"So what does it mean to claim that the truth affirmed by Christianity is not a description but an event, not a fact to be grasped but an incoming to be undergone? It means that the truth affirmed by Christianity is not primarily related to some external facts such as the age of certain Gospels or the particular facts contained in them. These are interesting and important issues that should be debated and reflected upon. However, the deep truth of Christianity is not found in the acceptance of some particular historical claim. Rather, it refers to a happening testified to within the Bible that cannot be reduced to words, confined in concepts, or divulged by definitions. The truth of Christianity is not something that can be reduced to intellectual affirmations or experiential moments that can be objectified and dissected by experts."
The fidelity of betrayal, Peter Rollins
So, what is it then? If the truth of Christianity (what makes it different from any other religion) doesn't depend on any historical happening such as, for example, the resurrection of Jesus, then: what does it depend on?
I have to recognize that I find this idea of letting Christianity be a religion based mainly (or most profoundly) on an unsearchable mystery a very tempting one. In this way (and this is not a criticism) Christianity can become anything I like: it can be the religion of my soul, pure subjectivity, not based on anything historical and completely and safely independent of the findings of any criticism that we can think of. In this way, it seems to me, Christianity becomes the perfect barthian religion, always separated from the realm of objective reality.
I have two problems with this. First, I am not sure that this way of understanding Christiniaty is fair to the way primitive Christians seemed to think of it - I remember that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians that if it can be shown that Jesus was never raised from the dead (a historical and objective fact) then his faith is vain (a subjective consequence). Second, this attempt to separate the Christ of faith from the historical facts of Jesus' life reminds me of Bultmann's way to do that very same thing. And if this is a fair comment, then I think Bultmann's attempt showed us why that wasn't a very good idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find this interesting, and share your response to the quote.
ReplyDeleteIf the quote is to be accepted, then I cannot shake the feeling that it really means there is a Truth, but it is not really 'the truth affirmed by Christianity'. I suspect that this Truth is apprehended - however incompletely - first and only afterwards it is found (by some particularly philosophical theologians) to be within Christianity. Or, perhaps more accurately, Christianity is interpreted so as to be compatible with it. And then I wonder: what's the point? Why frame this Truth in Christian language? Is it even honest to do so?
If this analysis is wrong, and the Truth is uniquely or specifically Christian, then I agree that it still doesn't seem fair to the way early Christians understood it. Or, indeed, almost all Christians in the past two millennia. Maybe Gnostics are closer, I don't know.
(This comment isn't very clear. I'm not sure if I know what I mean, but I mean to mean something... perhaps I shall think some more later.)
Thanks Pete. Your comment is clear enough (I think ;)).
ReplyDeleteI agree. There seem to be two choices here (although I may be missing something): either Christianity depends on some historical facts that, as historical facts, can be historically analyzed, or it doesn't.
It seems to me that for long time (as you say) Christianity has relied on the first option, accepting bravely the risk that some day perhaps it may be historically shown that the facts were not true. The fact that in the last two centuries (interestingly just as historical criticism started to appear) the second option has been preferred by many makes me suspicious: is this really showing a 'new truth' about Christianity (as many want to believe) or rather the decadence of many of its claims when seriously analyzed?
I am not denying that there may perhaps be some real Truth out there which may be approached as a mystery. However, as you say, if that Truth has anything to do with Christianity, should it not take into account the historical facts on which the Christian faith rely on? Indeed, claiming that this mysterious Truth, although Christian, liberates us from the historical constraints of its tradition seems a little bit dishonest.
Yeah.
ReplyDeleteFrom the certainty of that Christianity is true, there seem to be two ways to go:
'Christianity is true, therefore all that is (really) Christian must be true'.
or
'Christianity is true, therefore (at least some of the most important parts of) what is true must be Christian',
Both are unverifiable and immune to proper investigation or falsification.
The first leaves open obvious room for scariness, since that which some may agree to be Christian could be bad from a wider, human point of view. On the other hand, the second option (which seems to be the one here, but I'm not certain) is not really so scary but does feel... weird. And a bit wrong. Like making the rules of the game so that you inevitably win, and don't have to question whether the foundational assumption is really valid.
I'm not sure that Christianity necessarily needs to rely on historical facts, and for a while I thought that it did not, but now I think that it does. I like how you suggest that it is braver to do so.
I have an inkling that much postmodernish christian stuff is altogether too convenient. Not in that it places less stringent moral demands on a person, or that it is simple and shallow, but rather it is psychologically convenient: it enables one to remain in fairly familiar surroundings, with a community of like-minded individuals to offer support and assurance.
Which I can't really say is bad. I just kinda wish I were capable of joining in. It's very hard to lack that psychological support.
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteYou are right in that it doesn't sound as something bad in itself (bad as in harmful), although I tend to think that creating a 'new Christianity' which doesn't depend at all in anything that is real for most human beings (history, science, etc) is rather unreal (and perhaps quite unfair to the original purpose of its 'creators'). And therefore I don't really understand why an unreal thing might be needed at all. We could always say that some people need it, and that's why it needs to be there. However there is something that makes me wonder whether that's a good way to go, or even a safe one for the rest of us.
Hi guys.
ReplyDeleteJosé said: “...either Christianity depends on some historical facts that, as historical facts, can be historically analyzed, or it doesn't... the fact that in the last two centuries (interestingly just as historical criticism started to appear) the second option has been preferred by many...”
