I just had a brief conversation with another church member (he also teaches Sunday school) which managed in a very short time to touch on evolution, the dome in Genesis 1, JEPD and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and the perfection and knowledge of Jesus. The individual in question suggested that, if Jesus was mistaken about evolution, then that meant Jesus sinned.
A couple of preliminary points before my main one. First, I have no interest in defending Jesus' sinlessness, although I decided that raising that point in the conversation I mentioned would probably make the discussion take considerably longer, and so I refrained from doing so. Second, there is no inevitable conflict between evolutionary biology and the statement attributed to Jesus in the Gospels that "in the beginning God made them male and female", since (contrary to one bizarre creationist misunderstanding of evolution), evolution does not hold that there were originally asexual or androgynous humans. Indeed, the latter is a view that some interpreters of the Bible have come up with.
But the main point for me was this: being wrong should not be considered the same as being sinful. Being mistaken is not only not evil, it is something inherent to the human condition. And to claim that Jesus would always be right about things, and particularly things that no human in his time knew, is to deny his humanity.
The solution to this is simple. Certainty should be defined as a divine attribute (or perhaps it should not even be attributed to God, but I'll let anyone interested in that philosophical discussion pursue it if they are interested). It should be considered sinful hubris rather than praiseworthy when a human being lays claim to certainty.
"Jesus was uncertain. Jesus didn't know a great many things. Jesus was wrong about some things." Such statements should be viewed as part and parcel of affirming Jesus' humanity, whereas attributing certainty to Jesus makes him out to be full of sinful hubris.
Perhaps if we emphasize that claiming Jesus was always right, always certain, means either denying his humanity or attributing sin to him, then we can persuade more of his followers to abandon their own sinful claims of certainty.
I almost wrote of their sinful quest for certainty. But it is not necessarily the quest for certainty itself that is the problem. It is the belief that one has attained the goal.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)






19 comments:
It's been one of my aims for awhile now to advocate the merits of "religion without certainty." False certainty, combined with an insular ideology that protects the believer from any considerations which might inspire doubt, is at the heart of what many of the so-called "new atheists" attack in their angry diatribes against religion. Part of the aim of my recent book was to argue that religion needn't be linked to such false certainty, and that the new atheists are thus guilty of a false generalization.
What is interesting to me is the kind of response to this line of thought I keep hearing from defenders of the new atheists. The basic response is this: religion as a social phenomenon survives and thrives because of what it is selling is something much in demand. And that which it is selling is nothing less than false certainty.
And so, what I am defending is at best some ivory tower construct, not REAL religion, and could not survive at all in the real world except as a shadow cast by the certainty-peddlers.
Now I think this argument begs a number of important questions--both pertaining to the sociology of religion and pertaining to the fundamental metaphysical question of whether religious experience really is a response to something transcendent that is impressing itself on our consciousness.
But I was wondering if you had any thoughts about this issue. One of the emergent themes in progressive religion (although it has much older theological roots) is the call for religion without certainty. But rather than treating the voices who call for this as allies, more and more secularists treat them as obfuscators whose efforts only block what REALLY needs to happen.
so much to say on this one
I don't think that your explanation would have helped your conversation at all...but not because Jesus may have been wrong....but because it comes from a belief that Jesus was not divine. So, saying that certainty should only be a divine attribute would be playing into your conversation partner's hand...who probably most certainly believes that Jesus was and is divine.
I happen too also, so I won't fault him for that! :-)
However, I think that there is another choice.
Even if one isn't a young-earther....even if one believes in evolution...if we believe that God is the First Cause of the Universe and had some idea about what he wanted the universe to be.....then He did create them "male and female"....though not in the "*poof*...instantaneous existence" kind of way.
In that case...Jesus wasn't really "wrong" in the way your church member is thinking about "wrongness".
Terri, it is possible to affirm the divinity of Christ and yet take his human limitations completely seriously - the whole stream of "kenotic Christology", for instance, which has the pre-existent Son take on human limitations. And then, there are various views of the incarnation that might be felt to distinguish the divine and human natures too much, but which would also emphasize the genuine humanity of Jesus. And so the issue, in my opinion, is the affirmation of a genuine humanity, not denial of divinity.
