Henry Imler April 15th, 2007

Last week I posted about going to a talk on the Gospel of Judas by Elaine Pagels. It was a fascinating talk on something that I have never read. I have recently started reading The Forbidden Gospels Blog by Dr. April DeConick of Rice University. She has a book that is coming out very soon that contests the meaning of the Gospel of Judas. It makes me want to read the book by Pagels/King and the book by DeConick.

The Forbidden Gospels Blog: The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says

“I didn’t find the sublime Judas, at least not in Coptic. What I found were a series of English translation choices made by the National Geographic team, choices that permitted a different Judas to emerge in the English translation than in the Coptic original. Judas was not only not sublime, he was far more demonic than any Judas I know in any other piece of early Christian literature, Gnostic or otherwise.”

DeConick contends that the Gospel of Judas is not about a “good” Judas, or even a “poor old” Judas. It is a gospel parody about a “demon” Judas written by a particular group of Gnostic Christians known as the Sethians who lived in the second century CE. The purpose of the text was to criticize “mainstream” or apostolic Christianity from the point of view of these Gnostic Christians, especially their doctrine of atonement, their Eucharistic practices, and their creedal faith which they claimed to have inherited from the twelve disciples.

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler April 10th, 2007

Audio from the Lecture (mp3 - 46mb)

I was lucky enough to attend Dr. Pagel’s lecture on the Gospel of Judas. It was a fascinating and informative talk. Here are some of my observations from the lecture. Pagels has just published a new book on this Gospel with Karen King, entitled Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity. I have not read the book, nor the Gospel of Judas.

While I have read some of Pagel’s work, most specifically, Beyond Belief, I have never heard her in person. She is a very effective speaker, humor and wit with are intermixed with history and background to illuminate her points, she approaches the audience on the popular level and does not talk above their heads. While some of her popular works are criticized for being sensational at times, she is very disarming in her approach - she does not start out shocking the audience with grandiose claims. Instead, Pagels introduced the text and presented 4 problems that she found contained within it and then lead the audience to the answers she came to during her research.

The talk centered around the Gospel of Judas, a repressed gospel dating to the early days of Christianity. Dating is always and estimate. The manuscript that we have was found in upper Egypt and written in Coptic. Most likely the manuscript was from a monastery in the region and dates to somewhere in the fourth century(300-400 CE). It seems to be a translation of a much earlier text, somewhere in the second century (100-200 CE). She did a good job introducing to the audience the issues surrounding the Gnostics, how the term “Gnosticism” is not a good category, but a convenient one that really does not do them justice. There are groups of Christians that deviate from what would become Orthodox views, but to categorize this very messy group as Gnostics is misleading and inaccurate.

To Pagels, the text seems to center around a dispute between Judas and the other Apostles and the topic of martyrdom. While I don’t have the texts that she was working with (see below for the NG translation), I’ll do my best to reproduce what she was talking about. The gospel opens with Jesus ridiculing the Twelve for how they were worshiping. The twelve get angry at Jesus and in response, he challenges them to stand before him. Only Judas is able to stand before Jesus and Jesus rewards him with teachings. The Twelve have dreams about people sacrificing children on an altar. Jesus explains that the people doing the sacrificing are the Twelve. Judas has had another dream, this one shows how he is different from the others. I don’t remember much else about it - see the audio for more.

Pagels looks at this text not as a window into the lives of Jesus and the Twelve, but as a window into the controversies in the early church, most specifically, the one about Martyrdom. She thinks it reflects, in part, a voice standing against “eager martyrdom.” A conception had spread that one should seek out being killed for Christ rather than fleeing to another city, like the Gospel of Luke would suggest. Instead, the best death a Christian could have is to be killed for the cause. The people behind the Gospel of Judas were concerned about this, thinking that this is not the way Jesus wanted us to live because God values life, not death, so we should not actively seek death.

That was the main gist of her presentation. It was more a look into the history of the Early Church than anything else, and for that, I throughly enjoyed the talk. Please see the MP3 for the audio of the lecture.

I’ll have the audio up later. See below for the audio

Resources:

• National Geographic Translation of the Gospel of Judas (PDF)
• Audio from the Lecture (mp3 - 46mb)

• Christianity , Notes
• Comments(1)

Henry Imler April 3rd, 2007

Jon Krakauer’s book on the Ron and Dan Lafferty’s religious slaying of Brenda and Erica Lafferty is gripping and sensational. In Krakauer’s exploration of why Ron and Dad committed these murders, he examines their fundamentalist background. He not only investigates how Dan and Ron were drawn to Mormon fundamentalism, but also illuminates the links Mormon fundamentalism has with mainstream Mormonism’s past. In doing so, Krakauer raises some interesting questions that he teases the reader with though out the book, but never really deals with seriously. The work is an excellent account of the Lafferty murders, recounting vivid details and well-crafted turns of phrase. Krakauer’s skill at writing for effect cannot be discounted. However, after reading the work, one feels as though they are only getting one version of the events, especially as it when the book describes and analyses Mormon history. It as if his interpretation is driving the book rather than the sources.

