Hmmm, I would call it a faith well researched by some of the best contemporary religious historians. See http://www.earlychristianwriting...m/
theories.html
Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells
Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley
Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman
Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson
Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes
Bruce Chilton?
Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen
Karen Armstrong?
Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders
Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright
See the complete reference for compilations of their books.
Um, Convergent, Luke Timothy Johnson and N.T. Wright are critics of the Jesus Seminar.
Yes, indeed they are. The reference covers most if not all the experts.
Hmmm, I would call it a faith well researched by some of the best contemporary religious historians.
Convergent forgot to add to the list Paul Verhoeven, the director of the films Basic Instinct and Showgirls, who has been a member and participant of the Jesus Seminar. Impeccable credentials.
He also neglects to mention that Luke Timothy Johnson, whom he cites, wrote a blistering blockbuster of a bestseller utterly shredding the credibility of the Seminar.
Convergent, the problem is not the basic intelligence of the "experts," but their pre-theoretical commitments, which are deeply flawed from a traditional Catholic/Christian vantage point. Hence, just the fact that they are self-styled "experts" who have a following in the "scholarly world" doesn't make them authorities that a Catholic Christian can blandly or blindly assume to be trustworthy.
There once was a gaggle of "scholars,"
Who yearned for to gather in dollars,
With a wink and a nod,
They declared Christ a fraud,
And were pampered in print by the scrawlers!
Again a missstatement of my views here. I would NEVER say that "the religious significance of Jesus' resurrection did not depend on historical fact." The resurrection is the inbreaking of the eschaton into history in the "hour" of the paschal mystery -- an overwhelming new reality that claimed the disciples'lives in an obejctive encounter with the Risen One. Again Blosser fails to indicate what his own position is and how it differs from mine.
Oh give it a rest Father! He has done that time and time again as you try to weasel your way out of the fact that you have lost your faith. Being slipperier than a catfish in a jar of Vaseline will not save you soul at that last Interview.
Father O'Leary,
I think Phil's belief is different than yours in that it can be stated in plain English. Which, I suppose, keeps it from being "relevant in a postmodern world."
PB,
You noted, "He also neglects to mention that Luke Timothy Johnson, whom he cites, wrote a blistering blockbuster of a bestseller utterly shredding the credibility of the Seminar."
From the reference I gave on experts on the history of the Christian religion:
"Luke Timothy Johnson
The Writings of the New Testament : An Interpretation (Fortress Pr 1999)
The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and Truth of the Traditional Gospels (Harper San Francisco 1997)
"Whose Faith Saves?" Summary of a Lecture by Luke Timothy Johnson (online)
The New Testament and the Examined Life: Thoughts on Teaching (online)
Reshuffling the Gospels: Jesus According to Spong and Wilson (online)
Higher Critical Review. The Real Jesus. By Robert Price. (online)
Jesus at 2000: The e-mail debate (online)
Luke Timothy Johnson criticizes the Jesus Seminar and scholars such as Burton Mack for what he considers to be unchecked optimism (or pessimism, depending on your feelings about the Jesus Seminar) about what can be known about early Christianity and about the historical Jesus. Johnson calls for a more cautious approach to history that states what few facts that can be known - for example, the baptism and the crucifixion - and does not venture to speculate about what cannot be known. In place of such speculation, Johnson advocates a fideism in which we accept any additional items - for example, the resurrection - on the basis of the tradition and the authority of the church. Johnson believes that Jesus is who the New Testament and the creeds say he is: the Son of God who came to suffer willingly and die for our sins."
I read the Johnson's "blockbuster". He failed in my opinion to make a case against the conclusions of Crossan et al. Again I recommend reading some of Crossan's books.
To say that the Jesus Seminar calls into question the historicity of many miracle stories and sayings attributed to Jesus is misleading. ALL exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, do this. Only the zaniest fundamentalist, for example, would claim that the Johannine discourses are a report of the ipsissima verba Jesu. If you can name ONE respected exegete who shares your view on this, I will eat my hat.
john hearn -- Dreadnought -- now tells me I have lost the faith. I expected better.
If Phil's belief can be stated in plain English let him state it. He is great at sniping at scholars, but when challenged to give his own view he retreats into clouds of safe obscurity.
There is one point on which Phil's resurrection faith differs from mine. He is certain that belief in the resurrection entails that the physical body of Jesus became the resurrection-body and so must have disappeared from our ordinary physical plane. I am not sure that this is necessarily entailed.
The church teaches that the blessed will all share the condition of Christ's resurrection-body in heaven. Does this necessarily entail that all the residual molecules of our earthly bodies will disappear or be recollected so as to be transformed in into the resurrection body? Again I am not sure that this is necessarily entailed.
What is sown a physical body is raised a spiritual body -- I suggest that this is quite a complex idea, not at all the plain English or plain Greek that the fundamentalists clutch at.
Self-dramatizing gay exhibitionists who at the same time, inconsistently, profess ultra-orthodox views and show a tendency to rush into melodramatic declarations, such as that certain priests and theologians of mature years have "lost the faith" are revealing the symptoms of what psychologists would call a hysterical temperament. Know thyself.
Did no one recommend John Meier's A MARGINAL JEW? It is dead-center Catholic thinking on the historical Jesus, far superior to Luke Timothy Johnson or the hectoring N. T. Wright and far more reliable than Dominic Crossan. That is the kind of biblical scholarship I rely on. The ideological frenzy of controversy about the Jesus Seminar hardly gets beyond a journalistic level. Those of us who are not biblical scholars should study solid middle-of-the-road works and refrain from extravagant declarations in either direction.
Spirit of Vatican II:
For someone so sensitive to namecalling, you certainly sling with the best of them.
Leon Morris and N.T, Wright and RT. France are in no sense Fundamentalists. And since was being a Fundamentalist such a dersive label, except in Catholic circles were they can namecall to parishes so badly dwindling in membership that they are having to sell them off, and the parents who remain are afraid to send their kids to into the confessional for fear of what a priest might do to them. The crock that is your "scholarship" os betrayed by its fruits. Yes indeed, that some gospel you preach there.
