledges that the church was a force for good even then.

We can find ethical or moral problems, real or imagined, in the church today as well. But I'd be somewhat at a loss to attribute them to rotten heads. It seems to me that the personal character of popes (and of archbishops of Canterbury, for that matter) over the past two centuries has been almost irreproachable, far higher than we could expect from other large, powerful institutions. To the extent that the church is corrupt, it is difficult to see the adage of fish heads at play.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
based simply on the evidence we have about that Jesus Christ.

"based simply on the written accounts we have about that Jesus Christ" - fixed it for you.

Not wishing to curtail the flow of erudition - but perhaps I ought to point out that, whether right or wrong, faith does not count as evidence.

quote:
Ask the church

- OK for an opinion - but is it really any more authoratative than asking an astrologer to explain how the movements of the planets dictate our lives or a homeopath to explain the curative powers of water which has been shaken thirty times to create a molecular memory?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.

If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.

1. People in antiquity were dumb, and we are smart.
2. Jesus never existed anyway.
3. The absence of positive material proof for something is the same thing as positive proof of its nonexistence.
4. You believe in an invisible sky daddy, haw haw haw.

...etc.
4.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.

If you want to know about effective strategies of persuasion....My, generally very succesful, fourteen-year sales experience with a major multi-national proved that one of the most effective ways of getting people to buy your product is to create belief in a previously unconsidered and potentially disasterous occurence from which only the product offered can protect the purchaser.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.
If you want to know about effective strategies of persuasion....My, generally very succesful, fourteen-year sales experience with a major multi-national proved that one of the most effective ways of getting people to buy your product is to create belief in a previously unconsidered and potentially disasterous occurence from which only the product offered can protect the purchaser.

....and where did you get that idea from.....?

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
1. People in antiquity were dumb, and we are smart.

The evidence suggests that they were as clever as we but it is only possible to "stand upon the shoulders of giants" after the giants have performed.

quote:

2. Jesus never existed anyway.

Would it make any difference to the practice(s) of christianity?

quote:

3. The absence of positive material proof for something is the same thing as positive proof of its nonexistence.

Usually quoted as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But, when the evidence is absent and there are alternatives which are more likely, going for the long shot is an irrational choice

quote:

4. You believe in an invisible sky daddy, haw haw haw.

I agree - it's not funny.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
....and where did you get that idea from.....?

Outed? - Damn+Blast

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

I can understand that some of Jesus' teachings can look a bit strange to the average reader today. The average reader today doesn't understand the situation in which Jesus was giving the teachings, nor the culture in which he was giving them.

Fortunately lots of scholars have done research to help us understand these things and to shed light on how Jesus' original hearers would have understood his words (this is called "socio-historical context"). Anyone can read their writings in order to help get a better understanding of the world in which Jesus lived. Alternatively a good commentary that pays plenty of attention to socio-historical context will serve the purpose too.

Given a more informed reading of Jesus' words, I don't think he comes across as "a madman" at all. I don't agree that we need "the Church" to interpret the words of Jesus to us and hand the truth down from on high to us mere mortals. But we do need a carefully-studied and informed reading of his words in the context in which they were spoken. We can either do that research ourselves, or read the works of others who have done that research.

Posted by Mary Marriott (# 16938) on :

ah the creative powers of fiction

and poem

[ 12. April 2012, 23:07: Message edited by: Mary Marriott ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I can understand that some of Jesus' teachings can look a bit strange to the average reader today. The average reader today doesn't understand the situation in which Jesus was giving the teachings, nor the culture in which he was giving them.

Fortunately lots of scholars have done research to help us understand these things and to shed light on how Jesus' original hearers would have understood his words (this is called "socio-historical context"). Anyone can read their writings in order to help get a better understanding of the world in which Jesus lived. Alternatively a good commentary that pays plenty of attention to socio-historical context will serve the purpose too.