The only real nuanced discussion of Krakauer’s sources comes in the interesting point-counterpoint appendix to the book. Krakauer reprints the entire review of Under the Banner of Heaven by Richard Turley Jr., the managing director of the Family and Church History Department of the LDS church. In a scathing review, Turley makes many of the same observations as I do here. The best part of his review for the reader of the book is the discussion of sources. Turley claims that Krakauer has cherry-picked his sources and does not critically analyze the entirety of Mormon scholarship. Perhaps the most damaging is Turley’s criticism of the heavy uncritical use of Fawn Brodie’s biography of Joseph Smith, especially in regards to the 1832 castration attempt by an Ohio mob. Turley’s overall point is well founded, since all of Krakauer’s sources tend to agree, there is no mention or use of conflicting reports. It is as if Krakauer only used the sources that agreed with him. There is not any discussion of conflicting sources or scholarly working throughout the book. Krakauer does admit to several errors in the work, which he has corrected in the more recent editions of the book. He also defends his selection of sources in his rebuttal, but this is the only real place any dissenting views are considered instead of just the ones that support his clear and simple narrative. The best counter-point Krakauer offers lies in his point of the selectivity of inside Mormon scholarship noting that all LDS accounts of Mormon history have to be “faith promoting” and therefore exclude any real critical analysis of the history of the LDS church. Within this interesting point lies a rich discussion that is barely broached by Krakauer in his rebuttal. An interesting discussion could be had between the writers of critical Mormon works, like Krakauer; and the sympathetic writers of Mormon history, such as Richard Bushman, author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Krakauer tries to situate the Lafferty case in terms of the early history of the Mormons. Among the major themes that he links from the early Mormon Church to the fundamentalist Lafferty brothers were the propensity to hear the voice of God, the idea of blood atonement, and most prominently, the ideal of plural wives. Very carefully, the narrative switches back and forth from accounts of Smith, Young, and other early Mormons to the events leading up to murders. This serves to form in the reader’s mind a close attachment – an almost casual one – between the two eras. The reader cannot but help to think that Krakauer wants his readers to think that the Lafferty’s were being true to the foundations of their religion and that there is something inherently wrong with the LDS Church. While he is not explicit in this connection, he also does not try to avail these concerns. This connection is one in a series of connections that Krakauer flirts with, but does not ever really come out and defend or refutes.

The subtitle to the work is as lengthy as it is controversial, “On July 24, 1984 a woman and her infant daughter were murdered by two brothers who believed they were ordered by to kill by God. The roots of their crime lie deep in the history of an American religion practiced by millions.” Here is an example of Krakauer showing his intent to connect the murders not only to Mormon fundamentalism, but also to mainstream Mormonism. It does not stop here, however. In the first few pages of the introduction, he states that his work will raise questions about the nature of religion itself. In doing so, he must connect the murders not only to fundamentalist and mainstream Mormonism, but also to Christianity and religion in general. Over all, he fails in this respect. While he makes a very damning case in terms of the violence and the damage polygamy does to those involved both in the early Mormon Church and in the fundamentalists that have separated themselves from the LDS Church; he is unable to connect the larger threads. This is because he either does not take into account or fails to discuss the purposeful separation of the current incarnation of LDS Church from these doctrines and events. An analogous situation is linking fundamentalist terrorism with all of Islam, or all Christians in the actions of the Crusades. It is an example of contamination by proximity.

The book is most successful when looking it examines the religion, motives, and history of both the Laffertys and the fundamentalist Mormon movement, in its journalism. It is least successful when it tries to link historical themes together in a nuanced manner; in fails as a scholarly work. If Krakauer were to nuance his work and leave out his larger, under discussed implications, a much better book would be had.

• Christianity
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler March 28th, 2007

For my American Religious Experience final project, I have the freedom to look outside American religion and to my thesis field, New Testament Studies. I am interested in building a picture of lived religion for early Christianities. I don’t know yet what branch I am going to target - most likely it will be urban Christians. As to what Christianity to look at, I want to go as early as possible, so there would be no established branch that can be distinguished from another.

I need to focus on practices (lived religion) and the common people, not beliefs nor elites. Interesting thing here is the creation of elites from the common people. I think that is what is happening, especially if you define elite as “one with authority or power.” I’ll also try to keep a close eye on the changing roles of women. I preliminary guess is that, like always, they were given newfound power and responsibility at first, and then as the movement crystallized, they were shut out of authority.

As of right now, I am using the following books for the basis of my research.

• Christians as the Romans Saw Them by Wilken
• Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance by Horsley
• Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts by Novak
• Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Corinthians

I plan on focusing on the religious background that the Christians developed out of and look for differences that made them stand out. I will assume for the sake of the paper that everything else was maintained. Even though I have no way of knowing if they dropped certain practices or not, I’ll assume for the preliminary examination that they do. Perhaps in a later project I can look for the differences, say perhaps in another thesis chapter?