Let John Hearn not get the wrong impression. I admire his website. I just do not think he is as flawlessly "orthodox" as he thinks he is and I certainly do not think he is in a position to say that fellow-Catholics have "lost the faith".
And typos aside, my point remains.
Morris and Wright are of course not fundamentalists, but neither do they uphold the view I characterized as fundamentalist. Read what I actually said.
To blame pedophile scandals on biblical scholarship is the ultimate joke! But of course anticlerical rhetoric can always trot out the "pedophile" slur when dealing with any aspect of the church it wants to slam.
Fundamentalism is the real danger to religious orthodoxy in all three monotheisms today, as the works of Karen Armstrong, for example, reveal, and as Karl Rahner presciently warned.
Those who loudly proclaim their orthodoxy here are very often defending positions that are fundamentalist rather than orthodox.
One such position, defended by Phil, is that the words of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are a literal record of what the historical Jesus actually said.
If Catholic preaching was as informed by biblical scholarship as Protestant preaching is, I have no doubt that our church would be in better shape. The pedophile scandals stem from a theological void, not from a clergy deeply versed in Scripture.
oops, I see Meier was mentioned above, under the rubric, "Jesus the eschatological prophet" -- which of course is the most standard view of the historical Jesus, as one would expect from Meier.
Again to forestall another Blosser expostulation, when scholars see the historical Jesus as an eschatological prophet, that is in no way incompatible with the Johannine vision (based on the Church's encounter with the Risen One) according to which the life, death and resurrection of Christ is the climactic entry of the divine Word into the heart of human history (Jn 1.14; 1 Jn 1.1).
"john hearn -- Dreadnought -- now tells me I have lost the faith. I expected better. . . . Let John Hearn not get the wrong impression. I admire his website. I just do not think he is as flawlessly 'orthodox' as he thinks he is and I certainly do not think he is in a position to say that fellow-Catholics have 'lost the faith'."
That's another oops for you, Father -- Dreadnought is John Heard, not John Hearn. Two different men.
Oops indeed, apologies to dreadnought. Happily he has not then exhibited the symptoms of hysteria that I suspected.
Yeah, but how do you explain your own behavior?
Just got back here to discover that I have a website! ;^)
Dreadnought has gone off the deep end. He of the rooftop pics now denounces the entire movement for gay rights, apparently oblivious of how much the rights on which he thrives have been crushed in the past and are still threatened today. He writes:
It's been a terrible month for homoactivists. Recent developments have effectively torpedoed their already wobbly push to legalise 'gay marriage' and thrown into doubt the entire 'gay rights' agenda.
:: Californication ::
In California, the Goverator vetoed a bill rushed through the Democratic-controlled legislature that would have altered the definition of marriage. If supporters of the thing can't convince ultra-liberal Californian voters that men should marry each other, who can they convince?
:: No Gay Marriage Here ::
Certainly no-one serious in the Australian context where 'gay marriage' remains a monumental failure for the homoactivists. There is no gay marriage anywhere in this nation and the electorate, despite the nonsense pushed by lobbyists, shows a deep and decided lack of interest in the issue.
:: Exhaustion Sets In ::
Although they claim otherwise, despair is already beginning to set in among lobbyists. Indeed, Rodney Croome, homoactivist par excellence, recently made the following, telling admissions:
"In a political culture obsessed with personality at the expense of policy, and in the thrall of people with an ideological commitment to gay hate, LGBT issues no longer matter."
Notice how Rodney attempts to mask his failure with claims that Australian voters are vapid and that their leaders are evil? He cannot admit, even now, that Australian's just will not buy the flaky argument that 'gay marriage' is a human rights issue. It's not, never has been. Australian voters, alongside their Californian brothers, know this is not about the freedom to be open about one's inclinations. They know it's not analogous to other civil rights debates, rather this is a bald grab for power. The homoactivists have been caught out in their overreach.
Perhaps, however, they're learning:
"They ['gay rights'] don’t even rate much as stages for dramatic political confrontations, let alone for their own sake."
That was Rodney again and he goes on to opine that not even Labor (the Australian version of the Democratic Party) has taken up the 'gay rights' agenda:
"... when it comes to the national centre left LGBT issues are to be avoided, ignored, submerged and glossed over at all costs. Such circumstances rightfully inspire disappointment and regret."
Homoactivists should indeed be disappointed and there is much to regret, but rather than sulking, they must re-think their entire agenda.
:: So Long Dorothy ::
Stonewall is dead: in the sense that identity politics - especially as the theory attaches to questions of sexual preference - is a spent force in the contemporary West. Dated manifestations of morally bankrupt pseudo-Marxism, still h
Dated manifestations of morally bankrupt pseudo-Marxism, still hungrily subscribed to by the homoactivists but practically no-one else, just cannot inspire same sex attracted youth. Sydney's Mardi Gras, once a cultural/political event of serious influence, is a shade of its former self and gay bars everyhwere are bleeding clientele to mixed venues and hipster hangouts that don't demand allegiance to a particular political identity. Being 'gay' in the homoactivists' mould is no longer fun and it's desperately unattractive.
:: My Generation is the First Free ::
A recent article in Time showed just how dire the situation is for older gay men and their once dominant ideology of sex, drugs, homosexual exceptionalism and rampant anti-religion. Contrasting the attendance and attitudes of young same sex attracted people at Point Foundation and Exodus events John Cloud reported:
“Increasingly, these kids are like straight kids,” says Savin - Williams. “Straight kids don’t define themselves by sexuality, even though sexuality is a huge part of who they are. Of course they want to have sex, but they don’t say, ‘It is what I am.’”
"He believes young gays are moving toward a “postgay” identity. “Just because they’re gay, they don’t have to march in a parade. Part of it is political. Part is personal, developmental.”"
"The political part is what worries Glatze. “I don’t think the gay movement understands the extent to which the next generation just wants to be normal kids.""
One could just as easily use the extraordinary turn-outs at World Youth Days - where Church teaching is firmly and often proclaimed - to demonstrate that young people have moved on from liberal understandings of sexual ethics.
