withallyourmind.net

Continued from previous post…

It seems to me that Hick fails in his attempt to support pluralism and refute the orthodox Christian teaching that salvation only comes through Christ and his teachings. Formally, Hick’s argument might be stated thusly:

1. A religion which possesses a superior understanding of the Ultimate will also produce adherents which are morally superior to those of other religions.
2. All religions produce morally equivalent adherents.
3. Therefore, no religion has a superior understanding of the Ultimate.

There are other ways, or course, to make this argument, but, I think, the preceding argument fairly represents it. The argument is valid, that is, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. I will grant premise 2, although there may be reason some might not grant it. Premise 1, however, is where I think Hick’s argument really fails. There is no necessary connection between the truthfulness of a religion’s teachings and the morality of its adherents. It may be reasonable to expect that a true religion might generally produce moral followers, but one cannot judge the truth value of the propositions of any religion based on the morality of its adherents. Additionally, there is no reason to expect that only followers of the true religion will be moral. There could be (and are) many other religions that might produce moral actions. The infusion of the issue of morality into a discussion of which religion more accurately understands the world merely confuses the issue. Hick has not established morality as a criterion of truth.

The point is there is no direct correlation between the truth of a religious claim and the morality of those who believe it. It is also important to note that orthodox Christians do not argue for the superiority of their beliefs on the basis of their moral superiority. In fact, I don’t know any thinking Christian who claims moral superiority. So, Hick is misguided in his attempt to deny orthodox Christian teaching and embrace pluralism based on an assessment of which religion, if any, is morally superior to the others.

John Hick, in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, argues against the orthodox Christian view of salvation based on a number of arguments, one of which is a comparison of Christian morality with that of other world religions. He advocates a pluralistic approach to religion (that all religions are equally valid or true) and rejects the view that orthodox Christianity provides the only means of salvation. Hick states:

I have not found that the people of the other world religions are, in general, on a different moral and spiritual level from Christians. They seem on average to be neither better nor worse than are Christians. (p 39)

Presupposing a universal moral ideal to which all religions point, he concludes based on his own observations that…

… the virtues and vices seem to be spread more or less evenly among human beings, regardless of whether they are Christians or… Jews, Muslims, Hindus (including Sikhs), or Buddhists. (p 40-41)

Hick continues his argument by concluding that…

… one cannot establish the unique superiority of any one of the great world religions. (p 42)

He then asserts that the soteriological power of each world religion “can only be humanly judged by their human fruits,” (p 44) which are found in somewhat equal proportion among those religions. Finally, Hick claims:

It therefore seems logical to me to conclude that not only Christianity, but also these other world faiths, are human responses to the Ultimate… (and) they seem to constitute more or less equally authentic human awareness of and response to the Ultimate. (p 44-45)

Next post… my response.

Nancy Haught, of the Religion News Service, penned this article which I read in my local newspaper, the Lakeland Ledger. Haught offers a tribute to Marcus Borg, a liberal theologian who was part of the Jesus Seminar, who is retiring from Oregon State University.

At 64, Borg is a public theologian and a private mystic. He writes best-selling books on theology and reads murder mysteries. He was trained at Oxford University and teaches at Oregon State. He lives in a neighborhood overflowing with espresso, but drinks Taster’s Choice instant decaf.

But mostly, his is a polite and nontraditional voice in an often intense conversation about who Jesus was and what his life may mean to his modern followers.

Borg talks, primarily, to three decidedly different groups: his students, who are mostly undergraduates; his readers, who are mostly Christians who question long-held beliefs about Jesus; and his critics, who are mostly evangelical or orthodox Christians, who confess their beliefs in familiar terms. Jesus was, the last say, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, suffered for human sins, died, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and will come again.

Borg sees Jesus differently.

Haught claims that Borg sees Jesus and the Bible as a “mixture of memory and metaphor.” Borg offers his version of Christianity:

For me, to believe a set of statements is impossible… (What is possible is to “belove” Jesus and walk in his path.) For the past 300 years, faith was a matter of believing a list of beliefs about Jesus. The list varied among Christians - that Jesus was the son of God, that he was born of a virgin, that the tomb was empty on Easter morning. But in the pre-modern world, before about 1600, the object of belief was never a statement. It was always a person. To believe meant to belove a person. To belove Jesus means more than simply loving Jesus. It means to love what Jesus loved. That is at the heart of Christianity.