Eric, I think that our sort of progressive perspectives have begun to be heard clearly in theological conversations in recent years, but there are relatively few pastoral voices taking this theological heritage and preaching it, proclaiming it, and applying it to pastoral concerns in local congregations. And so I think that there is still more to be done.
But it is becoming increasingly clear to increasing numbers of people that the "certainty" offered by fundamentalism is indeed a false certainty, and its claims to take the Bible literally and believe all of it depend on people not knowing the Bible well enough to identify such claims as false. And so the provision of a middle ground (that is available not merely as a theological construct but as a lived form of Christianity) for those who want to do something other than migrate to the new atheism is pretty urgent.
James:
Very interesting post. It is always difficult and troubling trying to relay what I do, and the questions I ask on a daily basis, to those in the pews.
While it is not related to the NT or Jesus specifically, on this topic you may find my just-published article I posted on my site intriguing.
Here is the link to the post where you can download a pdf of the article. I do welcome your thoughts: http://hesedweemet.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/my-current-article-jacob-laban-and-a-divine-trickster-read-and-enjoy/
Also, I am a bit puzzled that wordpress is saying a click from this post led to my blog? I haven't quite been able to figure that one out yet.
All the best!
Amen to all you said. I get so weary of fundamentalist tunnelism. I participate sometimes on a Catholic forum and have to listen to "The catholic church is always right, because Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against it, so if the church errs, then Jesus is a liar, and you aren't going to suggest that are you?" LOL. Logic gone wild I call it. Great site, glad I found it. I'll mention you to my readers in my update of blogrolling coming soon!
John, it will probably have been someone who visited this post and then clicked the link to your blog in the "Blogs I've Been Reading" sidebar.
Feather, I'm glad to learn of your blog and will look forward to reading more of what you write in the future!
Jesus says God is kind to the unthankful and evil, but that doesn't really fit with the constant smiting of people for the smallest offences as pictured in the OT. Clearly, although Jesus does refer to and quote the OT, he does so accomadatively, since the OT view of God clearly doesn't match his view of God or Himself as God Incarnate. As such, when he says "Haven't you read that he which made them in the beginning made them male and female?" I don't find it necesssary to believe that he is saying every detail in that OT story is inerrant, but only the one that is important to his answer "he made the male and female." He is not necessarily saying that He really did sculpt Adam from clay or build Eve from a rib, nor that he made man immortal and then punished them for eating a fruit. The only detail of the story that we find him agreeing with is "he made them male and female." If evolution is true (and I do not believe it is) then it proves PAUL wrong, not Jesus! Its Paul that declares the whole stroy of Adam and Eve to be literal truth.
This post illustrates a phenomenon that I've noticed, namely that a lot of defenders of the orthodox doctrine of Jesus's divinity end up committing what their own orthodoxy defines as the heresy of docetism. Those who insist that Jesus's ostensibly divine nature implies that Jesus was infallible in matters of science have essentially taken away Jesus's humanity. Instead of being "fully human", which is have of the "fully human and fully divine" equation, they have essentially turned Jesus into a fully divine being only inhabits a human shell of flesh.
What this suggests about the viability of the whole "fully human and fully divine" doctrine is another discussion for another day, but I think it does indicate just how difficult it is to really make this theology about Jesus work in any practical sense. Anyone familiar with the phrase "to err is human, to forgive divine" understands that part of being human is to be fallible, and if Jesus was fully human, he would have had to be fallible as well. But, as I said, that is probably another discussion for another day.
Dr McGrath, others, hello,
This strikes me as an entirely unhelpful and wrongheaded way of looking at this question.
If you're concerned about disabusing so-called followers of Christ of their certainty about their viewpoints, may I suggest the following?
1) Don't deny core tenets of Christianity in bizarre ways while doing so. Claiming that Jesus could be wrong about things does just that. On what basis could we conclude that the inability to have certain knowledge is a necessary component of human nature? It is outside of OUR experience, sure, but inductive inferences can be overturned by only one counterexample, and we have that in Jesus Christ; thus either side begs the question at hand. We should, rather, look to Christ's testimony about Himself and the staunch certitude and eternal staying power of His words, shouldn't we? Is God limited in knowledge? Christ isn't just a man, you know.
You yourself ended the discussion, Dr McGrath, when you said: "Certainty should be defined as a divine attribute." Christ is divine. QED.