:: Whom Do You Serve? ::
What's more, many of the kids interviewed from the Point Foundation by Cloud indicated their website bios make them unconfortable and some suggested they'd been drafted to make their experiences of family isolation or discrimination at the hands of religious followers sound worse than the real situation would allow. Certainly the Keyes girl's bio left the impression that Maya detests the Catholic Church (Opus Dei gets a Dan Brown-style mention) when her comments indicated instead that she is serious in her faith and goes to Mass regularly.
:: Diversity Denied ::
In the meantime this hurts religious young people, but ultimately it spells the death of the 'gay rights' agenda. One has to wonder what future homoactivism in its current anti-religious manifestation has when its leading advocates - and otherwise well-meaning people - have to in a sense 'bribe' a handful of young same sex attracted youths to attend events that religious kids freely and joyfully attend in their millions.
:: Surprised by Joy ::
Indeed, even DREADNOUGHT, who is not typically a fan of 'conversion therapies', was surpsrised by the testimony of young people who said they preferred the Evangelical Christian approach s
Indeed, even DREADNOUGHT, who is not typically a fan of 'conversion therapies', was surpsrised by the testimony of young people who said they preferred the Evangelical Christian approach surveyed in the article because it conformed more closely to their less political, more complicated view of human sexuality and diversity.
:: The Upshot ::
There are too many good-focussed men and women who are labouring in vain for a new Stonewall that will never come. DREADNOUGHT exhorts homoactivists instead to follow Rodney Croome's honest lead. There's no shame in losing a battle that should never have been fought; for - and make no mistake - this fight is well and truly over. The world needs your energy and verve for the protection and advancement of real human rights. Don't hesitate. Return instead to the sites of true vulnerability - especially amongst the young - and find there your mandate for freedom.
It's got to be past your bedtime in Japan. Get some sleep already.
Dreadnought sounds like a quisling to me. One who tramples on the rights of his fellow gays to titillate his own narcissism.
So even a comment thread on the Jesus Seminar has to be turned to another discussion of homosexuality . . . .
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/
f...jcrev_oct05.asp
If you can name ONE respected exegete who shares your view on this, I will eat my hat.
As dearly as I would love to see you eat your hat, Father -- and Oh, quite a hat it must be indeed! -- your dare is disingenuous, as betrayed by the ineluctable subjectivity of the telltale word "respected."
Convergent, you are right about Johnson's fideism, which is where he eventually winds up, sad to say. Throughout his Real Jesus, his one major flaw is his refusal to clearly define what he means by "historical." Much like O'Leary, he wants to play both sides of that fence, which ultimately doesn't fly. Still, Johnson's expose of the Jesus Seminar as the charade it has always been is more than welcome. It reads like a whodunnit.
Father,
I have heard that some of the Irish have the gift of gab, but you have sadly misused that gift.
As for your soul (and yes, I fear for mine too), there is a priest from Montana, I believe that had a near death meeting with his Judge and would have been sent to Hell but for the pleadings of Our Lady. I can't recall his name or I would post a link to his story, but damnation is a real possibility for all of us, you included. You may have insolated yourself from this fact with a wall of dense words and faults concepts, but that will all crumble when you face Truth Himself at your last hour. As a confirmed Catholic Christian I warn you that your soul may be in grave danger. You play with your own faith and the faith of those you lead away from the light like it is a curious toy that you may treat as you wish, but in truth it is the Word of God Who will not be mocked.
Repent and believe the Gospel!
A fellow sinner
Fr. Joe, let me say that I am working on my response. It's just that I have been busy.
What bothers me about the historical Jesus is that all they can conclude was that he was an eschatological prophet. The fact is, however, is that the tradition that Jesus was God is early. Phil. 2 is clear on that as well as the Marcan Gospel. A couple of examples is how Jesus was portrayed as feeding the people with bread, walking on water, and making the water still. Those are all the things Yahweh has done in the OT. The actions of Jesus reveals His being: He is God.
Finally, Jesus told us to eat his body and blood. This is authentic because we can find it in an early text (1 Cor) and also the Gospels and the criteria of dissimilarity demonstrates it (drinking blood was forbidden).
Many scholars find the notion of Incarnation in Paul, long before John. However, there is an ancient tradition of interpreting Philippians 2.6-11 which sees it as referring to Jesus in his earthly life, who unlike Adam did not snatch equality with God but humbled himself and therefore was exalted by God. My own view is that Paul believes in a pre-existent Christ but that his notion of the pre-existent Christ is not at all as clear or as exalted as John's notion of the eternal Word.
The miracles of Jesus in Mark and in the *signs source* hypothesized to be used by John are indeed stupendous -- multiplying bread and fish, turning water into wine, healing the man born blind, raising the dead -- but they seem to have been understood as signs that Jesus is a *divine man* (theios aner), a supreme prophet, or the Messiah, rather than as proofs of his divine nature. Indeed, Mark corrects the spectacular theios aner image of Jesus by putting to the forefront, increasingly as the gospel proceeds, the image of a suffering and crucified Messiah, who silences Peter when Peter acclaims him as Messiah (*the Messianic Secret* idea).
Jesus identifies himself with the Paschal Lamb and offers his body and blood to be eaten and drunk. That only God could do such a thing (or could offer forgiveness of sins) is not entirely clear; they could simply be privileges of his Messianic authority.
Jesus is the divine Word incarnate -- that is the supreme New Testament vision of his significance and identity. But we should contemplate this mystery as an unfolding of meaning from the events and phenomena of the life, death and exaltation of Jesus from the Jewish background and in the wider context of the Word's coming into the world since the beginning of time and continuing to come in to the world through Jesus and the new community he brings into being. I mean, the Incarnation should not be a blunt mind-boggling paradox, yoking the divine and human natures together in a wham-bam effect, but should be a discerning and unfolding of the meaning of Jesus Christ -- as it was for John (even if John's own pre-existence language often depends on schemes of thought that might not be totally accessible today and that might need reinterpretation).
Anyway, thanks for thinking about these arduous topics and for sharing your thoughts.
