Monday, 12 November 2007
An inside job
As someone interested in the communication business, I often think about the problem of how, if at its heart Christianity contains timeless, universal truth, it can be communicated to a world that's lost interest - largely, in the west at least - in a way that re-engages the imagination, makes people sit up and take notice. I think one of the keys for a Christian communicator is to take the time and effort to immerse his/her spirit and imagination in the truths and stories of the faith. I find that the more I imaginatively get 'inside' and 'under the skin' of the resources of the faith eg perhaps simply a single verse or passage from the bible, the more creative and original my communication... Take the Christmas story for example. The basic narratives in the gospels are so (relatively) simple and familiar, that they can easily lose their power to enthrall. But get inside the story eg get inside Herod's head in his position as king of the Jews and puppet ruler of Rome, and imagine how the news from the magi of a 'new king' would have threatened him, and you can begin to create powerful drama. This is of course what creative artisits do, from Shakespeare transforming an obscure Italian novella into Romeo and Juliet, to Rice and Lloyd-Webber creating Joseph. Nice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
14 comments:
Hmm, I'll tell you what would fire up my imagination - a miracle. It will be interesting to hear other atheists wievs on this - we are part of your target audience.
Have you considered that apathy might be the result of the fact there could be no truth in christianity. For me a basic problem with the nativity is that Luke and Matthew disagree on its Date. In fact, if Luke was right (they may both be wrong), the stories of herod killing the children are an impossibility - herod died about 10 years before the date luke gives - the census of Quirinius/Cyreneus. I find it hard to become enthralled when such problems exist? Then there are all those contrived "fulfilled" prophecies.
Out of interest, do you tell people about this problem - it would be dishonest not to - the problem exists after all - whether you agree with it or not.
Should you tell people how much a struggle faith can be, how it causes some people depression?
What do you think about using style over substance then? Is that your aim?
For me, it has to be credible. How do you do that?
Billy
Oh well, it's a reaction at least!
I agree that maybe telling the story from another perspective will add some "flavour" to it. But since the Herod massacre may not even have happened, I wouldn't use that!
Leaving aside the fact that the basic narratives contradict each other, they've been told so often it's hard to make people interested, if you get what I mean. Christian stories from today would be more immediate and relevant.
I'm going to let you into a little secret: in GRF Radio we've been making a series of short dramatic pieces for Advent, dramatising the Christmas narrative in the style of the TV series '24'. An example of how it's possible to retell an old story in a fresh and hopefully compelling way.
Actually Bruce, do you not believe that god will reach out to those that he wants to anyway? If you believe that, does that not make worrying about such things pointless? I think this is another example of faithmaking peoples lives more complicated than they need to be.
Billy
Actually, do you mind advertising the royal philosophy society here http://www.royalphil.org/ some of the lectures may be of general interest, McGrath and Grayling have been recent speakers
Billy
I've changed the post title as was a bit worried about its connotations. Sorry if that's just me(!)
"Actually Bruce, do you not believe that god will reach out to those that he wants to anyway? If you believe that, does that not make worrying about such things pointless? I think this is another example of faithmaking peoples lives more complicated than they need to be."
And who is arbiter of how complicated life needs to be? Rather, you are saying this subject is unimportant. But of course you are saying this is because you believe it to be hypothesising based on untruth. If it were based on truth surely the discussion would be of some merit? (I'm not saying I regard it to be crucial. It is not something I spend a huge amount of my day thinking about, to be honest.)
The Calvinist/Arminian (etc..) discussion about predestination, election and the like is a complicated theological issue. I think John Piper has written some helpful stuff on the subject, although I am sure he would be one of the first to admit there is an inherent unfathomable mystery when we deal with things affected by the concept of "outside time".
From the subject of mystery to that of inaccuracy:
"For me a basic problem with the nativity is that Luke and Matthew disagree on its Date."
Correct of course. And you will rarely find a Christian scholar worth his salt who will argue this. It's a prime candidate for the argument against innerancy.
But perhaps you can explain exactly why you think these errors serve to grossly undermine the meaning of the nativity story? Surely they only really undermine one simplistic, albeit commonly held view of the story. And even then, does it undermine the key points?
I would suggest that identifying these discrepancies causes us to re-evaluate how much we depend on those aspects of the nativity as part of the justification of our faith. The immature Christian who hears that there was a discrepancy in the history of this aspect of the tale may turn around and panic, thinking of all the carol services they had attended where this untruth went seemingly unnoticed. Perhaps it means there IS a conspiracy to gloss over the errors of the bible! Perhaps none of it is reliable!
Of course, the intelligent thing to do is re-evaluate how we interpret the gospel as a whole, and the nativity accounts as a whole.
You can point this out as though it were a great and conclusive trump card for the atheist viewpoint, but the fact is that in Christian circles, especially scholarly Christian circles, this is old news. So maybe you can explain why the Christian scholars don't hold it as something which significantly undermines the overall reliability of the gospel accounts, and that some actually hold the position that it lends authenticity to the documents?