Re: the italicised comments, I’m not certain this option has been preferred. There has been much historical scholarship that suggests the facts can be historically analysed and that they can be sustained (here I’m thinking of the likes of NT Wright, J Dunn, etc). We could suggest that such scholars are only looking for evidence that supports their faith tradition, but I suppose we could say the same of others wanting to prove their lack of faith in such tradition. It’s hard to remove the complicated dynamics of conscious or unconscious motives from the picture... In such debates, we can read the evidence and choose as best we can, but how can I be objectively certain that my choice is neutral?
Pete said: “Both are unverifiable and immune to proper investigation or falsification.”
Yes. But as I asked earlier, is this not true of the findings of historical criticism as well? Is this not the reason for the emergence of looking for another option, call it post-modern epistemology or whatever?
I’m aware that the questions / comments above are a bit cliché, but they are difficult to circumvent when we delve into these questions.
As for your reaction to Pete Rollin’s comment, I agree that it might suggest a convenient psychology (which is not to say that Pete R has embarked on an intellectually lazy or easy task). One of my issues with his particular brand of post-modern theologising is that it has so much to do with philosophy... in a sense, a reduction of faith to what goes on in my head. Sure, what goes on in my head is import, but the self is more than that.
As in the original post, I too agree that the earliest Christians felt convinced of the reality of a resurrected Jesus as an ‘objective fact’. But I’m not sure that it can be reduced to this. In other words, this fact was also a charismatic experience. Here we could say that this is the subjective consequence of something objective, but I feel two were probably not split in this way. Here are a couple ideas:
- If the biblical tradition is anything to go by, this ‘fact’ was conveyed in a narrative context, which to me suggests an attempt to bring others into the experience of a historically resurrected Christ.
- The story of Pentecost (and arguably, Acts itself) brings to the fore the importance of charismatic experience within the community that confessed the resurrection. If I could ‘prove’ that the Pentecost story actually happened as written/edited, that would mean proving that there were those who thought the tongues-speakers were simply drunk. A modern Charismatic would probably tell you that the proof of the Holy Spirit is in the experience of her indwelling. The fact of an experience – can this be (dis)proven? Can experience be a fact? Is “objective experience” an oxymoron?
- You mentioned Paul in 1 Cor about the actuality of the resurrection. He also places that within a narrative context in 15.3f. and goes on to cite experience of a risen Christ... he seems to be trying to make an argument in citing experiences, so I’m not sure we can call Paul’s arguments ‘objective’; perhaps putting this label on his discourse is anachronistic.
Community and experience (the experience of and in community?) seem to be crucial for the early Christians (and many Christians today), but it is difficult to integrate this into argument.
As for Gnosticism, I have the feeling that current evangelical formula is even closer: “here is the secret knowledge, accept this unto your personal salvation.”
I agree with you that Christianity has indeed some historical evidence to argue for it - if that wasn't true (or I didn't believe that anymore), I wouldn't be a Christian. And you are certainly right that N.T. Wright seems to fit into that category of people who try to falsify their 'Jesus hypothesis' by finding real evidence that proves or disproves it. As a disgression, I am not so sure about James Dunn, though. He did indeed wrote some books trying to point at the historical evidence. However in the last ones I read by him (and I am thinking here of the series called 'Jesus Remembered') he seems to affirm the truth of the tradition leaving aside whether that tradition is true or not. I think he followed here a philosopher called H.G. Gadamer and his ideas that tradition might be true in itself, just for being tradition, without the need to pursue any of the other 'modern' attempts to show it is true.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I consider myself more of a 'modern' person when looking at these issues, and that's precisely what I am saying and the main difference I seem to have with the post-modern way of thinking: I am letting others know that if some day I happen to find evidence that shows me that, for example, Jesus didn't resurrect, then I would have to leave my Christian faith (I would still perhaps believe there is something beyond, but I wouldn't need to frame it in the Christian worldview anymore). However, in considering the Christian way of thinking as the best hypothesis that I have and in accepting the fact that I may be wrong, I think I am stepping beyond the 'modern' agenda (as I understand it) because I am aware that my conclusions at this point are working conclusions and don't give me the neutral or absolute certainty that you talk about (in sort, I am aware that I have presuppositions). In this sense, I can be certain of something and still believe that my certainty is temporary and not absolute; that's what allows me to say that if I find evidence to the contrary I'll have to change my mind. As I understand it, the post-modern way of thinking doesn't allow for that, since the kind of language and terminology in which it tries to frame itself is one where the truths they speak about have been reached by other unspeakable mysterious ways, and therefore they put such truths in a place beyond any human attempt to prove or disprove it. That's the trick I am reacting against.
As for the second part of your message, I think I completely agree with you. In fact I think what you say kind of supports the point I was trying to make. The charismatic experience, if at all true, must be based upon some reality that can be pointed at historically. It doesn't work (or shoudn't work in the minds of people) if I frame it in mystical and mysterious terms and say that, whether it happened or not, there is truth in it; it depends (and must depend) on whether it happened or not, and Paul himself constantly used that experience as the main proof that the arguments he was writing in his letters were true and, in fact, verifyable (by the apostles putting their hands on them and letting them experience that reality). Ironically, even if the terminology might be anachronistic, nothing can be more real and scientific than that spirit of: try it by yourself. In this regard James Dunn wrote a couple of quite good books on the life and experience of the early Christian communities that go in that direction of showing the historical reality of it. I don't think Christianity would've survived without that kind of real historical experience. (And that's the challenge for the churches that don't allow for that kind of experience to take place today.)
ReplyDeleteOf course, the complications come when we try to experience that today and it doesn't work (we don't experience anything), or when, starting from the experience we have just had, we are asked to accept all kinds of affirmations that tradition considers linked to that experience (which in itself has a limited content to it).