Mair's "A Marginal Jew" is succintly condemned by Ratzinger in his little book "Gosepl, Catechism, Catechis." He wisely asks how the Church can ask people to place saving faith in 'a marginal Jew.' Considering the fact Ratzinger is no arch-conservative in terms of historical criticism (check out his book on Genesis, for example), the comment is a pretty damning one.
Ratzinger condemns Maier? That's news to me. Perhaps he just rapped the title on the knuckles? Ratzinger publicly praised Raymond Brown, whose books on the Birth and the Death of the Messiah are pretty much of the same cloth as Maier's. Maier quotes Brown many times and acclaims his book on the Birth of the Messiah as "THE magisterial treatment of our generation" (Marginal Jew, I 235).
Unholy strictures
It is wrong - and dangerous - to believe literal truth can be found in religious texts
Karen Armstrong
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian
Human beings, in nearly all cultures, have long engaged in a rather strange activity. They have taken a literary text, given it special status and attempted to live according to its precepts. These texts are usually of considerable antiquity yet they are expected to throw light on situations that their authors could not have imagined. In times of crisis, people turn to their scriptures with renewed zest and, with much creative ingenuity, compel them to speak to their current predicament. We are seeing a great deal of scriptural activity at the moment.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
This is ironic, because the concept of scripture has become problematic in the modern period. The Scopes trial of 1925, when Christian fundamentalists in the United States tried to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools, and the more recent affair of The Satanic Verses, both reveal deep-rooted anxiety about the nature of revelation and the integrity of sacred texts. People talk confidently about scripture, but it is not clear that even the most ardent religious practitioners really know what it is.
Protestant fundamentalists, for example, claim that they read the Bible in the same way as the early Christians, but their belief that it is literally true in every detail is a recent innovation, formulated for the first time in the late 19th century. Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.
We tend now to read our scriptures for accurate information, so that the Bible, for example, becomes a holy encyclopaedia, in which the faithful look up facts about God. Many assume that if the scriptures are not historically and scientifically correct, they cannot be true at all. But this was not how scripture was originally conceived. All the verses of the Qur'an, for example, are called "parables" (ayat); its images of paradise, hell and the last judgment are also ayat, pointers to transcendent realities that we can only glimpse through signs and symbols.
We distort our scriptures if we read them in an exclusively literal sense. There has recently been much discussion about the way Muslim terrorists interpret the Qur'an. Does the Qur'an really instruct Muslims to slay unbelievers wherever they find them? Does it promise the suicide bomber instant paradise and 70 virgins? If so, Islam is cle
If so, Islam is clearly chronically prone to terrorism. These debates have often been confused by an inadequate understanding of the way scripture works.
People do not robotically obey every single edict of their sacred texts. If they did, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and turn the other cheek when attacked. There are political reasons why a tiny minority of Muslims are turning to terrorism, which have nothing to do with Islam. But because of the way people read their scriptures these days, once a terrorist has decided to blow up a London bus, he can probably find scriptural texts that seem to endorse his action.
Part of the problem is that we are now reading our scriptures instead of listening to them. When, for example, Christian fundamentalists argue about the Bible, they hurl texts back and forth competitively, citing chapter and verse in a kind of spiritual tennis match. But this detailed familiarity with the Bible was impossible before the modern invention of printing made it feasible for everybody to own a copy and before widespread literacy - an essentially modern phenomenon - enabled them to read it for themselves.
Hitherto the scriptures had always been transmitted orally, in a ritual context that, like a great theatrical production, put them in a special frame of mind. Christians heard extracts of the Bible chanted during the mass; they could not pick and choose their favourite texts. In India, young Hindu men studied the Veda for years with their guru, adopting a self-effacing and non-violent lifestyle that was meant to influence their understanding of the texts. In Judaism, the process of studying Torah and Talmud with a rabbi was itself a transformative experience that was just as important as the content.
The last thing anyone should attempt is to read the Qur'an straight through from cover to cover, because it was designed to be recited aloud. Indeed, the word qur'an means "recitation". Much of the meaning is derived from sound patterns that link one passage with another, so that Muslims who hear extracts chanted aloud thousands of times in the course of a lifetime acquire a tacit understanding that one teaching is always qualified and supplemented by other texts, and cannot be seen in isolation. The words that they hear again and again are not "holy war", but "kindness", "courtesy", "peace", "justice", and "compassion".
Historians have noted that the shift from oral to written scripture often results in strident, misplaced certainty. Reading gives people the impression that they have an immediate grasp of their scripture; they are not compelled by a teacher to appreciate its complexity. Without the aesthetic and ethical disciplines of ritual, they can approach a text in a purely cerebral fashion, missing the emotive and therapeutic aspects of its stories and instructions.
Solitary reading also enables people to read their scriptures too selectively, focusing on isolated texts that they read out of context, and ignoring others that do not chime with their own predilections. Religious militants who read their scriptures in this way often distort the tradition they are trying to defend. Christian fundamentalists concentrate on the aggressive Book of Revelation and pay no attention to the Sermon on the Mount, while Muslim extremists rely on the more belligerent passages of the Qur'an and overlook its oft-repeated instructions to leave vengeance to God and make peace with the enemy.
We cannot turn the clock back. Most of us are accustomed to acquiring information instantly at the click of a mouse, and have neither the talent nor the patience for the disciplines that characterised pre-modern interpretation. But we can counter the dangerous tendency to selective reading of sacred texts. The Qur'an insists that its teaching must be understood "in full" (20:114), an important principle that religious teachers must impart to the disaffected young.