Cheers 4 now
BA
BA,
The question of the date of the nativity is very important. It is a question of reliability of the witnesses. One important thigs is that if Luke is correct, the slaughter of the innocents is a lie - actually, serious historians have questioned this for a long time anyway. If that is wrong, what else is wrong? The virgin birth, the transfiguration, the resurrection?
By the wat, there are plenty of christians I have come across that go to the most bizarre thengths to argue inerrancy - it just weakens their case. This is not an issue of inerrancy though, it is an issue of reliability. If luke is right, why did matthew lie? In fact, looking at how Matthew forces Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 into the nativity (totally out of context) makes me suspicious. This is not the only major difference between these so called witnesses - look at the genealogies for example.
How much of the actual gospel are you willing to accept as errant and still think it is a credible account?
Billy
Kind of departing from the drift of the post, but never mind...
Billy, that's true. It does force a re-examination of the reliability of the witnesses. I won't pretend that I've personally examined the gospels in terms of historical reliability (it's not my field) but I've read enough, and spoken to enough bible scholars and historians to feel comfortable trusting that the gospel accounts are historically accurate in the areas where the historical accuracy is central to the matter of faith being proposed.
By the way, the term "errant" is a bit loaded, because it suggest "in error", however inerrancy is usually challenged by Christians on the basis of the factors which are not pertaining to faith and instruction (e.g science or history), so I want to make sure we're using the same narrow definitions here to avoid misunderstanding.
But obviously, I would have to contend that the existence, the miracles of Jesus and his death and resurrection are not something we can easily paint with the errancy brush. If I could be convinced there is no resurrection from the dead, and that Christ was not resurrected, then my faith would of course be worthless.
Billy, you mentioned at the start
"Have you considered that apathy might be the result of the fact there could be no truth in christianity."
I'm willing to bet Bruce has considered that, just as most (if not all) Christians have considered that. Everyone has doubts, even of their deepest convictions.
Hi Beat,
I think we have to be cautious with historical claims made by both sides. To claim that there are scholars who say something is true is not really an argument. There was a time when "historians" activly tried to force facts to suit the bible. A classic example would be Ramsey who claimed to have found evidence that Quirinius had an earlier govenorship in Judea. His evidence were nameless tablets that either did not mention him, or mention him in terms of being honoured for some battle. I know of one minister who claims to be a historian who still cites this as evidence. I must say though that I was suprised you did not content the date of the nativity - very refreshing to see.
To me errrancy refers to any error - be it a copying error, mistranslation or contradiction with facts - the evolution-creation issue falls under this category. There are a whole spectrum of "inerrantists"
For me, the problem with different gospel accounts is that they are more easily explained in terms of folk tradition - or legends - they may even be urban myths of their day. This is why reliability is important - look at Matthew's nativity again. Here we see evidence of making up prophecy (evidence for miracles), and making up a story about herod killing the innocents (which also contains "evidence" of more miracles - warning the wise men, jesus's parents etc). This clearly undermines the claims of miracles here. When it comes to the resurrection accounts, whe see a great deal of difference between gospels. If you accept the cannonical "gospels" were written in the order of Paul, Mark, Matt and John - as most people do, you can see further embelishment over time - more miracles appear in the narrative, again suggesting an urban myth quality, and casting doubt on the authenticity of the claims - made by people you can't reliably associate with Jesus in the first place - most of the writers are not mentioned amongst the 12 for example, I am not aware of any line in John that shows it was written by the apostle.
What would you consider as evidence that the resurrection never happened?
Billy
I think there's nothing more pointless than people arguing about something that's already been decided, yet I think that on many details of the Christian/atheist debate, that's what's happening :(
"To claim that there are scholars who say something is true is not really an argument."
of course it is not the -backbone- of any reasonable argument. Rather, if certain scholars believe this, then we should be prepared to challenge them on a scholarly level if we are to prove it false, rather than just saying "scholars believing it is not really an argument". So if I quote scholar X's research in a matter, the correct response would be to say "well, scholar Y has already responded to that here." and let each of us debate opinions on these works, rather than on what we would like the world to be like.
That approach is more useful than conjecture, or trying to become experts ourselves in every possible way.
"I must say though that I was suprised you did not content the date of the nativity - very refreshing to see."
The date of the nativity has little value to a Christian other than a practical reference point. I'm not going to be surprised if someone tells me his birthday is not actually December the 25th! (yeah I know about the "hijacking the pagan celebrations" thing).
I read an interesting article here:
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=148
..on the suggested date of Jesus' birth.
The author does not seem to consider that the Herodian episodes are fantasy. It might be worth questioning him on that matter? He'd be able to give you a better answer than I ever will :)
Regarding the folk traditions or legends: I understand that this is a popular viewpoint and would have to read into it before commenting with any kind of authority. I admit that a lot of my belief in this area is based on Christians who have spoken around these subjects rather than an examination of the "first-hand" claims and counterclaims being proffered in the current (if it is indeed current) historical debate.
I feel that believing the gospels to be folk tales is to crowbar an explanation in, in order to get over the accounting for miracles.
At this point I should say that miracles are certainly an area where Christians are called to faith and doubt. It is the very essence of a miracle that we are inclined towards disbelief because of its super/non-natural nature.