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler March 26th, 2007

George Marsden attempted to give an accurate portrayal of the life, times, and effects of Jonathan Edwards in Jonathan Edwards: A Life. He had identified several misappropriations that other scholars had utilized in their portrayal of Edwards. Marsden thought that many of these mischaracterizations stemmed from am importing of outside ideas onto Edwards and his time. To counter these flawed portraits, Marsden tried to give an account of Edwards through the same lens from which Edwards saw the world. Inter-spliced throughout Edward’s personal story are descriptions and explanations of the Edward’s historical backdrop. This serves to further immerse the reader into Edward’s life and worldview. With this aim in mind, Marsden is remarkably effective.

In light of the ease of which one can find an inaccurate view of Edwards, Marsden does a commendable job sorting out the issues. Much care and detail was given in explaining the ins and outs of the religious controversies of New England in the 1700’s. Similar care was given in relating these issues to the larger whole, the movements and currents in public and religious thought of the Western world as it impacted New England. The exposition of the relationship between the Old and New Lights and how they related to Whitefield’s ministry and those that came after him were especially helpful. This helped to further ground Edward’s actions and predispositions in their proper context.

The largest obstacle that this approach encounters is that sometimes the narrative is confusing to the modern reader. This is especially the case if the reader is not a white male protestant. The narrative is written so closely to the point of view of Edwards that the effect is that his sensibilities, such as the equivocating of the Catholic Church with the Antichrist of the book of Revelation. While careful and through examination will exonerate Marsden from this charge, there are times in which the casual reader could be lead to believe that Marsden held these views in line with Edwards.

Another issue that came up in the work was, at times, the apparent undue sympathy that Marsden gave Edwards. His character flaws are minimalized or explained away while those of his adversaries are enlarged or painted in a selfish light. Examples of this are the conflict with the town of Northampton and the conflict over the Stockbridge. The reader is given in depth explanations of how Edwards was operating off the best of intentions and was impaired by personal flaws, such as the inability to communicate or the grafting of his moral perfectionism onto the townspeople of Northampton. The reader is given diary accounts, personal testimony among other sources to strike home this point. No such in depth explanation is offered of the opposing parties’ motivations. Again, the reply to this criticism could be that Marsden was trying to get the reader to see the world from Edward’s perspective, to see how he viewed the matter and how Edward’s attempted to live out his ideals in the swamp of his personal foibles.

These minor criticisms set aside, Jonathan Edwards, A Life accomplishes something much more than a mere biography of Jonathan Edward’s life. It paints an astonishingly detailed portrait the later stages of the Puritan movement. For instance, through descriptions of Edward’s view of millennial history and God’s relation to humanity, gives insights as to how the Puritans viewed the progression of God’s plan in history. It also showed how the Puritan canopy cracked as was Noll posited in America’s God. It illuminates what Noll meant when he gave the advice to “read Edwards” if one wanted to understand pre-Revolutionary War colonial America.

• Christianity
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler March 26th, 2007

In the book, A Shopkeeper’s Millennium, Paul Johnson attempts to show how, in Rochester, New York, Finney’s religious revivals helped to develop the free labor market. (1) In doing so, Johnson takes a careful measurement of the economic, social, political and religious life in Rochester and sees how these issues were intertwined and changed over time, with the hope of discovering how these forces influenced one another. Johnson traced the shifting moods through a variety of methods, utilizing detailed statistical analysis to uncover trends.

Before Finney arrived in Rochester, the town had undergone a tremendous social upheaval. From 1820 to 1830, the town’s economic structure had transitioned from Medieval, guild based economy, to a more capitalistic one, with divisions of labor and a separation of the producers from the owners. With this economic shift came class struggle, most notably in the form of the abuse of alcohol and the unrest that comes with it. When Finney came to Rochester, he attacked the religious authorities and the Calvinistic determinism that came with them. In Finney, the shopkeepers found a solution to the problem – autonomy. No longer were they innately depraved persons who needed to be lorded over by the regenerate. With effort, they could be relied and expected to be the solid, dependable citizens and workers that the city needed. It is Johnson’s contention it was not Finney’s religious platform alone that attracted so many of the middle class but it was Finney’s platform as a way to garner the control that they had lost that was the real factor behind the success of the revivals. It is because of this claim that the work is reductionist in scope, despite Johnson’s claim that the revival was not a capitalistic plot. (2)

Johnson’s presentation differs substantially from Hatch’s depiction of the role and aims of Christianity in the formation of America and its national values. Johnson indicates that Christianity and its revivals helped to shape the economic landscape, providing the moral framework and economic power that enabled the wealthy elites of the upper class to maintain control over the lives of their workers. Hatch, on the other hand, maintains that the new forms of Christianity that exploded onto the stage during the post-Revolutionary were all forms of social protest, not social control.(3) Far from playing into the hands of the powerful, Hatch describes Finney as calling for a Copernican revolution in Christianity and “railed at ecclesiastical bureaucracy.”(4) I think that Johnson would agree with this, but he would add that the effect of Finney and his attack on religious authority helped the churchgoing businessmen to give men moral and religious autonomy – an autonomy that the worker could be held responsible for.