Borg reinterprets (incorrectly) centuries of Christianity. I’m sure Thomas Aquinas (1265-1274) would be surprised to know he really didn’t write the massive Summa Theologica, providing a comprehensive treatment of Christian theology, or what Christians believe. I’m sure Augustine would also be surprised to find out that he didn’t actually write On Christian Doctrine or The City of God. Borg is just completely wrong in suggesting that before 1600 the church did not care about doctrine.

Borg presents us here with a false dichotomy, two extemes which have led astray many throughout the centuries of Christian experience. Borg finds himself at one of these extremes. Christianity is not an either/or proposition when it comes to relationship and doctrine. One must not choose between knowing Christ and knowing true doctrine. Attempting to relate to Christ without understanding what he taught is futile, while attempting to know what he taught without knowing him is also misdirected.

Borg was correct in stating we must love what Jesus loved. But one of the things Jesus loves is truth! To reduce Christianity to “beloving” without any reference to “believing” is to ignore the teaching of the New Testament. Now, Borg certainly does not view the Bible as the Word of God, but rather as the result of human effort, however, he could at least be true to what the scripture actually teaches.

True Christianity is consists of “beloving” and “believing”. Either without the other is only a part of what it means to be a Christian. Borg’s Christianity is not truly Christianity at all. To attempt to bake a cake while leaving out half the ingredients does not produce a cake. Whatever one ends up with, will not be a cake. To suggest that one can be a Christian and ignore the truth claims of Christianity will not produce Christianity, rather an impotent, dangerous form of pluralistic, inclusivistic religion.

I have just come across an an unusual story which has moved me deeply. Joshua Bell, former child prodigy and internationally acclaimed violinist who has just been named the recipient of the Avery Fisher prize as the best classical musician in America stood in a busy Washington D.C. metro station and played some of the most beautiful music ever written on one of the most beautiful musical instrumnets ever made, a 3-plus million dollar, 1713, Antonio Stradivari violin.

He was, for the most part, completely ignored by 1097 passers-by while he played exquisite, moving classical music for almost 45 minutes. This Washington Post article is great. You can also listen to the entire 45 minute concert in the metro here.

There is something sad about our inability to stop and appreciate rare beauty, to put our lives on hold for a moment and be moved by genius. The article asserts:

If we can’t take the time out of our lives to stay a moment and listen to one of the best musicians on Earth play some of the best music ever written; if the surge of modern life so overpowers us that we are deaf and blind to something like that — then what else are we missing?

In the three-quarters of an hour that Joshua Bell played, seven people stopped what they were doing to hang around and take in the performance, at least for a minute. Twenty-seven gave money, most of them on the run — for a total of $32 and change. That leaves the 1,070 people who hurried by, oblivious, many only three feet away, few even turning to look.

From The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (p112), Habermas writes:

Miracles by their nature, point beyond themselves to a message of religious significance. Jesus claimed that his miracles were indications that his message was true. This would especially apply to his resurrection. Objections fail to alter this stance.

Jesus made some rather exalted personal statements, chiefly by using the titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” among other teachings. Further, he claimed to be God’s unique agent in establishing the Kingdom. The eternal destiny of his hearers depended on their response to his call.

I pointed out many reasons why god raising Jesus from the dead is best understood as His placing His stamp of approval on Jesus’s entire message. This is by far the best conclusion regarding the meaning of this event. Other options inqdequately address the historicity of the resurrection, the evidence for theism, and/or Jesus’s messsage.

For these reasons, then, we may affirm the truth of Jesus’s teachings… concerning himself and his message of the Kingdom… Jesus called his listeners to respond to him and his message, since he was God’s personal agent of salvation… These teachings would especially be vindicated by Jesus’s resurrection.

This work of art is from the Biblia Sacra suite by Salavador Dali. The Biblia Sacra, illustrated by Salvador Dali was commissioned by Dali’s good friend, Giuseppe Albaretto. Albaretto’s interest in securing the commission from Dali was to lead the artist to God. He believed that studying the Bible, Dali would once again be drawn to the Christian faith, fearing that through the influence of Dali’s wife, Gala, the artist was risking his spiritual redemption.

This particular piece is titled, “Tolle, tolle, crucifige eum,” taken from John 19:15, “They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!”