Muslim extremists have given the jihad (which they interpret reductively as "holy war") a centrality that it never had before and have thus redefined the meaning of Islam for many non-Muslims. But in this they are often unwittingly aided by the media, who also concentrate obsessively on the more aggressive verses of the Qur'an, without fully appreciating how these are qualified by the text as a whole. We must all - the religious and the sceptics alike - become aware that there is more to scripture than meets the cursory eye.
from another weblog:
Paul Tillich is quickly becoming one of my favorite theologians. Briefly he believes theology takes place between the two poles of revelation (eternal truth) and the human situation (the current, temporal setting in which we find ourselves).... Fundamentalism, as I understand his rendering of it, is theology that only deals with the eternal truth, and one particular “situation,” most often in the distant past. It negates the conversation with the current situation. He writes:
“Fundamentalism fails to make contact with the present situation, not because it speaks from beyond every situation, but because it speaks from a situation of the past. It elevates something finite and transitory to infinite and eternal validity. In this respect fundamentalism has demonic traits. It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth…”
I want this to be an encouraging post, but sometimes encouragement comes through asking hard questions about past practices and beliefs. Have we, in the Churches of Christ, been guilty of this form of “demonic” fundamentalism? Have we been guilty of elevating certain periods of history and certain interpretations of the eternal truth to infinite and eternal validity? Have we been guilty of ignoring our situation?
What, then, is the corrective? Some would argue that Tillich’s approach is just some post-modern, pluralist hogwash. But, how might our churches have responded differently to the Civil Rights Movement if they has paid attention to the “situation?” What about equality in other realms: gender, sexual, etc.?
Greater and smarter theologians than myself have concurred that Tillich’s approach has validity, but the question is, does it have validity for us, the Churches of Christ? Can we really “dethrone” Scripture and Revelation as the trump cards in our theological deck? Will we begin to take seriously the contributions of science, sociology, ethics, political theory, history and art and try to operate between the two poles?
While some Roman Catholics are blithely swallowing the poison of fundamentalism, groups we usually think of as fundamentalistic can be found doing some serious soul-searching about the evils of fundamentalism. For example:
Sadly, we Church of Christers hold to our (not supported in Scripture, ironically) idea of sola Scriptura, not realizing the psychology, sociology, anthropology and other factors that even went into creating the Scriptura that we sola.
Also, we Church of Christers HAVE been guilty of expressing some of the “demonic traits” of the fundamentalism Tillich wrote about: we have elevated the interpretation of revelation from TWO particular time periods and made them normative for all time. The First century, the Christianity we sought to restore because it was obviously the ideal, and the 1830’s, when we came closest to that restoration.
I honestly think it was because we were ignoring the voices of sociology, of anthropology, of psychology, of biology, and yes, even art, that we were so slow to respond to racism in the past (we are still fighting that battle) and why we are so slow to pick up on gender equality.
It’s time for us to pull our heads out of the sand, or our Bibles, and realize that God is bigger than that book!
"While some Roman Catholics are blithely swallowing the poison of fundamentalism . . ."
If Fr. O'Leary thinks "fundamentalism" (whatever that means -- nobody seems to know) is a bad thing, one can't help but wonder if its really not so bad after all.
"It is wrong - and dangerous - to believe literal truth can be found in religious texts"
Of course I already knew that Karen Armstrong doesn't believe there is any truth in any religious text of any religion, but what's interesting is that Fr. O'Leary cites her approvingly.
For my part, though, I'm quite happy and content to believe the Catholic Church's doctrine that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Covenants do contain literal truth. Of course Armstrong is right that such a belief is dangerous -- very dangerous indeed. World turned upsidedown dangerous. The dead brought back to life dangerous. The sick made well dangerous. The poor made rich and the rich made poor dangerous. Sinners redeemed dangerous. Not peace but a sharp two-edged sword dangerous. Yes, the Gospel is a threat to everything Armstrong and her ilk hold dear. No wonder they hate it so.
"We cannot turn the clock back."
What! Don't they have daylight savings time in Japan?
JP,
Have you read any of Karen Armstrong's books or listened to any of her lectures?
No. But then she hasn't read any of my articles or papers or listened to any of my lectures either, so I guess we're even. I do know, however, that she's an ex-nun and a fallen Catholic, which is all a faithful Catholic really needs to know about her opinions. Indeed, the views she expresses in that Guardian piece Fr. O'Leary copy-pasted above are right in line with the errors I've read that she has embraced.
F'rinstance, Armstrong talks about "scriptures" as if all scriptures were equal, when only the Church's Holy Scriptures are divinely inspired. Her discussion of the Quran simply sidesteps the most important thing anyone must know about the Quran, which is that it's false, and if inspired at all, was inspired by hellish forces, not heavenly ones.
She argues that "fundamentalist" approaches to scriptures are incorrect, but begs questions of epistemology and authority -- i.e., how do we know one approach to scripture is correct and another is not, and who has the right to say which one is correct? How does Armstrong know the Muslim suicide bombers and terrorists intent on jihad against the infidel have misinterpreted the Quran? How do we discern the authoritative interpretation of any scripture, where spurious scriptures like the Quran or the real scriptures that God inspired through His People?
"where spurious scriptures" should be "whether spurious scriptures"
"the most important thing anyone must know about the Quran, which is that it's false, and if inspired at all, was inspired by hellish forces, not heavenly ones." Potter
"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting." Vatican II
Fr. O'Leary,
First, on Armstrong. I actually wrote a paper on school critiquing one of her works. I find that her mythos and logos separation/distinction will not do when it comes to the Resurrection.
Now, you spoke of the miracles of Jesus in Mark showing that Jesus was a "divine man." The then Cardinal Ratzinger actually argued that there was never such a thing as a "divine man" in its Biblical context. My argument with the "divine man" argument is simply that the things Jesus did, as portrayed by Mark, is what Yahweh does. In the Jewish context, the action reveals being (as it is also argued in the metaphysics of Fr. Norric Clarke). Jesus was simply doing what Yahweh did in the OT (in fact, the OT speaks of how only Yahweh walks on water).
Second, you talked about the Paschal Lamb. I wasn't actually referring to that, but an interesting point is that there are many scholars today arguing that the book of Revelations was much earlier than expected. One argued that it was during the reign of Nero, 54-68AD, which is VERY early. That means that the statements from Jesus mouth being the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega, etc was early. So again, modern biblical scholarship is amazing. It may be the case that identifying Jesus with Yahweh is a very early tradition. I didn't really bring up the fact that Jesus' saying of eating and drinking His Body and Blood to prove that He was Divine, though one can (and I encourage!) argue that. Since Jesus saw Himself as the Son of God (not just the messiah or prophet, but as one who alone can reveal the Father because he alone knows Him), the best way to see it is that only the Son of the Father can be sacrificed. In fact, since the language is sacrificial, it shows that Jesus *knew* He was going to die. As E.P. Sanders (or was it Dunn?) argued, Jesus went to Jerusalem to die.