So in asking for a miracle, you are not challenging Christians on something that you think is ludicrous but they think is perfectly normal. Christians understand the ludicrousness of miracles, but they go a step further and acknowledge that ludicrous things do happen from time to time, so maybe it is our perception of reality that must be altered to accomodate these occurences. So yeah, all I'm saying is, realise that Christians find miracles fantastic as well. I think it's unbelievable that Jesus rose from the dead: but yet I believe it!
So let's pretend for a second that miracles were not your particular problem (let's say you believed in the existence of the supernatural, just not in the God of the bible). would you agree that ascribing folklore to the gospel accounts is to misrepresent the majority of its stylistic content, historical context and the most straightforward explanation of the author's intention?
Another interesting link is here:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/10/30/new-testament-textual-criticism-answer-key-to-quiz
Now most of this stuff is above my head! The answer to question 10 made for interesting reading further to my point above. I'm interested to know what is the correct, scientific, approved method for examining documents to extract their value. Should probably ask my brother who's a medieval history buff...
It is from people/ bloggers/ christians like this that I get a taste of the Christian scholarly approach, and while I can't claim to be one myself, I do find myself seeing reasons to trust them simply from the way they present their arguments.
Hi Beat,
So if I quote scholar X's research in a matter, the correct response would be to say "well, scholar Y has already responded to that here." and let each of us debate opinions on these works, rather than on what we would like the world to be like.
I think there is agreement here, however I would neve advocate a my scholar vs your scholar approch. I may agree with some points of a particular scholar, but that does not mean that I should quote him as "authority" so to speak. Understanding the points being made is much more important. I also dont think that we have to be "experts" in a given area to produce a reasonable challenge.
The date of the nativity has little value to a Christian other than a practical reference point. I'm not going to be surprised if someone tells me his birthday is not actually December the 25th! (yeah I know about the "hijacking the pagan celebrations" thing).
Again I disagree, the two stories are mutually incompatible - someone has been making things up. As I pointed out eariler, if luke is right, then Matthew has made up all the miraculous stuff concerning the nativity. What else is made up? It does not inspire me with any confidence that the other miraculous claims are true - many other fulfilled prophecies are also contrived - journey to Egypt, 30 pieces of silver, the trial, not breaking bones on the cross - infact, ps 22:16 is not about crucifixion. It is about lions: that is the only know meaning of the word "kaari".
BTW it's not just christmas they hijacked. Virgin birth, sacrifice and return from the underworld, the use of wine and bread are all earlier pagan traditions. Dionysis and Mithras are two of the most Jesus like pagan stories (and combime all the above)
..on the suggested date of Jesus' birth.
Unfortunately the article doesn't even tackle Luke, or historical sources such as Josephus tho date the census of Quirinius. It is somewhat one sided. Infact, Luke has an internal contradiction concerning the date of the nativity and the start of the ministry of Jesus (28-29 AD) This is long but comprehensive:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
richard_carrier/quirinius.html
(stick 2 bits together)
I feel that believing the gospels to be folk tales is to crowbar an explanation in, in order to get over the accounting for miracles.
Not really, but it does have that effect. It makes most sense of the differences in the naratives - regardless of miracles).
In what way do you feel called to doubt miracles?
I am aware that a miracle is still an "impossibility" to a christian. I am not saying they dont happen a priori. I am saying I have never seen one - I doubt you have, and that the gospels are not a demonstration that they happen - for some of the reasons given above.
Do you believe in Dionysis?
Do you believe he returned from the under world?
If not, why?
would you agree that ascribing folklore to the gospel accounts is to misrepresent the majority of its stylistic content, historical context and the most straightforward explanation of the author's intention?
I have a few problems with this question.
1. I dont believe in miracles, so it is hard to say, but I have plenty of other reasons to doubt the bible.
2. What were the authors intentione - was it to provide the truth, or enable an agenda, or even just to relate tales that were convincing to him - as I said earlier, you will have a hard time tying these authors down to knowing/ witnessing the work of Jesus. Other religions also have their own traditional miracles - like mohammed flying on a cloud to heaven. Do you believe this happened?
Another interesting link is here:
I found nothing in this link to verify the truth or otherwise of the gospels - and there is an acknowlegde ment of inconsistency between texts - I'll leave that for another time, as I would actually like to go home and get some food tonight.
There are plenty of ways to test documents (and I am getting fed up with the science vs faith misrepresentation going on - it is reason vs faith, of which science is a part).
Internal consistency (Afailure of the pentateuch)
Historical accuracy (a problem in many books - nost notably Daniel)
Consistent vocabulary and literary style (A notable problem for Isaiah).
Does the symbolism allude to a particular culture in a particular setting? (Again large parts of the pentateuch actually refer to enemy states around the Babylonian period, or Daniel referring to the Seleucid period)
Presence of anachronisms (Again, the pentateuch and Joshua spring to mind)
Contempory accounts of biblical events (The siege of Sennacherib in 701 BCE springs to mind as a point of conflict)
Archaeological evidence (Ai, Jericho, and the "seventy years of Babylonian exile" all undermine reliabity.
I'm off to finish off some work then eat a scabby dug
Cheers
Billy
Post a Comment