On this Good Friday, Al Mohler discusses the meaning of the cross for the Christian. This discussion, here, is prompted by Anglican Dr. Jeffrey Philip Hywel John’s comments that the traditional understanding of the cross is “repulsive” and “insane.” Rejecting the apostolic preaching of the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice, John argues:

The explanation I was given went something like this. God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price of our sins, and because of him God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him.

As Mohler points out, this is pretty much the biblical understanding of the cross. However, John continues:

Well, I don’t know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we’d say they were a monster… the most basic truth about God’s nature is that He is Love, not wrath and punishment.

Mohler argues:

There are really only two options available for explaining what the Son of God was accomplishing on that cross. The first option is that taught by the church for centuries — that the meaning of the cross is objective, revealing God’s objective satisfaction in accepting the obedience of the Son, even unto death on a cross, as the payment for sin. This is what Dr. John now explicitly rejects.

The second option is to define the meaning of the cross in essentially subjective terms, arguing that Christ dies in order to effect a change in us, rather than in God. This is a foundational teaching of Protestant liberalism, but it creeps into far too many evangelical pulpits as well.

The ground of our salvation is the substitutionary atonement accomplished by Christ. Our response in faith to Christ is essential to our experience of salvation, but the work of our salvation us fully accomplished by Christ.

We are left with an unavoidable choice. We must stand with the Apostle Paul in seeing the cross as the place where God is shown to be both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Or, we must stand with Dr. John… in describing the New Testament’s teaching of the cross as “insane” and a form of “cosmic child abuse.” On this question there is no middle ground.

On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble of men. there is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him “Are you the son of Bramah?” he would have said, “My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.” If you had gone to Socrates and asked, “Are you Zeus?” he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, “Are you Allah?” he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, “Are you Heaven?” I think he would have probably replied, “Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.” The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egge, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced maintly three effects - Hatred - Terror - Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.

C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, “What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?” (1950), para 3, pp. 157-158
(Almost all “Quotable Lewis” posts are taken from The Quotable Lewis, edited by Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root)

Scriptorium (previously linked to as Middlebrow) has now added one of the foremost Christian philosophers to its list of bloggers. J. P. Moreland now joins John Mark Reynolds, Fred Sanders, Greg Peters, and Paul Spears as contributors to this excellent blog which describes itself in this way:

By actively engaging in the conversations of today’s culture and challenging the predominant, non-Christian worldviews therein, the Scriptorium is an winsome, thoughtful, active Christian voice in the marketplace of ideas.

Moreland’s first contribution addresses the question of whether the desire to avoid hell is egotistical. Part I of his response is found here (Part II is next week). Moreland sets up the problem:

Recently the topic of Hell has been in the news. In case you were entirely unaware, yes, Hell is in fact a real place (as Pope Benedict reminded us just last week). Hell, being an altogether unpleasant place, is not a destination where many desire to go, but is this desire to avoid Hell egotistical?

As a matter of commonsense, must people recognize that if one does his/her moral dusty solely because of self-interest, then one has not really done one’s duty. If I am kind to a friend totally because it makes me happy or look good in front of others, I haven’t really been kind, I have faked it to look good. I have acted egotistically. To count as my moral duty, I must do an act at least in part because it is the right thing to do.

The first part of his answer concerns the distinction between a motive and a reason. For more, read his post.

This concludes my 9-part review of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.

Finally, Ehrman expresses his sentiment that one should not be too harsh on the scribes for their tendency to change the text. After all, we all do it! He informs us that he has now given up on his…

… rather unsophisticated view of reading: that the point of reading a text is simply to let the text ‘speak for itself,’ to uncover the meaning inherent in it words. The reality, I came to see, is that meaning is not inherent and texts do not speak for themselves.

In his conclusion, Ehrman espouses a postmodern worldview. Ehrman argues one creates his own meaning in the text as he reads it. Meaning is what the reader says it is, not what the author originally intended. Kruger comments:

Of course, if this is true, then one wonders why Ehrman wrote this book in the first place… Ehrman’s own book shows that he assumes some agreed-upon reality with his reader where words mean things and texts can be understood – including his own.

I conclude with Ben Witherington’s final assessment of Misquoting Jesus:

This author has a strong ax to grind, and the fact that he grinds it well in fluid prose makes it all the more beguiling. As my granny used to say – Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out!