Given a more informed reading of Jesus' words, I don't think he comes across as "a madman" at all. I don't agree that we need "the Church" to interpret the words of Jesus to us and hand the truth down from on high to us mere mortals. But we do need a carefully-studied and informed reading of his words in the context in which they were spoken. We can either do that research ourselves, or read the works of others who have done that research.

The context in which they were spoken, absolutely. But the history of their reception by the Church is also important, and to me it seems problematic to assert that we can know better what Jesus meant by something than (say) the Apostolic Fathers did. How can we be sure we're not just imposing our own preferences on the text? For me at least, finding a hermeneutic through-line is one corrective to this tendency.

Posted by Mary Marriott (# 16938) on :

What Starlight said.

Glad to see Jesus up-graded.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
to me it seems problematic to assert that we can know better what Jesus meant by something than (say) the Apostolic Fathers did.

I agree with paying a lot of attention to the early Church's theology and think that if we stray significantly from it, then we are likely misinterpreting the Bible.

However, unfortunately the apostolic fathers didn't write an 1000-page commentary on the gospels for us. If they had, I would definitely want to read it carefully.

[ 12. April 2012, 23:13: Message edited by: Starlight ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I understand the premise about Jesus. (CS Lewis said much the same.)

Viewing Jesus as simply a Teacher or teacher doesn't really work for me. There've been lots of them. I know that many people say, "if Jesus, then maybe God". I'm just the reverse. For me, God (if She exists, is good, and all that) is a loving Creator. And if She is, then maybe She became incarnate as Jesus.

But taking the Church (and, since Ingo's writing, I presume it's the RCC) as THE moral authority in the world? No, thanks. Fallible institution run by fallible people--protecting the institution and themselves.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
WWJD? Something that you cannot or will not do. What can you do instead? Ask the Church.

This is somewhat orthogonal to the thrust of the opening post, but I've always thought the question What Would Jesus Do? to be about the dumbest thing on offer from earnest Christians, from the cute little bracelets to the t-shirts.

The only on-point question, ever, is, What am I going to do?

Posted by savedbyhim01 (# 17035) on :

C.S. Lewis made a logical argument that Christ absolutely cannot be accepted as a good man or a good teacher. Why?

Jesus Himself claimed to be the Son of God, to be eternally existent, and to even be one with God. Knowing that Jesus made these claims about Himself, we are left with three choices.

Jesus was a lunatic - That is, Jesus did indeed believe He was the Son of God, but He is not. That would be like me going around acting like a monkey and telling everybody I am a monkey and believing it. People would say I am crazy and rightly so. Was Jesus a lunatic? Could a lunatic accomplish the things that He did? Few sane people would come to this conclusion.

Jesus was a liar - Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If He was not and knew He was not, then He was deliberately lying. Through deceit He tricked millions of people into following Him. What kind of person would do this? Not a good person. A cheat, an evil person (or Satan) might do this, but not a good man or a good teacher.

Jesus is the Lord - This is the third and only logical choice remaining for who Jesus is. He is the Son of God and was speaking the truth when He said He is the Son of God. This is what I believe.

So do you believe that Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or is the Lord? These are the only choices Jesus left us.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
C.S. Lewis made a logical argument that Christ absolutely cannot be accepted as a good man or a good teacher.

Being the Son of God doesn't mean he wasn't a good teacher, nor does it rule out the idea that teaching was his primary purpose. A lot of the early Church Fathers said Jesus was divine and that his primary purpose was teaching humanity how to live rightly.

A lot of people would argue that Jesus did not make the claims about himself that you suggest he made. They would say either that the gospels misrepresent his words regarding himself (ie those claims were put into his mouth by the writers of the gospels and don't go back to Jesus himself), or that you are misinterpreting his words in the gospels (eg what does it mean to call him God's Son when the Old Testament describes humanity as Sons of God?).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I've got less time for this than I would like, but the discussion so far has reminded me of Niebuhr's observations about "impossible possibilities". Which I summarise as pointing out that the Christian life is neither about superhuman attempts at obedience to a transcendent ethic nor about a rationalising of that ethic into one which is relevant and attainable. Rather it is a compound of both positions. We live with the tension of that. It is our roadmap and our destiny. Acting justly, loving mercy, and above all, walking humbly.

