Faith, Orthodoxy and Scholarship

[Civitate_Dei]

Hello all

I just wanted to engage in a discussion regarding my experiences of studying theology for two years and how it revealed a great gulf between orthodox Christian belief and modern critical scholarship.

Well about myself I come from a Pentecostal background but I was never that devout and never read the Bible. After several bad experiences in Pentecostal churches when I was 18 I drifted into agnosticism and became very anti-Christian as I had been very badly hurt by them. My attitudes changed after I had a supernatural experience that I couldn’t explain away. I then became quite interested in Catholicism and I decided I should increase my knowledge of Christianity by studying theology. Though I did learn a lot from my studies much of what I was taught led me to constantly question my beliefs. At the beginning it was fine as I had a professor who was quite orthodox and he often examined both the liberal and orthodox viewpoints of scholars on different issues in a very even way. This suited me fine as I had quite orthodox views.

However things changed when I had a class taught by the head of the faculty of theology. She was a Sister of Mercy and also a feminist scholar with some very unorthodox views ( which is quite surprising coming from a nun). She taught us that the council of Nicea was responsible for the invention of the trinity and deity of Christ as and before the 4th century Christians didn’t believe Jesus was divine. She then went on to claim that (as many New Testament scholars do) that the Christology in the New Testament evolved from Jesus being a fully human Messiah in the synoptic Gospels, to a more highly revered messianic figure in the Gospel of John akin to an elevated spirit of some kind. According to her the Logos poem at the beginning of the Gospel of John didn’t mean that Jesus was divine but was the embodiment of divine wisdom.

I told her that her interpretation is contradicted by the Philippian hymn ( Philippians 2 5-11) where St Paul states that Jesus was in the form of God, was equal with God but emptied himself out of humility and thus entered into human form as a slave and was obedient till the point of death on the cross. I said to her that this hymn was written before the first Gospel and is considered by scholars to be a far earlier hymn which St Paul is in fact quoting in Philippians which proves that the earliest Christians did believe Jesus was divine. She just looked at me dismissively and said that there were other ways of understanding that passage. I later read that some scholars just claim this passage is about Adam and that form of god just means image of god not deity (which I disagree with)

She went on to teach us that the virgin birth was solely the result of St Matthews’s theologizing in an effort to try and explain away the “problem” as she called it which was Mary’s pregnancy out of wedlock. She taught us that as the Gospels were written anonymously ( something many scholars believe) that they are just hearsay and that the gospel authors constantly put words in Jesus’ mouth and recorded events which never happened. She taught us that the beatitudes are not traceable to the historical Jesus as they only appear in Matthew. Similarly she rejected the Lord’s prayer. She argued that the Gospel of Matthew was a polemic against Paul’s law free Gospel and that it presented an alternate form of Christianity.

 

[Civitate_Dei]

I missed several classes and a classmate told me she even went as far as to say that Jesus was gay ( based on the Secret Gospel of Mark) and even that Jesus was a woman. I did some research about her online and found out that she was in some “Catholic” new age feminist movement and had given talks where she said Jesus was just a prophet of the goddess Sophia and displayed a picture of Jesus on the cross as a woman.

Another nun who was a Dominican, taught us that God was all inclusive and was at work in all other religions. She said that Christians focus to much on the death of Jesus rather than his teachings. And she gave us an assignment by a feminist Bible scholar that we had to write about. The article went as far as suggesting that we refer to God as a mother as some theologians do in South America due to the indigenous belief in some goddess Pachamama.

Similarly many of the books I read also did make me question my beliefs a lot. One book claimed that the earliest Christians were just Jewish monotheists who believed in Jesus as a human messiah who was adopted by god during his baptism by John. This group later became known as the Ebionites and they were associated with the Jerusalem Church. After the victory of St Paul’s law free Gospel and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD it was argued that there was a great influx of gentile believers incorporated their pagan beliefs into Christianity which resulted in the deity of Christ and the trinity which came from Greco-Roman polytheism and from the belief in demigods.

I also found out that many scholars believe that the historical Jesus was just a Jewish Rabbi and nothing more and that he was executed as he was a political threat and that the disciples faked the resurrection to keep the political movement going. They view everything beyond that understanding of Jesus to be later invention and mythmaking.