2) Point out that, while Christ isn't wrong, the Christians whose viewpoints you oppose are. You don't have to throw rocks at Christ to accomplish that. In other words, know your target, and aim before you fire.
3) More to the point of #2, you might consider refuting their arguments as a good strategy. Another good strategy would be to answer questions you're asked in order to defend your position, rather than ignoring them.
4) Finally for these initial thoughts, approach them/us with non-self-refuting propositions. To come up to people and say as you're in effect saying, "I'm certain that you're certainly wrong about being so certain!" or "I'm certain that I'm certainly searching for the answers, but it's certain that what you're saying ain't them!" is amazingly un-self-aware. Are you even listening to yourselves?
Hopefully my advice will prove useful to you.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology, would you care to explain how, while apparently rejecting the tools of historical study, you nonetheless claim not only to know what Christ said, but also to know that he was "more than a man"?
Then, perhaps, you would care to explain how this "more than a man" status is compatible with the affirmation that he was fully human. Was he fully conscious of divinity in Mary's womb? Can such affirmations be compatible with Luke's status that Jesus grew in wisdom?
Dr McGrath,
Far from rejecting tools of historical study! But I don't see a good reason to limit ourselves to naturalistic presuppositions in that study. Naturalism is a bankrupt philosophy; why think it was any less so in history than it is now? Jesus is Lord of history too. The Gospels are themselves profoundly historical documents, and primary-source at that!
You know, I find the single most difficult concept to explain, to myself and others, is the Incarnation, so this is profoundly mysterious. I don't know how much He was fully conscious of it in the womb, but He certainly was by age 12, when He was "doing My Father's work" in the temple, and when He was living His whole life without sin. I would imagine one would have to be fairly self-aware of one's divine nature in order never to sin! But yes, it is compatible with the statement that he grew in wisdom. Why not? To grow in wisdom is not the same as "Jesus was wrong about some things", one of your propositions.
Peace,
Rhology
Let the arguing in circles begin! James you are supposed to respond now as follows:
1) you do not believe Jesus was sinful, which would throw a wrench in the idea that Jesus was divine. God cannot sin right? Or maybe he can?
2) You need to point out that the narrativ about the 12 year old Jesus in the temple discussing matters of Jewish theology is haigography. This should pretty much get the argumentative circle going quite well.
3) Reiterate the point that Rho does not follow Methodological Naturalism when reading the Bible, thus making his irrelevance complete.
Rho,
You can continue the circle by:
1) making the point that Scripture should be interpreted by scripture. To which James will reply, "Scripture is a collection of many voices, and you cannot force them all to say the same thing, because we know that god would not communicate to us through a book such as the bible!"
2) Finally, you can come back at Dr. McGrath by showing him that Theism accounts for the world much better than his... uh.. what is it you believe James? I do not want to make assumptions.
This was all written tongue-in-cheek for good humor. Don't take it as an insult.
Rhology, I'm not sure that the idea that Jesus made mistakes has be taken as an attack on his deity, but just an understanding of the full extent of the incarnation. The one story of Jesus childhood in Luke does not demand that Jesus was fully self-conscious of His divinity or had perfect knowledge; you would have to go to the infancy gospel of Thomas for such a view of Jesus childhood. If Jesus never made mistakes or learned new things as he grew up, can it truly be said that he was like us in every respect except without sin (Heb 2:17)? After all, in becoming human Jesus temporarily gave up his omnipresence and was subject to other human limitations like the need to eat or sleep. So if we allow that Jesus had temporary limitations in knowledge while He was incarnate - so for one example he says he does not know the time of the end (Mark 13:32) and seems to take the imagery of falling stars literally even though it is based off an older cosmology. But from my understanding the main point of this post is that if Jesus can humble himself to have human limitations, how much more should we mere humans acknowledge our limitations and be humble about what we claim to know.
To have limitation is not to be wrong, Mike. So He could learn, but not be wrong.
I have little regard for the reliability of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, just FYI.
Not knowing the time of the end is not to be wrong.
The falling stars imagery was referring to a supernatural incident - Satan falling from Heaven. You must always check the context!
All we've seen here is that you are fairly limited in your knowledge about how to properly interpret the Scr.
I think it all depends on the definition of the word "wrong".