[ 13. April 2012, 06:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I have the idea that in the instances where Jesus' teachings look strange, it's because He liked to use a lot of hyperbole sometimes when trying to make His moral points.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
C.S. Lewis made a logical argument that Christ absolutely cannot be accepted as a good man or a good teacher. Why?

Jesus Himself claimed to be the Son of God, to be eternally existent, and to even be one with God. Knowing that Jesus made these claims about Himself, we are left with three choices...

Being a Christian, I kind of wish it were this simple! But C.S. Lewis' argument is only valid if one accepts that the records we have in the Bible of Jesus, his words and actions, and other people's responses are accurate in the important details. As Starlight said, many people don't accept this.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I have the idea that in the instances where Jesus' teachings look strange, it's because He liked to use a lot of hyperbole sometimes when trying to make His moral points.

Yes, absolutely. When Jesus said about removing your eye or chopping off your hand he was surely showing how our tendency to do wrong does not reside in our physical body, but in our non-physical aspects. It seems to me that Jesus' teachings were full of wit and humour, and missing this is just one danger of a woodenly literal approach to the Bible.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A popular theme these days is to say ...

Your argument here, which savedbyhim01 pretty much repeats was a popular theme in my schooldays - and, for a while, I was quite taken with it. However, let me assure that it is perfectly possible to construct an argument that Jesus was neither a madman, nor a liar, nor the Son of God in a literal sense. Whether it is credible or not, is, of course, up to you.

Do you get that? It's up to you. A decision to believe that only The Church™ teaches the truth is your decision, just as my beliefs are my decision - though perhaps 'decision' is not quite the right word, as there are some things I cannot make myself believe and I refuse to expand any more effort trying. In the end, the individual conscience is supreme - but my experience is that the conscience is illuminated by the Inner Light that is in all of us, and I believe that Light is the Light of Christ. He is our Great Teacher. It does not surprise me that The Church™ seeks to usurp that role.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The church does not now, therefore, interpret the words and actions of Jesus so much as re-invent her earlier accounts of him.
If I wanted to produce a hoax made up from scratch, why would I begin by setting an "earlier account" in stone that contained such extreme advice, the toning down of which must raise skeptical eyebrows? Every Madison Avenue adman seems to appreciate that this is not the most effective strategy of persuasion.
1. People in antiquity were dumb, and we are smart.
2. Jesus never existed anyway.
3. The absence of positive material proof for something is the same thing as positive proof of its nonexistence.
4. You believe in an invisible sky daddy, haw haw haw.

...etc.
4.

In reply to Alogon: by what strange system of logic does "the church's earlier accounts" equal "the church's attempt to fake" anything?

In answer to both of you, either engage with what I actually say, or go fuck yourselves.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
...to me it seems problematic to assert that we can know better what Jesus meant by something than (say) the Apostolic Fathers did. How can we be sure we're not just imposing our own preferences on the text?

How can you be sure that they weren't?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've got less time for this than I would like, but the discussion so far has reminded me of Niebuhr's observations about "impossible possibilities". Which I summarise as pointing out that the Christian life is neither about superhuman attempts at obedience to a transcendent ethic nor about a rationalising of that ethic into one which is relevant and attainable. Rather it is a compound of both positions. We live with the tension of that. It is our roadmap and our destiny. Acting justly, loving mercy, and above all, walking humbly.

I agree with this, and would go further in saying that there is a tension within every aspect of Christianity, one which pulls from both the worldly, physical direction and the heavenly, spiritual direction. To keep the tension in balance is healthy, and we need each other within fellowship and community to help us to do that.

