2fmmempty@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (04/06/91)
In article <Apr.5.03.09.13.1991.9562@athos.rutgers.edu>, art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Arthur L Miller) writes: > The original thread addressed the role of women in the church, but this > last paragraph alone raises an important issue: Who is to say which > passages are important and which ones are insignificant? Is it up to each > person to decide for him/herself? If we're looking for ways to rationalize > away certain passages in the Bible, the necessary excuses will *always* > present themselves. For every issue of faith, there always exists a way > to explain it to a different meaning. You have touched on something that I have been giving thought to for a while. Whose view of Christianity do we go by. Christ had much to say about how we live our lives, but little to say about church doctrine, or what was the official christian way to live. In trying to sell Christianity to the Romans Paul developed a kind of Christianity that would be acceptable to the Romans, Hellenized Jews, and many other Christians drawing some on what was written by Greek and Roman Philosophers, Aristotilean mostly but some from the Platonic and Stoic Philosophies. Here it gets real messy, with the church becoming a kind of government for a holy empire, guidelines became laws, and interpretation had to be kept from the common people to insure some coherency within Christianity. Pogroms were begun to weed out heretical people and literature even at this early stage, the offical church cannon was adopted (and is pretty much what is still with us) for political reasons as well as concerns about accuracy. It was the founding of a government. It has only been recently that christian texts outside of church cannon have surfaced (last hundred years or so) with the Nag Hamadi Library. We finally have been able to see what early Christians thought by their own writings and versions of the gospels. Versions we only knew previously through the writings against these early heretical Christians by offical church clergy. Elaine Pagels is a good source for understanding these early writings that would probably be easier than trying to weed through bad translations of the Nag Hamadi Library for those who are interested. Anyway, a real Schism occurs early on in Christian though with the Platonic Christians following a sort of Augustinian Doctrine and the Aristotilean Christians following the Thomistic doctrine. Augustus takes a real fall/redemption theology emphasising our fall from grace and need to become whole again through Christ. This is the theology most common today. The Thomistic haveing been brushed aside along with the Aristotilean Worldview by the Geo-centric cosmology of Renaisance Philosophers during the Copernican Revolution. But the Thomistic Philosophy was one of a world of wonder and blessing that reveals to us the nature of god through the teacings of Christ. The Universal Priesthood of man as proposed by Luther did little to solve the problems of this split in Religious Philosophies... With interpretation returned to man, luther supposed that our faith would guide us in understanding. But we see many different interpretations, and many claims to more or less truth, or revelation of scriptural meanings. Causing there to be many interpretations instead of one offical Church Doctrine. I think most see Christianity as Static, and the scriptures they read as always having meant the same thing throughout time, but the interpretation of the scriptures has always been effected by the philosophies of the times, and there is no reason to suppose that our revelation now is any more or less correct than those of the past. It only seems more correct from our standing in time and culture. If God had meant for there to be one lasting meaning to the bible, or one interpretation of Christs Death, or one anything, he appears to be doing one of three things... remaining silent on the matter, revealing to one specific group the true meanign of his word... you pick which one, or he is giving out different meanings to different people. For me, I see no reason why the works of the bible should be interpreted as having one static, or even literal meaning. It seems frought with the errors prone to man, and not, no matter how often it says so in the bible, the infallible, unchanging word of God. It may be good for us to do as Christ did and use scripture as a guideline for our living rather than as commandments... perhaps even see this as our new covenant with Christ. It may even be wise for us to research the origins f Christ's thoughts within the teachings of Rabbi Hilel, who basically said everything Christ said years before Christ was borne, and was a great influence on the area in which Christ was raised. It may even be to our spiritual benefit to realize that Christs image is not static either, and may appear in many different ways. It is common amoung Protestant churches of the US to image Christ as a White Anglo Saxon sort of man. But many Christan groups have seen him in different ways. An early movement in the US for example saw Christ as reincarnated in a Woman. The Shakers believed that Christ's Second coming had occured in their time, and that Ann Lee was that incarnation. They had what is called a realized Echetology, believing that they now lived in a perfect world, decided to live perfectly until that hour they were taken to heaven. The movement was VERY successful, and very devout, and it would be difficult to say that they did not live a very Christian life. Perhaps they were not wrong. At least not for them. For them, the image of Ann Lee was the image of Christ and in no way compromized their belief in Christ or the teachings found in the bible. In a similar way people currently suffering under oppression have imaged Christ in yet another way, also as a woman.. a black woman. Images of the Sophia Christa emphasize the teachings of liberation in the bible... and are common in liberation theology. This changing image of Christ makes Christ accessable to all people, appearing in the manner in which he is most acceptable to them, to their time, and to their needs. So you see there are many different interpretations of scripture, interpretations of Christ, emphasis on different aspects... but they do have one unifying theme in their answering the needs of the people. And I think that is what Christ was really all about.. God answering the needs of his people... we the people of the moist and fertile earth. A sort of Consider the lilies approach to Christianity. By the fundamental teachings of Christ we can learn what goodness can lie in human nature. and what evil can be done by the corruption of that word. Perhaps the best deciding factor in whether an interpretation is good or not, is in how its adherants flurish and prosper under that teaching.. and I am not talking money and power, but true happiness and contentment. I am late now... gotta run. Stephen 2fmmempty@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu > > > -- > Arthur Miller | art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu > Northwestern University | Congratulations to the Kansas Jayhawks > Class of 1991 | on a great season & NCAA tournament!