Finally, as for the Incarnation itself, I agree with you. The notion of the Trinity may not have been understood as we do today. I would note, however, that in the Pauline epistles, the "new" Shema shows that there is no contradiciton between the one God the Father and the one Lord Jesus Christ (See Principles of Catholic Theology by Ratzinger on this issue as well as N.T. Wright's writings). Paul knew that Jesus was pre-existent and also knew that He was the Lord of all (and even Lord of lords!). We should not rule out the wisdom tradition as well as other traditions such as the "Angel of Yahweh." So it's perfectly fine to see Jesus as divine with Yahweh in some way. I am assuming, of course, the liberal point of view that the other Pauline epistles are not really from Paul, but if we argue that it is, we can see how Jesus is clearly believed as God (even the grammar like the Granville Sharp's Rule is a help on this case).
It's perfectly fine to see Jesus as divine with Yahweh in some way -- certainly. He is known as 'Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness from the resurrection of the dead' (Rom 1.4) very early; Paul is repeating that traditional formula in the mid fifties. Son of God is a Messianic title but it certainly bespeaks a unique intimacy with God and dignity of status. The full-fledged incarnational vision is there in John and may be latent in all the other writers, including the author of Revelation. The issue for us is how to express that vision in the most attractive and meaningful way today, bearing in mind always the full reality of Christ's humanity.
J Potter's comments on the Quran are incompatible with what Vatican II says about Islam.
There was never such a thing as a divine man in the biblical context, since Mark draws on that tradition (if the scholars who say this are correct) only in order to relativize it and subject it to a different image of Christ centred on the passion and resurrection. I must look out for what Ratzinger says on this.
Church doctrine on the divinity of Christ depends most heavily on John and could in fact be formulated without any change if John alone of the NT texts had been written. The synoptic gospels usually provided material for the Arian objections, though John did too by the statement *the Father is greater than I* (Jn 14.2
.
Jn 14.28 does in fact bring out an important aspect of Christology which church doctrine has not fully done justice to, the sense the Christ is alwaya on the way to the Father who is greater than he. I Cor 15.24-8 is suggestive on this score also.
"J Potter's comments on the Quran are incompatible with what Vatican II says about Islam."
Sorry, where did Vatican II even mention the Quran, let alone say that the Quran is true and divinely inspired? Please re-read Nostra Aetate 3 and note what it says and what it doesn't say.
I'm not surprised, though, that you wouldn't be able to tell what is and what isn't compatible with what Vatican II said.
Vatican II lauds the teachings of the Quran, especially on God. It also lauds traditions on Jesus and Mary which are in the Quran as well as in Hadith if I mistake not.
So how can the Quran be demonically inspired.
I agree that Dominus Iesus denies inspiration to other Scriptures, at least in the unique sense in which the Bible is inspired.
I would say that it is incompatible with Vatican II to say that the Quran is a demonic book or that the church has the right to have people put to death for their religious beliefs. I think the vast majority of Catholic theologians would say the same.
Perhaps Mr Potter can find me some respected Catholic theologians who would say the opposite?
The opinions of theologians are not magisterial doctrine, so aren't necessarily going to tell us what the Church teaches or what the Church's teachings mean, so I'm not going to go dig up theologians who agree that Islam is a false religion and the Quran is uninspired or possible even inspired by demons. There's certainly nothing in Catholicism that rules out the possibility that hellish forces spawned Islam's doctrinal and moral errors -- if there were, you'd have done better than just waving Nostra Aetate 3 around.
As for the Church supposedly having the right to put people to death for their erroneous religious beliefs, I've never heard of such a doctrine. I thought it was Catholic states, not the Church, that had the right to do that under very limited circumstances.
JP,
So you have "googlized" Karen Armstrong? 
But hey we are all guilty of "googlizing" these days. That is how the commentary on these blogs continues on such a rapid basis.
Anyway, you might want to give Karen a chance by reading some of her books. And maybe she has read some of your commentary. I wonder if she has an e-mail address. We could invite her to be a blog commentator.
GORE SPEAKS! *(can you imagine such a capacity for thought from Bush???)
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS · AFP · DRUDGE REPORT
NEWS: BREAKING · WORLD · US · POL · BIZ · ENT · LIFE · SCI · ODD · SPORTS
Advertisment
Text of Gore Speech at Media Conference
Oct 06 10:04 AM US/Eastern
By The Associated Press
NEW YORK
Here is the text of former Vice President Al Gore's remarks at the We
Media conference on Wednesday in New York:
I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.
How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered "an alternate universe"?
I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.
At first I thought the exhaustive, non-stop coverage of the O.J. trial was just an unfortunate excess that marked an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. But now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.
Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people? If the gap between rich and poor is widening steadily and economic stress is mounting for low-income families, why do we seem increasingly apathetic and lethargic in our role as citizens?
On the eve of the nation's decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: "Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?"
The decision that was then being considered by the Senate with virtually no meaningful debate turned out to be a fateful one. A few days ago, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt. General William Odom, said, "The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."
But whether you agree with his assessment or not, Senator Byrd's question is like the others that I have just posed here: he was saying, in effect, this is strange, isn't it? Aren't we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as
Aren't we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as important as the choice between war and peace?
Those of us who have served in the Senate and watched it change over time, could volunteer an answer to Senator Byrd's two questions: the Senate was silent on the eve of war because Senators don't feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much any more. And the chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else: they were in fundraisers collecting money from special interests in order to buy 30-second TVcommercials for their next re-election campaign.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was - at least for a short time - a quality of vividness and clarity of focus in our public discourse that reminded some Americans - including some journalists - that vividness and clarity used to be more common in the way we talk with one another about the problems and choices that we face. But then, like a passing summer storm, the moment faded.