In that sense, I agree that we need the Church (as the whole body of Christ past and present, not one institution). However, others should not confine us, keep us in the dark, or behave in a paternalistic way toward us imv, but help to nurture us and keep us in balance. We need to be both grounded and drawn into higher spiritual experience and enlightenment. Tradition does not and should not freeze out, negate nor dampen down inspiration, vision, or nuggets of greater understanding: rather it should embrace them, facilitate their discernment, provide affirmation, and encourage their growth.

Expression of how moral teaching eg within a parable illuminates us and helps our faith to grow today is not invalidated and should not be constrained by its historical context. The danger of focus on the latter is to draw us into a history lesson which places the living Christ only in the past as the man Jesus, while the danger of focus on the former is to allow imagination and preference to steer us away from the sensible teachings of tradition.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
...to me it seems problematic to assert that we can know better what Jesus meant by something than (say) the Apostolic Fathers did. How can we be sure we're not just imposing our own preferences on the text?
How can you be sure that they weren't?

Of course, they were. However, unlike us, they weren't 2000 years away from the language and culture into which the text was written. So, while they may have expressed their preferences by selecting which texts should be read, they at least knew what those texts said. That idiotic "Lord, liar, lunatic" crap is a wonderful example of how we have lost sight of the original meaning of texts (such that, e.g., Iraneus felt that only John among the Gospels actually argued for the divinity of Christ -- try to find an evangelical from the last 500 year who can see the Gospels that clearly!)

--Tom Clune

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
....and where did you get that idea from.....?
Outed? - Damn+Blast

Tha's a gud sport m'laddo.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
However, unlike us, they weren't 2000 years away from the language and culture into which the text was written.

For many of the Fathers, the interpretation of scripture had a large element of allegory and symbolism-- the more esoteric, the better. For example, in the middle ages, the parable of the Good Samaritan was customarily taught as being about Jesus Himself as the New Adam, rather than as an example of neighborliness and charity. I'm not actually sure that the allegorical reading is of patristic origin in this example, but I hope that it epitomizes the approach. They looked for obscure ties and symmetries between the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the life of the church-- "The threefold nature of orthodoxy" I think it was called.

All this is very interesting, and I wouldn't put it past Omniscience to plant such ingenious seeds in divinely inspired text. But would it be good to lose sight of its more straightforward and (at least to us) obvious advice as well?

Posted by Mogwai (# 13555) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Even that most popular saying of Jesus, "love your neighbour as yourself" is actually beyond us, taken literally. Perhaps you manage to love your spouse as yourself, perhaps. Your neighbour? He can be rather pleased if you are nice to him, really. .

Your heart runs your brain. But what runs your heart? What makes it beat 10,000 times a day, and 2 1/2 billion times over the course of your life?

The force that beats your heart also beats your neighbor's heart. I interpret the quotation to mean Jesus is saying the force that beats your heart IS your real self.

So the true translation might be
"Love thy neighbor as thy Self".

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
based simply on the evidence we have about that Jesus Christ.

"based simply on the written accounts we have about that Jesus Christ" - fixed it for you.
Not wishing to curtail the flow of erudition - but perhaps I ought to point out that, whether right or wrong, faith does not count as evidence.

I'm not sure I quite follow your point here Hugh. Faith "does not count as evidence" of what?

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Works aren't what God's People do. It's what God does:

8“Take the rod; and you and your brother Aaron assemble the congregation and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it may yield its water. You shall thus bring forth water for them out of the rock and let the congregation and their beasts drink.”
9So Moses took the rod from before the LORD, just as He had commanded him; 10and Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock. And he said to them, “Listen now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?11Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation and their beasts drank. 12But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” Numbers 20

Execution, execution, execution…

Works are not moral: they transcend morality and are showcases of God's actions and attributes. Their purpose is to make God known so that people return to Him:

11When we heard it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath. Joshua 2

Joshua brought Israel into the Promised Land, but he did not bring them into "rest":

8For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Hebrews 4

In simple language, the Jews had a seven day work week. We, on the other hand have a seven day rest week. Pssst, no need to manifest God to the world.