The Gospel of John with it’s high Christology (deification of Christ) is rejected by many scholars as having nothing to do with historical Jesus as its depiction of Jesus is quite different from the synoptics and none of the sayings in john appear in the synoptics which were written far earlier. It is argued that it was written later than the synoptics because of the logos poem shows influence of Hellenism , specifically from the Hellenized Jew Philo of Alexandria who wrote towards the end of the first century. It was argued that He wrote about the logos in the same sense as John . Similarly the references to being thrown out of synagogues in John places the gospel around 90 AD

 

[Civitate_Dei]

All this left me very confused and depressed as I had quite Orthodox views and everywhere I looked there was teaching that I considered heretical and erroneous. I decided to take a break from theology and though I never gave up on Christianity, much of this stuff still bothers me at times.

I began to realise much of what modern scholarship considers to be fact is in fact just based on speculation and there is very little concrete evidence for their conclusions. Like dating the gospel of john to 90 AD because of a reference to being thrown out of synagogues. Or dating the synoptics to after 70 AD due to Jesus’ references to the temple’s destruction which indicates they were written afterwards as the historical Jesus was just a man and obviously had no supernatural powers. This chronology is also responsible for their suggestion that the gospels were written anonymously as if they are right they are written to late to be by the apostles. Which if this is the case they are not eyewitness accounts and are myths and supposition which needs to be sifted through to get back to the historical Jesus. So it is a self supporting system which enables a great deal of assumption and supposition in order to get back to the “historical Jesus” who is hidden in the gospels. But the gospels primary focus is theology not history which is not to say that they have no historical value but does that mean that such a methodology is valid? The quest for the historical Jesus is thus based on the assumption conditioned by our modern culture that Jesus just cant be God, that what we have in the New Testament is a largely corrupted view of Jesus . The questions you ask of a text determine the answers you get. So is it any surprise that so many scholars do not believe in the deity of Christ and believe the gospels are largely myth? I began to think that much of modern scholarship tells us more about us and our “modern outlook” more than it does about the Bible. To me modern scholarship removes faith and god out of the equation all together so we have an entirely human understanding of Christianity.

Modern scholarship does a lot to undermine Orthodox Christian belief . Can it be any surprise that Christianity in the west is in such a sorry state as pastors and members of the clergy do not believe in its fundamental doctrines? So many people have lost their faith due to studying theology. Even worse atheists and members of other religions (especially Muslims) use our own scholarship to constantly attack our faith. I believe that much of modern critical scholarship can takes us away from a relationship with Jesus an instead leaves us with a faint glimpse of him conditioned by the use of various methodologies appropriated from various other disciplines. I believe that when we do interpret the bible we should be led in our interpretation by the Holy Spirit.

Many here will probably disagree with me over what i have said and say I’m a fundamentalist due to my Pentecostal upbringing. I do not view myself as being a fundamentalist as I do not prescribe to fundamentalist doctrines. I do not believe in inerrancy which I think was largely an attempt to replace the authority of the Catholic Church with that of the Bible and was largely a conservative reaction to modern pressures on Christianity. I think just has Christ had two indivisible natures , divine and human so to is the Bible divine and human. The Gospels do contain minor contradictions but these do not remove divine action as I believe that the overall message came from God. That being that God came to earth in the person of Jesus , he died on the cross for our sins and rose again. God did not dictate them word for word as many believe. The New Testament authors would have probably been shocked at the idea that what they were writing is God’s word verbatim but rather would view their overall message as coming from God. I view inerrancy as largely removing the texts from their historical contexts and treating them as God speaking directly to people 2000 years later. That is not to say that he doesn’t communicate with us through scripture but we have to realise the text’s prime objective which led to its composition when we interpret it. For example when we interpret an epistle our interpretation has to be informed by an understanding of what was going on in the communities which were being written to.

Rather than being a fundamentalist I view myself as orthodox as I believe in finding a balance between both extremes . I believe in the faith which our ancestors followed in for 2000 years rather than either modern take on it based on either conservatism or skepticism.