In fact there was a time when America's public discourse was consistently much more vivid, focused and clear. Our Founders, probably the most literate generation in all of history, used words with astonishing precision and believed in the Rule of Reason.
Their faith in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well- informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge.
The values that Americans had brought from Europe to the New World had grown out of the sudden explosion of literacy and knowledge after Gutenberg's disruptive invention broke up the stagnant medieval information monopoly and triggered the Reformation, Humanism, and the Enlightenment and enshrined a new sovereign: the "Rule of Reason."
Indeed, the self-governing republic they had the audacity to establish was later named by the historian Henry Steele Commager as "the Empire of Reason."
Our founders knew all about the Roman Forum and the Agora in ancient Athens. They also understood quite well that in America, our public forum would be an ongoing conversation about democracy in which individual citizens would participate not only by speaking directly in the presence of others -- but more commonly by communicating with their fellow citizens over great distances by means of the printed word. Thus they not only protected Freedom of Assembly as a basic right, they made a special point - in the First Amendment - of protecting the freedom of the printing press.
Their world was dominated by the printed word. Just as the proverbial fish doesn't know it lives in water, the United States in its first half century knew nothing but the world of print: the Bible, Thomas Paine's fiery call to revolution, the Declaration of Independence, our Constitutio
As for the Church supposedly having the right to put people to death for their erroneous religious beliefs, I've never heard of such a doctrine. I thought it was Catholic states, not the Church, that had the right to do that under very limited circumstances.
BUT ONE SUCH CATHOLIC STATE WAS THE PAPAL STATES! YOU THINK THEY DID WELL TO BURN GIORDANO BRUNO OR TO ATTEMPT THE ASSASSINATION OF PAOLO SARPI?
Of course older theologians shared your view of Islam. Newman speaks of Muhammad as an impostor. But that is not the present attitude. There is a vibrant Catholic-Muslim dialogue -- Cardinal Arinze and Hans Kung are ardent promoters of is.
Karen Armstrong may not have read Mr Potter, but neither has she attacked him. He has attacked her without studying her, on the basis of her being an ex-nun -- ! -- and he has much, much to learn from her.
The Ratzinger endorsement of Brown ins fascinating for a handful of reasons. No surprise that he is a child of the generation nursed on historical criticism. After all, he even questions the existence of the Stone Tablets in 'God & the World.' But it seems like (wishful thinking?) he was gotten gradually more leary of its implications as he has trod his ecclesiastical path. I suggest that Catholic Church is only gradually learning the hard way that if you engage in overly-critical dissection of the Bible, faith crumbles despite any Magisterium, as the latter gets its authority from the former in a real sense. Scott Hah's tape series on inerrancy nails this well. There is a book waiting to be written on an orthodox approach to the Bible that reckons with but does not cowtow to HC.
But back to Ratzinger, the then Cardinal did indeed take Mair to task:
It must be admitted that the dissolution of the biblical witness about Jesus into a variety of fabricated personae has led to a frightfully impoverished image of Jesus and has rendered any living relationship with his figure almost impossible. What remains of the image of Jesus is often terribly meager. The American exegete John P. Meier has given the first volume of his study of Jesus the title A Marginal Jew. What are we to make of this? Can acquaintance with a marginal Jew from a very distant past be ‘gospel,’ glad tidings? (Gospel, Catechesis, Catechism, 6
Why would Karen Armstrong want to attack little ole me? She's got enough to do as it is with her spreading her religious errors.
"Newman speaks of Muhammad as an impostor. But that is not the present attitude."
You mean Muhammad really was who he claimed to be (or rather, who his followers claimed he claimed to be)?
Despite Kung's doctrinal errors, I agree with him here. I'm all in favor of peaceful dialogue with Muslims -- it's our duty as Catholics to try to help them to shed their errors and embrace the Catholic faith. It's far, far better to do that than waging war to defend ourselves against the attacks of Muslim militants and terrorists.
On the same score, it would have been better had Catholics never burned a single heretic. I admit that in principle such a thing is sometimes permissible, but there's a better way. Like pelting heretics with rotten bananas, for example.
Don't worry Jordan, Fr. Tillich has given Fr. O'Leary a pass on the laws of rational thought too. Don't you wish you had such useful friends?
As I imagined, Ratzinger simply rapped Meier's knuckles for the title, nothing more. Had he read the first volume of the work, he would have known it was very solid middle or the road stuff,
Tillich, please note, was not a Catholic priest. He was a Lutheran, though his theology is transdenomination in spirit and was widely received in the Catholic world.
To say that the aim of dialogue with muslims is to convert them to catholicism is not in accord with current catholic thinking either. John Paul II in Israel lauded religious pluralism as a source of enrichment and spiritual growth, with specific reference to Judaism and Islam. It is incompatible with Vatican II to say that it is ever legitimate to execute or inflict other civil penalties on someone for their religious beliefs. Vatican II embraced the idea of Religious Liberty, scoffed at by previous generations of Catholics.
"To say that the aim of dialogue with muslims is to convert them to catholicism is not in accord with current catholic thinking either."
Well, if that's true, then to hell with it. But the documents of Vatican II certainly don't support your un-Catholic notion.
"It is incompatible with Vatican II to say that it is ever legitimate to execute or inflict other civil penalties on someone for their religious beliefs."
But Dignitatis Humanae 2 says, "The exercise of this right [to religious freedom] cannot be interfered with as long as the just requirements of public order are observed. . . . Therefore, provided the just requirements of public order are not violated, these groups have a right to immunity so that they may organize themselves according to their own principles."
Pray tell what would the just requirements of public order in a Catholic state be? Might they possibly differ somewhat from those of a secular, non-Christian state that is ignorant of and rejects the one true religion? Hmm?
I see no difficulty in the fact that the Church has in her history adopted different attitudes and approaches to religious freedom when at one time she addresses Catholic states or a Christian civilisation and at another time addresses secular states in today's non-Christian civilisation. Vatican II was a Council intended in large part to help the Church address modern cultural and political realities, and thus many of Vatican II's documents might be said to have built-in expiration dates. When in the future those realities change again, expect the Church to change how she presents and stresses the different aspects of her social doctrine. The doctrine won't change, but how she presents and applies it will.
