It also makes it hard when one adds to the mix that this friend has been quite critical of my own beliefs many times and was not apparently overconcerned about tact and my feelings (although to be fair most of it was when he was not a Roman Catholic but rather something much more liberal). I managed to avoid most offense and hurt simply by realizing that he was sadly mistaken (from my perspective, of course). Can he not do this for my words? He wants me to cherish his cherishing of his beliefs nearly as much as he cherishes them. But I cannot do that.
At the same time, I have no desire to tear down someone's religion for the sake of destruction. And I do not want to argue about disagreements of theology unless doing so will be positively productive in some way. It is clear that my friend finds very dear the religious institution that is the Catholic Church. I do not. He believes it is near exactly the proper expression of God's true church, and I do not. To me, it is a human political institution invaded by Stuff.
So how do I answer the charge, then, that what I believe is shamelessly invented? Dawkins lists later in his book many "embarassing" things that a Christian/Catholic has to say he believes. Looking at those, I do in fact believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. I don't believe that during the Eucharist, bread and juice turn into Jesus's flesh and blood, even in a spiritual way. To an atheist, the one is hardly different than the other: both bizarre, unbelievable that an intelligent person could believe this, plainly invented by humans and ultimately laughable.
I cannot in this one short post address all the reasons why I believe as I do. Yes, it does have to do with the Bible. Yes, it does have to do with the historical veracity of the events recorded there. And there is a lot more to it than that.
You know, people love to flesh out the details. Speculation easily becomes certainty. "O.J. Simpson committed suicide!" a coworker told me one afternoon. Oh, wait, he hadn't done that after all. But she sure wanted to believe it. It made such a juicy story.
None of this proves anything. We all already know that people have a ridiculous tendency to credulousness, in religious matters and in non-religious matters. I am sure that I believe some things that are false, and probably ridiculous in retrospect. I have some thought to do before I'll be able to say much more on this topic.
But one thing that occurs to me is that I only want to worry about beliefs that add to the good news of Jesus' work on the cross and the availability of forgiveness to all who repent of their rebellion from God. Anything that is a side issue, unimportant to The Main Thing, I think is better to abandon except for speculative entertainment. This leaves me defending much less, and including many people who ought to be included. Rituals and doctrines and Extra Things that aren't crucial have the potential for getting in the way of our following Christ and having a good witness to the world.
It is enough to defend a miracle like Jesus's virgin birth. I don't need other difficult things to defend that have far less evidence. Does it make any difference to what Christianity is actually about whether or not Mary was assumed bodily into heaven? No. Does it make a difference to the core of Christianity whether Mary was a virgin at Jesus's conception? Yes.
There are many miracles that Jesus performed that are not in the Bible. A tradition of what those were probably was passed down for many years. And if that tradition kept going until today, it could even be true. But that it could be true does not mean the story need be told. Were the writers of the New Testament in error to not write down just that one more miracle that Jesus performed, that if we only knew it for sure our relationship with God would be bettered? I don't think that. I think that what's in the Bible is enough.
Turning back to capital-R Religion, I have used the historical corruption and fallacy of the Mormon Church and of the Watchtower & Tract Society as arguments that my listener's religions were untenable. And when I think about the Roman Catholic Church, things like indulgences and Martin Luther come to mind. While some of the worst parts of the Catholic Church were fixed in badly needed reforms, how do we know that all the parts that needed reform got it? Did Paul practice indulgences? If not, then it crept in along the way. There go the arguments for the weight of the long Christian/Catholic history. How long someone has done something doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Indulgences were as much a principal and cherished canon of faith to Catholics back then. Ought I to be any more charitable to things like Mary over-veneration as Luther was to indulgences? I cannot imagine a good reason to keep the official doctrine of the Catholic church at so many junctures. It is not an organization that God has protected from error (that much is clear). And I don't look to any human organization to be God's vehicle for me.
Considering indulgences and rejecting the Catholic Church is not the same as considering the crusades and rejecting Christianity or rejecting religion entirely. The fact is that indulgences were not true Christianity and Christ-following: the corruption accrues to the political institution or to individual people, not to Christ himself. The crusades accrue to capital-R religiosity and the evilness of individual people, not to the teachings of Christ.
There is no law against love, faith, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self-control. But I believe in a moral and spiritual law against self-made religion. And my mind and my heart both say that there is too much self-made religion in the Catholic religion.
No institution is my religion. I am not Catholic, but I am part of the catholic (little c, that is, universal) church because I am part of the body of Christ, which consists of all who truly follow him. I don't need any other identification. I attend a Baptist church. I am even involved in church leadership there. But I am not a Baptist.
The Bible New American Standard Version
1 Corinthians 3:4-5
For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.
I am not a Paulist. I am not a Catholic. I am not an Apollonian. I am not a Baptist. I am a Christ-follower.
So anyway, what do I do? How do I respect people's religious beliefs when I disagree strongly with them? Dawkins says, and he is right, that in our society one often is not allowed to criticize someone's sincerely held religious beliefs. Muslims are allowed to wear turbans instead of motorcycle helmets. But only because it's a religious belief. There has to be a line somewhere, and I believe there is. But who gets to draw the line? An atheist, with his own religious beliefs (at least, beliefs full of content about the same topics as religious beliefs address)? That doesn't sound so good either.
So much is unclear. But I will press on and do my best to in all things love God, and love my neighbor, and do precious little else.
2007-10-26: I edited the paragraph about the Eucharist to correct some minor details. They don't change the meaning of my words.
No comments:
Post a Comment