Anyway I realise this was a long post but it helps to “put my feelings down on paper”
I would like to hear any comments , if anyone had any similar experiences or anyone’s take on the issue I raised? I just felt that we really need to talk about this as it is a silent battle that is waged in the hearts of minds of believers all over the world. I’m not writing this to attack anyone’s belief but my conclusions based on my experiences. At the end of the day The “historical Jesus” is just a reconstruction of how modern interpreters imagine him to be and it requires as much faith to believe in it as it does to believe in the orthodox view

Peace

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’ve heard these views before, but primarily from people who were amazed that anyone held them. I’m not sure what your instructor thought or said she was teaching, but it’s certainly not Catholic theology.

It may be that some or even many people hold these views, but from what I’ve heard and read it seems that they’re becoming less popular now, fortunately. If you want to see some orthodox Catholic views, I’d suggest checking out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger).

 

[EzraJacob]

Its sad to hear such. How can a Nun have such crazy views as you say she did? Wouldn’t one get kicked out of the order?

 

[Civitate_Dei]

I’ve heard these views before, but primarily from people who were amazed that anyone held them. I’m not sure what your instructor thought or said she was teaching, but it’s certainly not Catholic theology.

It may be that some or even many people hold these views, but from what I’ve heard and read it seems that they’re becoming less popular now, fortunately. If you want to see some orthodox Catholic views, I’d suggest checking out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger).

Yes well our university theology department isnt catholic and it has faculty members from all denominations. The sad thing is quite a few scholars hold these views, even catholic ones. Critical scholarship is constantly at odds with orthodox views and it causes many to lose faith.

 

[Civitate_Dei]

Its sad to hear such. How can a Nun have such crazy views as you say she did? Wouldn’t one get kicked out of the order?

Yes that’s what I was wondering. I thought a nun would be quite conservative in her views. However I did read a report that her order was quite involved in new age stuff. I don’t know if its true though. I think her views are just stupid but when you question her she just reacts like im a scholar i got a PHD and your nothing sort of thing. Im glad I don’t have to put up with her anymore

 

[EzraJacob]

Yes that’s what I was wondering. I thought a nun would be quite conservative in her views. However I did read a report that her order was quite involved in new age stuff. I don’t know if its true though. I think her views are just stupid but when you question her she just reacts like im a scholar i got a PHD and your nothing sort of thing. Im glad I don’t have to put up with her anymore

I would think that since these nuns are not following the teaching of the Church, then they would be excommunicated.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

Sorry to say , I find your posts quite plausible . But remember , the history of the Church is replete with heterodoxy , schismatics and heresies , even from the very beginning .
You said your Theology Dept . was not Catholic , what was the religious affiliation ?
These" Catholic Theologians " Need to be challenged ( with facts/proof sources) , not let off the hook , refuted and reported . This heterodoxy is capable of leading people away from faith and is a cause of public scandal !

I enjoyed your exposition on the " Historical Jesus " , I think it’s very true . In some part , I think these " Theologians " fall victim to the sin of pride ( but that’s easy to say since pride is the father of all sins ) .

Thankfully , there are other ( and more plentiful ) sources for Catholic Theology . I attened a Jesuit University ( '69- '73 ) and never had this problem , and I took several elective Theology courses beyond my requirements .

Good luck !

 

[Civitate_Dei]

Sorry to say , I find your posts quite plausible . But remember , the history of the Church is replete with heterodoxy , schismatics and heresies , even from the very beginning .
You said your Theology Dept . was not Catholic , what was the religious affiliation ?
These" Catholic Theologians " Need to be challenged ( with facts/proof sources) , not let off the hook , refuted and reported . This heterodoxy is capable of leading people away from faith and is a cause of public scandal !

I enjoyed your exposition on the " Historical Jesus " , I think it’s very true . In some part , I think these " Theologians " fall victim to the sin of pride ( but that’s easy to say since pride is the father of all sins ) .

Thankfully , there are other ( and more plentiful ) sources for Catholic Theology . I attened a Jesuit University ( '69- '73 ) and never had this problem , and I took several elective Theology courses beyond my requirements .

Good luck !

my theology department had faculty members from all different denomonations with no particular religious affiliation. yes i know there has been many different sects throughout the history of Christianity but what i believe to be the correct is the faith that has the earliest evidence and that is orthodoxy (even though most liberal scholars ignore the evidence) yes so many theologians are proud and try to reason away everything which i think is sooo wrong. im glad your university did not teach this stuff. I and some others tried challenging this stuff all she would do is look down her nose at you as if you were nothing and as she was such a great scholar you couldn’t question her