The most important point of divergence in the two studies is the scope and classes that Hatch and Johnson studied. Hatch looked at the religious leaders across a broad spectrum of beliefs and localities, whereas Johnson looked at the entire social order of one town over time. With Hatch, one is able to see the wider developments in society. With Johnson, one is able to see how economics, class, and gender are able to shape and influence the spread of Christianity. Hatch did not include these factors in his study. Hatch gives a functioning description of how the democratization of Christianity allowed it to regionally spread in new forms. Johnson on the other hand, focuses his historical lens with a much smaller scope, but a higher resolution. This detail allows one to see how economic, political, and class structures helped create the space for Finney’s revivals to flourish. It is implied that since this was the case for the town of Rochester, the most evangelized and economically powerful cites in the republic, that it is a mold for how religion worked in general in the United States. To apply a specific case, one that is analyzed in such detail, to the religious experience of the United States as a whole is an overgeneralization. Varying social, political, and religious factors make this a impossibility. One cannot apply this situation to the homogenous American setting because it has never existed.

One is better served limiting Johnson’s approach from the primary reason that the revivals were a success to one of the contributing factors behind the success. Then one can then incorporate elements from Hatch’s thesis into one’s analysis of the success of the religious revivals. In doing so, one can have a more complete picture, one that incorporates more segments of society, resulting in a more accurate picture of the development of American Christianity.

Footnotes:

1. Johnson. A Shopkeeper’s Millennium. pages 138-140.
2. Ibid. page 141.
3. Hatch. Democratization of Christianity. page 225.
4. Hatch. ibid. page 199.

• Christianity
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler March 26th, 2007

In reading both Material Christianity and Parlor Piety, I had mixed reactions to Colleen McDannell’s claims. At first glance, she presented two clear arguments for the change of Christian American attitudes towards the home over time and the change in how the social sciences viewed American Christianity over time. She did a great job looking at issues and tying them to the larger picture. However, there were also some minor issues that kept creeping up, such as the backing of claims and the lack of distinction amongst religious groups.

The question of relevance has been one of the themes of the semester so far. At what point does an ethnographic study of religion cease to be linked to larger themes and become a curiosity? McDannell was obviously aware of this and was quick to bypass the problem in both her articles. I noticed that she was quick to make her studies relevant to the larger whole of scholarship very early on in both articles. In Material Christianity, she links her study of the photograph as a case study of American Christianity, saying , “..throughout American history, Christians have explored the meaning of the divine, the nature of death, the power of healing, and the experience of the body by interacting with a created world of images and shapes.”(1) In her other article, she immediately states that her cases in the article are “quintessential examples” of the larger American picture of Christianity. (2) By her linkage of the specific to the general, McDannell attempts to demonstrate how ethnographic sketches, even ones done over time, can be relevant to the larger picture.

In her articles, I kept running into what felt like unfounded claims. They were not outright falsehoods, but were just too much of a stretch for me without concrete examples. For instance, she claimed that “bad architecture encouraged sinfulness.”(3) While this might have been the case, she only quotes one or two architects in support of the converse of the above quote. How can the reader be sure that such a quote is representative of the general attitude of Christian America at that particular time? It might be more sensible that the architect that said the structure of the home influenced morals was speaking instead from a sales pitch instead of encapsulating the attitudes of Christian America. Another instance of this was later on in the same article where she stated, “Merely believing was not enough. Christians must visually demonstrate their piety. They must make their homes sacred.” (4) Perhaps this was not the only reason for how they decorated their homes. Perhaps it was in their belief that having such a home was an outward sign of an inward faith instead of making their homes sacred. Another issue that kept creeping up was the lumping together of all the denominations into a single group. While she was upfront about this, it still seemed as though there might be more at work behind the scenes besides the issues she described. I am not saying that she is incorrect in these statements, but a more careful approach is needed to convince me completely of her claims.

Overall, I would have liked a more careful look at the issues she raised. At the same time I realize that if she had looked as carefully as I would have liked, I would be reading two books this week instead of four articles.

Footnotes

1. McDannell, Material Christianity, p.24.
2. McDannell, Parlor Piety: The Home as Sacred Space in Protestant America, p.162.
3. Ibid. p. 165.
4. Ibid. p. 170.

• Christianity
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler March 26th, 2007

The Madonna of 115^th Street was not at all what I was expecting. When I first heard about the book during the first class period, I expected a long and detailed analysis of the rituals that took place during the festa, perhaps accompanied with small excursions into the Italian Harlem’s culture. What I got was quite the opposite; long and detailed analysis of the Italian Harlem’s culture and the domus, with many small excursions into the festa. Despite this distance from my expectations, I feel that I am more intimately acquainted with the setting and practice of the Madonna of 155^th Street.