Pelt! Pelt! Pelt!
SQUISH!!!
The "just requirements of public order" are surely not a weaselly effort to retrospectively justify the execution of heretics. To think so would be to accuse the Council Fathers of the most diabolical hypocrisy!
When Dignitatis Humanae says, "the right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right" it is certainly not adding the hidden escape-clause, "except in catholic states" as Mr Potter fantasizes. DH adds, *the right to this immunity [from external coercion] continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it. The exercise of this right cannot be interfered with as long as the just requirements of public order are observed". To see here a justification of the execution of heretics is to torture the text in a totally unjustifiable way. Such desperate hermeneutics reveal a deep dissent from Vatican II and the mind of the church as expressed therein.
"Such desperate hermeneutics reveal a deep dissent from Vatican II and the mind of the church as expressed therein."
So saith the Holy and August Pontiff of the Olearianist Church Josephus I.
Deep dissent from Vatican II and the mind of the Church, eh? Did that comment really come from someone who rejects what the Church teaches on, oh, women's ordination, homosexuality, contraception, papal infallibility, ecclesial infallibility, and who knows what else?
Pelt! Pelt! Pelt! Pelt! Pelt!
SQUISH!!!
So I disagree with the infallibility of women's non-ordinability, and I query or at least suggest that development is needed in regard to other non-infallible doctrines; I do not query ecclesial infallibility and I pointed out the very severe limits built into papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I and II. Meanwhile you disagree with Vatican II, quite clearly. So why pursue your heresy-hunting game? You see how it boomerangs on your good self. Why not look for truth, using reason and openness to facts and a touch of humility and dialogue?
And what's all this juvenile SQUISH stuff? As if this website were not squishy enough already.
Pelt, Pelt, is the sound of a man anxious to score points. What has it to do with getting at the truth? That is the disadvantage of the belligerent neocath rhetoric. It makes so much noise that it drowns out the subtlety required for real thinking and for tackling the very real and very difficult questions posed to the church today. It also drowns out responsiveness to the people on whose behalf these questions are asked. It is just like the belligerent noises of the cocky neocons who got America and so many other countries into the ghastly crime of the Iraq War.
The Guardian and the Independent have as their main headline today the story about Bush's godspeak. "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." It's quite a believable story given Bush's dry-drunk psychology and the extreme folly of his actions.
There's nothing more hilarious than the humorless.
I see the White House denies Bush ever said that.
But would it not be delightful if his guests had taped his remarks? If the BBC program played such a tape?
So you really think President Bush would have said such things to a group of Muslim Arabs? What other absurd and ridiculous things do you believe? (You don't need to answer that -- I already know some of them.)
This is from James Taranto:
Your Lips to God's Ears, With Several Intermediate Steps
"God Told Me to Invade Iraq, Bush Tells Palestinian Ministers," reads the headline on a BBC press release. But the Guardian reports the Beeb is already backing away from the story:
BBC programme editors turned lukewarm on a claim by a BBC2 programme that George Bush believed God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan after a strong denial by the White House.
Just 24 hours after accusations that the corporation's news coverage was backing away from risk-taking, some of the BBC's key outlets decided not to run an exclusive story unearthed by BBC2 about the US president.
What we have here is a classic game of "telephone." God tells Bush something, then Bush tells the Palestinian ministers, then they tell the BBC, then the BBC tells you, and in the process the thing gets distorted beyond recognition. Only God really knows what he told President Bush--though if the BBC, the Palestinian ministers and Bush are all right, we'd say the Lord gave pretty good advice.
So the Lord gave George good advice in recommending him to invade Iraq? Tell that to the thousands you have massacred.
Ah, the joys and delights of watching the humorless take affront at humor!
Mr Potter, your humor is in highly questionable taste.
God gave George good advice in telling him massacre Afghans and Iraqis. HA HA HA.
God gave Adolf good advice in telling him exterminate Jews. HA HA HA.
You'll agree the second joke is in bad taste? The first is also.
Forget it -- it sailed past you, and there's no point in dissecting the joke for you. Dissected jokes are as funny as a dissected frog is alive.
I believe you've mischaracterized Larry Stammer in this. Larry didn't say that the Jesus Seminar made
Christianity believable and relevant, he said that "liberal Christians applauded its scholarship for making Christianity believable and relevant". I've not discussed Larry's personal views on theology with him, but he's a long-time member of my parish, a notably conservative parish in which I'd be surprised to find any supporters of the Jesus Seminar.
So he mischaracterized the views of Larry Stammer? Is there ANYONE whose views he has not mischaracterized? He is on a heretic-hunting expedition and he is very anxious to find new targets for his blunderbuss shots! Don't expect to get a retractaction, correction or apology from Dr Blosser -- that would compromise his Infallibility!
Mr. Duquette,
As to whether I've mischaracterized Larry Stammer's views, the readers of his articles -- who know nothing of his personal views (to which you've admitted ignorance yourself) -- must surmize for themselves. Here's what he wrote (verbatim):
"In the course of those studies, the think tank stirred controversy among conservative Christians even as liberal Christians applauded its scholarship for making Christianity believable and relevant in the postmodern world."
What are we to conclude from this? (1) Conservative Christians find the views of the Jesus Seminar "controversial." That is a given, certainly. (2) Liberal Christians "applaud its scholarship for making Christianity believable and relevant in the postmodern world."
But what does #2 mean? From the wording alone, it's simply not clear what Stammer is saying. Is he saying (a) that liberal Christians applaud the Seminar because they believe its conclusions to be the results of authentic scholarship and make Christianity believable and relevant in the postmodern world," or (b) that Stammer believes this, or (c) both? I think the prima facie case would argue for (c) both.
As to whether the comments of "Spirit of Vatican II" (O'Leary) on the matter are the judicious and articulate voice of reason they purport to be, I leave it to your good discretion to discern.
Commenting by HaloScan