The Sabbath commands rest from labour. Sacrifices, burnt offerings, ritual fasting and prayer are done with, the work done by Jesus on Friday providing for the Sabbath, forever. The Law in force is Sabbath Law: do no work. Any attempt to do work is an infraction.

But:

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Galatians 5

If you read Galatians 5, you will soon realize that the text is loaded, that the meaning comes through only against a particular frame of reference.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Works aren't what God's People do. It's what God does:

I think I'll try this line on my boss...

--Tom Clune

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
C.S. Lewis made a logical argument that Christ absolutely cannot be accepted as a good man or a good teacher. Why?

Jesus Himself claimed to be the Son of God, to be eternally existent, and to even be one with God. Knowing that Jesus made these claims about Himself, we are left with three choices.

Jesus was a lunatic - That is, Jesus did indeed believe He was the Son of God, but He is not. That would be like me going around acting like a monkey and telling everybody I am a monkey and believing it. People would say I am crazy and rightly so. Was Jesus a lunatic? Could a lunatic accomplish the things that He did? Few sane people would come to this conclusion.

Jesus was a liar - Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If He was not and knew He was not, then He was deliberately lying. Through deceit He tricked millions of people into following Him. What kind of person would do this? Not a good person. A cheat, an evil person (or Satan) might do this, but not a good man or a good teacher.

Jesus is the Lord - This is the third and only logical choice remaining for who Jesus is. He is the Son of God and was speaking the truth when He said He is the Son of God. This is what I believe.

So do you believe that Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or is the Lord? These are the only choices Jesus left us.

I have always thought that was a rubbish argument. Jesus did not 'claim' anything of himself. The author of the the Gospel put that claim into his mouth.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have always thought that was a rubbish argument. Jesus did not 'claim' anything of himself. The author of the the Gospel put that claim into his mouth.

That is a possibility that invalidates the idea that lunatic/liar/Lord are the only choices. However, it seems to me that what you suggest can only be speculation so I'm left wondering what leads you to state it in such a broad and categorical way.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

Many have claimed to be "son of God"
I believe with those who say God lives in every human - our job isn't to try to put God there, but to remember where we came from.

Jesus was one who fully grasped this true identity, denial of worldly self and all that, and he
encouraged others to do the same. Fully grasping that identity, and fully manifesting it, he was Jesus, the human being, and he was Jesus,
manifesting his eternal nature, or that which came from God.

And He taught others to "seek and find" (God)

"The kingdom of God is within"

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have always thought that was a rubbish argument. Jesus did not 'claim' anything of himself. The author of the the Gospel put that claim into his mouth.
That is a possibility that invalidates the idea that lunatic/liar/Lord are the only choices. However, it seems to me that what you suggest can only be speculation so I'm left wondering what leads you to state it in such a broad and categorical way.

That 'John' wrote the actual words of Jesus rather than a theological reflection is also mere speculation - and highly unlikely according to over a hundred years of biblical scholarship.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Works aren't what God's People do. It's what God does:
I think I'll try this line on my boss...

--Tom Clune

God promised the Children of Israel He would get the Team across the Finish Line. All they had to do was stay on the bus. 'Stead, they got off and tried to push.
7What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; Romans 11

Meet the new Team. Same as the old team:
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Galatians 3

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However, it seems to me that what you suggest can only be speculation so I'm left wondering what leads you to state it in such a broad and categorical way.

As opposed to the measured, thoughtful tone of the Lord/liar/lunatic lunacy, I suppose...

--Tom Clune

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However, it seems to me that what you suggest can only be speculation so I'm left wondering what leads you to state it in such a broad and categorical way.
As opposed to the measured, thoughtful tone of the Lord/liar/lunatic lunacy, I suppose...