I also appreciated his explanation of terms in the introduction of the book, especially his discussion of power and the meaning of “popular religion.” Sometimes there is a feeling that popular religion is the opposite of established religion; merely a rebellion against the establishment consisting of rejected practices. Here, a much more agreeable definition was used, where the emphasis was on a synthesis of the established religion and the religious values of the people at large. More importantly, it was a dialectic between the people and the culture, a way to protest and resolve tensions. Orsi drew this out in his analysis of the domus and the festa.

I am sure that several fellow students will ask why any of this really matters, or how this wonderful exposition of the domus and the Madonna of the Italian Harlem, which does not really exist anymore, is nothing but a historical curiosity. Orsi wrestled with this several times throughout his introduction(s) and his work. He deems it necessary to connect to work to the larger whole of American history, least it be striped of meaning. How particularistic is this work? Is it representational American Christianity? Can one apply notions of the domus to and religiosity to members of the Disciples of Christ? Not really. Can one narrow the application to other Catholics? Orsi goes to great length to show the differences between Catholic groups, across class lines, such as the established clergy and the laity; and ethnic/economic lines, such as the established Irish Catholics and the poorer Italian Catholics. In light of this, is the work reduced to merely a study of a particular group in a particular place in (a) particular time(s)? I do not think it is, and I think that Orsi pointed this out in several places. He described the linkage of these immigrants and their story of the conflicts within their society is instructive in viewing the history of immigrant groups. One can see parallels between the internal and external views of immigrants of the early 1900’s and today, despite differences in geographic origin. Looking at the book through a broader historical context, one not only obtains a better view of the people studied, but an addition is made to the understanding of the development of the United States. As such, there is a “so what” in this story.

• Christianity
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler February 6th, 2007

Harry S. Stout, professor of History, Religious, and American Studies at Yale University paints a dramatic picture of George Whitefield in the biography, The Divine Dramatist. It is Stout’s contention that Whitefield was a major catalyst, albeit a somewhat unintentional one, in the formation, or at least the development of several key American attitudes. This goes so far as to call the English Whitefield, one who was never really that interested in politics, an American patriot. While the above is a major thrust of Whitefield’s contribution to America, much of the work centers around Whitefield as a person. Stout shows the how the seeds sown in Whitefield’s youth, the sense of divine greatness in works for the Lord and a love and talent for dramatics, fueled and gave rise to his resounding success. Center to this is an analysis of how the social circumstances and the manipulation of those circumstances by Whitefield lead to his astounding success.

Continue Reading »

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler February 2nd, 2007

Introduction

The purpose of this research paper is to analyze and compare the use of miracle stories in the Canonical and Gnostic gospels. The Canonical gospels will be used to represent what became the orthodox Christian community in West Asia and the Mediterranean. The Gospels of the Nag Hammadi library will be representative of the Gnostic sects with the similar understanding that Gnosticism was not a monolithic tradition, but had many forms. Karen King, in What is Gnosticism?, dismantles the assumption that there was a monolithic entity called Gnosticism. The origins of the assumption date back to the early church fathers who created the dichotomy between orthodoxy and heresy, a dichotomy that still exists in religion and scholarship to this day (King 216). As I have defined it, these groups stretch from the communities that formed the Canonical and Gnostic gospels on to those that ended up employing them. The focus on this paper is not on the communities themselves, but on the writers of the gospels and how they employed miracle stories in their works and how they intended to affect their implied readers. The purpose of this is to obtain a better grasp of how each group viewed reality and employed rhetoric for the purposes of advancing their worldviews.

First, the metaphysical basis of varying approaches to miracle stories will be examined with an emphasis on Hume and Lewis’ positions. Luke will be used as representative of the Canonical gospel tradition. Each Gnostic gospel will be examined individually with the goal of surveying how each author used miracles. Finally, the results of the Canonical and Gnostic gospels’ attitudes towards miracles will be compared and contrasted.

I will argue that the Canonical and Gnostic gospels employed miracle stories with opposite effects. In the Canonical gospels, the primary set of miracle stories served a marketing function, drawing in the first and second century readers to the Canonical gospels. The immediacy of miracle stories to the gospel message formed what Hume would later term a “constant conjunction.” This constant conjunction served to link in the readers mind the practicality of the effects of the miracles and the way of life demanded by Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the gospels. The same power that manifested itself in the miracles was behind the teaching. Once this link of earthly benefits to earthly teaching had been established, a second set of miracle stories were employed to draw the reader to other-worldly benefits and to the corresponding set of other-worldly teachings. This is the opposite effect that the gospels of the Nag Hammadi Library intend to have on their readers. I will argue that the Nag Hammadi gospels, used miracles for a different function; the texts only employed miracles sparsely, using them to emphasize the divine spark in everyone and the priority of spirit over matter. Continue Reading »

• Christianity
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler February 2nd, 2007

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up–for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground– then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (Gen 2.5-8)

I am unconvinced with the literal version of Genesis one and two. There are lots of issues here, none of which I want to explore here in depth, at least in the post. There is no way that the earth was created in six 24-hour periods about six or seven thousand years ago. The empirical evidence simply does not support that conclusion. The particulars do not make sense either. Where did the light come from in Gen 1:3? It was not from Sola, because Sola is formed several days later in Gen 1:14, nor was it from God, because it would have always been there. Then there is the minor issue of there being two creation stories back-to-back. In the first one, man is formed after the plants are brought forth; while in the second, man is crafted before the plants. In addition, in the Gen 2 creation story, the text says that the creation of the heavens and earth only took one day.