Jesus is portrayed as being surprised or amazed at certain points. How can you surprise God? So, even those assenting to Jesus' divinity , must accept that Jesus didn't know everything, or even always read people correctly all the time.
As far as being sinless....I think it's an important part of how most Christians understand Jesus.
When Jesus heads into the desert to be tempted by Satan, he is re-enacting the story of the Garden of Eden and the temptation of Adam and Eve.
It's a watershed moment for his ministry in the sense that he succeeds where the first humans failed.....another way in which he is depicted as the second Adam.
FYI...did you know that Satan only appears and speaks to three people in all of Scripture? Adam and Eve and Jesus......so it's no coincidence that the gospels include this story. Jesus, as the beginning or firstborn of God's New Creation, must initiate the rest of us into this successful triumph over Satan's temptations.
Now, whether you believe Adam and Eve were literal persons or not doesn't really change the point of Jesus' temptation.
geez....I managed to ramble on again.
As suggested earlier, hat is being offered here as an ostensible defense of orthodoxy is, ironically, the heresy of docetism. I have to wonder what is really meant when some say that Jesus was "fully human", since so many of the things that define what it means to be human are excluded from many people's understanding of who he was. He is presented to us as some sort of superhuman ghost in the machine of human flesh--a flesh which exerted virtually no real or meaningful limitations on his human physical or mental existence. His humanity apparently consisted of having certain biological responses (most importantly that of feeling pain, since from the point of view substitutionary atonement that is pretty much the only reason he deigned to walk among us mortals), as well as certain biological functions--he apparently ate, peed, farted, and pooped like humans do. As to whether he felt sexual arousal, had erections, experienced erotic dreams, and so forth--another highly important biological aspect of humanity--well, that's another question.
Contrary to this docetic position, I would suggest that our physical knowledge limitations as human beings are part and parcel of who we are. These physical and knowledge limitations are so much a part of us and so taken for granted throughout our lives that we may not give them much thought and we may even to choose to deny their high significant role in defining our humanity.
Asserting that Jesus never made mistakes even if he was not fully omniscient means that he somehow still knew exactly what it was that he didn't know (because if he didn't know what it was that he didn't know, then he would be mistaken about what he knew, and that contradicts the premise at hand, which was that he never made any mistakes about anything.) Which means that once he acquired any piece of information that was new to him, he had some sort of magical power that revealed to him whether or not it was a true piece of information--because, otherwise, he might falsely take as true this new datum when in fact it was false, which means that he, once again, would be mistaken about something.
I guess this ability to not know things means that he could trip over someone's foot if he didn't know that the foot was there, although I think most people would argue that tripping counts as a mistake.
This is a view of Jesus, not as someone fully human, but as a circus act, a living and breathing freak show.
Rhology -
What leads you to conclude that the falling stars imagery refers to Satan? The immediate context is clearly referring to the physical sun, moon, and stars in a dome-like sky, with stars literally falling down. There is nothing in context that suggests that this imagery refers to Satan.
The author of Mark has simply retooled failed "prophecies" from Daniel and anchored them to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans with a very clear and unambiguous claim that the end was near. (It doesn't get much clearer than "This generation shall not pass...")
When you introduce claims like stars = Satan, or that This generation refers to some other generation than the one that the author of Mark wrote to, it seems like you're doing nothing so much as casting about for a lifeline to rescue your worldview.
If you want to claim that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, then try to turn around and say that he could have limitations and learn yet not be wrong, then you're either playing fast and loose with the term fully or the term human.
Hi Jay,
Yeah, I think I was confused over which psg we were talking about.
Maybe are we talking about Matthew 24?
29"But immediately after the (AI)tribulation of those days (AJ)THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND (AK)THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30"And then (AL)the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see (AM)the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.
31"And (AN)He will send forth His angels with (AO)A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His (AP)elect from (AQ)the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Obviously this is referring to a miraculous event. How will all the tribes of the Earth mourn when they see Jesus, if the Earth is round? It is a supernatural, miraculous event. So why force naturalism onto the psg?
As for your claim about Jesus' humanity, my challenge posted in an earlier comment to make an argument that being human necessarily entails being wrong or committing sin remains unfulfilled. I invite you to make the argument.
Peace,
Rhology
Post a Comment