I hope I'm not obliged to be an equal-opportunity challenger. [Smile]

I picked up on what Leo said because I was hoping to find out more about his views on the subject.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have always thought that was a rubbish argument. Jesus did not 'claim' anything of himself. The author of the the Gospel put that claim into his mouth.
That is a possibility that invalidates the idea that lunatic/liar/Lord are the only choices. However, it seems to me that what you suggest can only be speculation so I'm left wondering what leads you to state it in such a broad and categorical way.
That 'John' wrote the actual words of Jesus rather than a theological reflection is also mere speculation - and highly unlikely according to over a hundred years of biblical scholarship.

I understand your point about authorship of the Gospels. But when I read your statement that Jesus did not claim anything of himself, I figured you must feel very strongly that the claims attributed to him are inaccurate, and I was wondering what leads you to that conclusion (if that is in fact your conclusion).

I happen to believe that he did make the claims attributed to him and that his claims were true, but I can easily understand how someone might have trouble with accepting them as being accurately recorded. And yet it's one thing to say that the Gospels put the claims into his mouth and decide that we can't know what Jesus did or didn't actually claim, but it's much stronger to make a positive statement that Jesus did not make those claims. So I am genuinely curious to know what leads you to believe that he did not make them.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However, it seems to me that what you suggest can only be speculation so I'm left wondering what leads you to state it in such a broad and categorical way.
As opposed to the measured, thoughtful tone of the Lord/liar/lunatic lunacy, I suppose...
I hope I'm not obliged to be an equal-opportunity challenger. I picked up on what Leo said because I was hoping to find out more about his views on the subject.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have always thought that was a rubbish argument. Jesus did not 'claim' anything of himself. The author of the the Gospel put that claim into his mouth.
That is a possibility that invalidates the idea that lunatic/liar/Lord are the only choices. However, it seems to me that what you suggest can only be speculation so I'm left wondering what leads you to state it in such a broad and categorical way.
That 'John' wrote the actual words of Jesus rather than a theological reflection is also mere speculation - and highly unlikely according to over a hundred years of biblical scholarship.
I understand your point about authorship of the Gospels. But when I read your statement that Jesus did not claim anything of himself, I figured you must feel very strongly that the claims attributed to him are inaccurate, and I was wondering what leads you to that conclusion (if that is in fact your conclusion).

I happen to believe that he did make the claims attributed to him and that his claims were true, but I can easily understand how someone might have trouble with accepting them as being accurately recorded. And yet it's one thing to say that the Gospels put the claims into his mouth and decide that we can't know what Jesus did or didn't actually claim, but it's much stronger to make a positive statement that Jesus did not make those claims. So I am genuinely curious to know what leads you to believe that he did not make them.

I dont deny the 'claims'. They were worked out by the early church over 100 years, though Paul says some remarkable things earlier.

Mark has the 'messianic secret', where everything is nuanced, escept for Jesus's reply to the hight priest. The other synoptics follow this.

It is only the 4th Gospel that has the 'I am' sayings. Virtually all comentators, except for conservative avangelicals, accept that these sayings are a meditation on the personhood of Jesus as Christ.

If there is anything in this that I 'feel strongly' about, it is the idiosyncracy of C. S. Lewis.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
based simply on the evidence we have about that Jesus Christ.

"based simply on the written accounts we have about that Jesus Christ" - fixed it for you.
Not wishing to curtail the flow of erudition - but perhaps I ought to point out that, whether right or wrong, faith does not count as evidence.
I'm not sure I quite follow your point here Hugh. Faith "does not count as evidence" of what?

There is no evidence, outside faith, that Jesus Christ existed. Many people believe he did, either as an individual who was, in some way, god, or as a prophet, or as an amalgam of several itinerate rabbis - and some of them may be right - but hard, conclusive (or even near conclusive) evidence we don't have. Some people have argued that the existence of the Bible, or the church, or their personal conviction amounts to evidence. It doesn't - they demonstrate the existence of faith - they may or may not be right but belief doesn't amount to evidence. Few of us would be happy to be convicted of murder on the basis of (often misattributed) hearsay leavened with the occasional fib.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0