There have been many a word typed and shouted in trying to formulate a picture of science that admits a young earth and a consistency between the stories in Genesis one and two. However, I have not heard a version that can successfully do this. What is my larger worry here? That, by maintaining these views, the church is driving people away from the good news of Jesus Christ.

In light of this, the first two stories in Genesis, in the whole Bible are myths and not literal word-for-word accounts of what physically happened. What do I mean by myth? I am not typing of a made up story that are completely false. Instead, I refer to a story, not an historical account, one that is true on one or several levels, even though it is not a historical “video-camera” account of what happened.

Ok, if the two stories are logically inconsistent and, based on the empirical evidence that we have, also not consistent with the leading theories of the origin and development of the universe and earth; then what do we do with them?

As I have stated before, I favor the divine fiat theory. I came across five other views over at Open Source Theology. Here are the five other ways to view this problem: Open Source Theology:: Genesis 1 as “True Myth”.

1. Genesis 1 fits within a literary genre of creation myths, but only Genesis 1 gets the story right.
2. Genesis 1 is a myth that eventually proves to be verifiable as truth.
3. Genesis 1 is a myth whose truth is to be found in the moral and metaphysical lessons it teaches.
4. Genesis 1 is a myth written by God.
5. Genesis 1 is part of an all-encompassing myth created by God that includes not just the Biblical text but also the “real world.”

They discuss these alternatives and talk a lot about the notion of real myth and what that means. I would recommend checking the article out and I hope you either share how you view the creation stories here or over there. I think this issue is of tremendous value and needs to be reconciled with our larger world-views. I maintain that both the earth is as old as it seems and that God inspired a true writing of Genesis one and two. Now, how exactly that works out, I don’t know - but damn I want to know.

LINKS:

• Open Source Theology:: Genesis 1 as “True Myth”.
• Answers in Genesis
• Institute for Creation Research
• Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look

This is cross posted at Theology for the Masses.

• Christianity , Religion , Science
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler January 23rd, 2007

Mark Noll’s work, America’s God, was primarily concerned with showing the unique interplay that occurred between American views of religion, political theory, and ideas of knowledge. He was primarily concerned with how the latter two ideas affected the first. The account is distinguished others in that Noll attempted to show 1) how unique and unexpected this development was, and 2) the role that the development of the commonsense theory of knowledge played. Noll focuses on the dominant trends in the above categories, specifically, Protestantism, republicanism, and a commonsense, or intuitional, theory of knowledge. None of these were uniquely American developments. Whether it was Protestantism from Europe, republicanism from France, or notions of commonsense from Scotland ; each was inherited. The combination of these factors resulted in the widespread adoption of Protestantism in America. The adoption of Protestantism reversed fortunes from their decline in influence in the mid to late 1700s to an adoption rate of 85% in 1860. Noll sees Jonathan Edwards as the premier shaper of American Theology. Everyone either utilized or had to respond to his work. The great north/south schism of Evangelicalism in early parts of the 1800’s aided the national rift over slavery and was a contributing factor in America’s decent into civil war. Continue Reading »

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(1)

Henry Imler January 23rd, 2007

Soon I need to come up with ideas for my thesis, ultimately picking a topic by the end of the semester. Here is a list of things I am kicking around along with my interests.

• Anything on the formulation of cannon in religion
• Anything on early Christianities and the level of doctrinal and actual laity difference.
• Heresy creation / Polemics over the years and their effect on the laity.
  • By Proto-Orthodox Christians
  • By Church fathers / Opposing bishops in church councils
  • By the Catholic Church
  • By the Leaders of Protestantism
  • In America by anti-Mormon leaders
  • By Modern Evangelical leaders
• The Relation of Philosophy and Science as the background of the formulations of Christianity
  • Utilization of Philosophies by Christians and the resulting sythesis
  • As philosophies and science change - the impact on the formulations of Christianity
  • Infancy Gospel of Thomas and Zeno
• Religion and Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle
  • Comparison between behaviors of similar scale in the movement of atoms and the religious patterns in Christianity
  • Use this as a structuralist view of religion
  • Show how large events with large populations of people can be predicted/modeled/described generally and historically
  • As you refine the picture, the ability to be predicted/modeled/described generally and historically declines with the scale
  • Set the limits of historical knowledge and embrace them as to limit errors in history and judgment
• Disconnect between denomination and the members

Those are some of the things that I have been interested in, but I know that my thesis will need to have a very specific question about a very specific group. We will see how it goes.

• Christianity , Personal
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler January 19th, 2007

Was Augustine’s transition from a libertarian to a determinist?

Abstract:

This post is taken from a paper submitted for my class on the life and works of Augustine. It posits a forum where three people are invited to give their interpretations of Augustine’s works. The papers are then followed up by a discussion on how or if Augustine’s thought developed throught his life.

Henry:

Continue Reading »

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(3)

Henry Imler December 8th, 2006

This paper will seek to plot out the relationship between the will, the salvific process and predestination in Augustine’s letter to Simplician, “De Diversis Quaestionibus Ad Simplicianum :”(I am using the translation by John H. S. Burleigh, Regius that was published in Augustine: Earlier Writings, Volume VI of the Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953. I have taken this translation from “Aggiornamento” on 10/5/2006. From here on out in the paper I will refer to this document as “Letter to Simplician.” )”: . ” The letter was a response to Simplician’s questions on the content of Romans 9.10-29. In Augustine’s exegesis, he wrestled with the question of why Esau was rejected and Jacob was accepted by God. There was a sense that Augustine is troubled by his conclusions; this was evident by his careful back and forth of objections and explanations. While a bit troublesome, it did lead to his final formulation of several important doctrines, or at least laid their foundations. His conclusion changed the way he and as a corollary, the Catholic Church and many of the Reformers, viewed salvation and free will. While his conclusions may have seemed in contrast to some of his earlier works:”(Augustine’s earlier work, On the Free Choice of the Will, suggests a libertarian view of free will that says that in order for there to be true love of God, there must be a choice to love or reject God. When this precept is taken to its conclusion, it excludes a pre-determining of human salvation.)”: , Augustine was committed to discovering the truth, even if it means admitting he was wrong:”(This is evidenced by the very existence of his work, Reconsiderations, where he goes through all of his previous works and makes corrections.)”:. This paper will show how Augustine came to modify his stance on libertarian free will and come to the conclusion that there was a consequence to Adam’s sin, namely that the will was unable to choose God. God selected some to have their wills amended so that they are free to choose him or not; of those enabled few, God had the foreknowledge of who will choose Him and who will not.
Continue Reading »

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(2)

Henry Imler December 2nd, 2006

It is easy to see why Augustine is quite possibly the most read Christian theologian. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is that Augustine wrote very early. He lived from 354 C.E. until 430 C.E. As such, his cone of influence is very large. I am taking Stephen Hawking’s idea of a light cone and applying to historical influence rather than limits on communication. Augustine had the opportunity, being rooted father back in time, than Calvin or Piper to affect more people and institutions with his thoughts. This is not the only reason, however, as there were many theologians that came before him. For example, Justin Martyr was born a quarter of a millennium before Augustine, yet most people know of him as a symbol and not of a “doctor and father of the Church.” This is because so much of Augustine’s work survived and that his cone was expanded due to the more solidified structure of the Church at the time of his writings. For instance, Justin Martyr combined all of the gospel accounts into one work that is lost to current scholars.

So far all of this points merely to the availability and possible influence of work. This is only one side of the coin; the other side is his content. Augustine wrote a great many works. In the Retractions, Augustine lists 93 title and 232 books, or chapters . These works had great appeal to people of all ages because some of his topics have a universal applicability. For example, people have been wrestling with lust in all ages since his writing. Some of his works are written on a level that is very accessible to the common reader, and some of his writings are writing at a very deep level. Some of his deeper writings, such as his treatise on the Trinity have led some to lament, “Augustine wrote volumes because he could not write succinctly.” It must be added that the quote in the preceding sentence is disingenuous and is only included to demonstrate that his writings were sometimes difficult for readers. In addition, Augustine wrote about specific conflicts within the Church during his time. This is of great interest to historians because it sheds light on the existence, topic, and his side of these conflicts.

In summation, Augustine wrote a lot, wrote well, wrote early, wrote on a variety of topics, and wrote for a variety of audiences. The combination of these factors contributes to his wide influence.

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler November 22nd, 2006

The answer: No… well, sort of. Here is how I got there. So, are Science and Religion opposed? No, they are not. In fact, they often work(ed) together. Religion is very much in the business of explaining reality. In doing so, they co-opt the science that makes the best sense to them. For example, Aquinas used Aristotle and Christianized him to the point to which the Catholic church made his science official Church dogma. Recent creationists try to use science that seems to agree with their aims to refute the science that does not. Hubble’s discovery of the motion of the galaxies was a boon to the hopes of creationists in general because the subsequent Big Bang theory implied there was a creator behind it, whereas the Steady State theory needed no such “ummph” to get it started. Now, the question is, are the creationists and atheists doing good science? I’ll leave this one with a quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.

I hear often the complaint that Science presupposes Naturalism. This is because Science simply does not concern itself with God. It measures; it devises theories; it explains. Science does an excellent job telling us:

• Who?
• What?
• When?
• How?

What it does not do is tell us why. Whats that? Do I hear an objection?

Wait a second Henry. Science tells me why water boils when it reaches 100°C!

Well, you see, it does not give us the meaning of why water boils when it does. Instead, it really tells you how water boils. Take any scientific question - or historic, for that matter. The same thing applies every time. The historian can assign meaning or significance to his or her narrative, but at that point, they are not really doing exact and pure history. They are grafting interpretations onto the text. Not that doing that is bad, but it is not pure history.

Religion, on the other hand, gives us this why that Science lacks by Science’s very nature.

So, are Religion and Science opposed? Yes. But only in their subject matters. Sir William Bragg put it best:

“Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything.”

This is how I can have a keen interest in both Religion and Science. I yearn to understand how the world works and why the world works.

• Christianity , Religion , Science
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler November 11th, 2006

The following is a rough draft of a paper in my Gospels as Literature class. Any and all suggestions are welcome in the comments.

Introduction

The purpose of this research paper is to analyze the use of miracle stories in the Canonical and Gnostic gospels. The canonical gospels will be used to represent the Orthodox Christian community in West Asia and the Mediterranean. The Gospels of the Nag Hammadi library and other notable Gnostic texts will be representative of the Gnostic sects with the understanding Gnosticism was not a monolithic tradition, but had many forms.

First, the metaphysical basis of varying approaches to miracle stories will be examined with an emphasis on Hume and Lewis’ positions. Luke will be used as representative of the Canonical Gospel tradition. Each Gnostic gospel will be examined individually with the goal of surveying how each author uses miracles. Finally, the results of the Canonical and Gnostic gospels’ attitudes towards miracles will be compared and contrasted.

I will argue that in the canonical gospels, the miracle stories served a marketing function, drawing in the first and second century readers to the canonical gospels. The immediacy of the miracle stories to the gospel message formed what Hume would later term a “constant conjunction:”(Hume explained cause and effect as a mere constant conjunction between two events. For Hume, this did not necessarily mean that the two events were casually connected, only that the two events were )”: .” This constant conjunction served to link in the readers mind the practicality of the effects of the miracles and the way of life demanded by Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the gospels. The same power that manifested itself in the miracles was behind the teaching. This is the opposite effect that the non-canonical gospels intend to have on their readers. I will argue that the non-canonical gospels, the Gnostic and Docetic texts in particular, use miracles for a different function. The Gnostic texts only employ miracles sparsely, using them to emphasize the divine spark in everyone and the priority of spirit over matter. Continue Reading »

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(5)

Henry Imler November 8th, 2006

In the letter, “To Simplician – On Various Questions,” Augustine wrestles with the question of why Esau was rejected by God and Jacob was accepted by God in conjunctions with Paul’s treatment in Romans 9.10-29. This creates a whole heaping mound of confusion for Augustine, but does lead him to several important doctrines, or at least lays some of the foundations of later doctrines. It is absolutely fundamental that humans are saved solely by God, so that none may boast. Augustine beings with the idea that God hated Esau and loved Jacob from before the time they were born. He then presents arguments on why this could not have been due to any deeds that they did, because the calling preceded their birth. Similarly, it was not done on account of their faith, for the same reason. Augustine then examines if God based the calling on his foreknowledge of either’s works. This cannot be the case, for this would imply that God does choose on the merit of the individual. It also could not have been a result of God’s foreknowledge of faith because grace precedes belief. For Augustine, the path of salvation follows the following sequence:

Calling → Birth → Grace → Hearing → Believing → Faith → Justification → Power to do good works

Augustine cannot find any reason for God to choose one over the other. He can find no reason for God to reject on over another. They are twins, so there is no ontological difference between the two. Augustine does maintain that God can have mercy on who he decides to have mercy on. There is a freedom there because all persons are sinners. He concludes that while there is a reason that God chose to love Jacob and not Esau, it is left unknown to humans. There is some discussion about God calling more than are chosen, but I was not able to ascertain his final position on the matter. The question here is, “Can a person reject the calling of God?” Augustine seems to think that a person can reject the calling, but not being chosen. How this works out exactly, I am not sure. The last section of the latter deals with the idea that the only people with true free will (the will to do good) are those that God elects. No other humans are able to truly do good works.

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(0)

Henry Imler October 20th, 2006

This short paper will seek to examine and refute Augustine’s view of Original Sin and the ability of the will to choose to turn towards God. It was Augustine view, and the view of the reformers after him, that if one denies these tenants, then one is forced to adopt the views of Pelagius, namely that Jesus was just an enlightened man. I will employ three arguments to discount Augustine’s above claims. The first one involves a logical extension of the personhood of Jesus. The second argument demonstrates the need for a total free will as a prerequisite for sin. The third argument gives an alternate understanding of how God can cause faith and at the same time, faith can be freely chosen. Finally, an alternate view of soteriology will be given. |inline

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(0)