John 20:18: Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
Mark 16:8: Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
When I listened to John’s resurrection story on Easter and all I could think of was how it didn’t pass the “criterion of independent attestation,” I knew something was up.
As our minister read the story of Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene and her subsequent proclamation of the good news to the disciples, my mind automatically jumped to Mark’s story, where Jesus does not appear at the tomb, and the women leave fearful and silent. In one semester of Intro to the New Testament, I’ve done more Bible study than I have in the rest of my life combined. (I guess that’s what you get for being Episcopalian. I didn’t believe my professor when he said Philemon was in the New Testament—it’s between Titus and Hebrews—but I could recite the liturgy in my sleep. In fact I probably have before.) In religion class, we’ve put Jesus in his historical context—apparently he wasn’t spending all his time in front of a circle of children red and yellow, black and white. News to me. Bart Ehrman, chair of UNC’s religious studies department, author of “Misquoting Jesus” and professor of my class has gotten me to think about my religion and image of Jesus more than I ever have and at times more than I care to. In my time at college I’ve observed a high correlation between scholarship and skepticism. Is it possible to be smart and be a Christian?
A friend who came to class with me was a little perturbed by Professor Ehrman’s message and drew a picture of him writing “Jesus Schmesus” on the whiteboard while a Christ figure came down from heaven on a fire-breathing dragon, ready to strike with revenge at the liberal intellectual elitism that (allegedly) is university faculty. I’m not quite that upset by hearing that the Gospels conflict with one another, or that Paul probably delivered a message pretty different from what Jesus originally preached. I’m not that upset by hearing that scribes changed many verses of the Bible in myriad ways over the centuries. I knew that we got a lot of it wrong. I just didn’t realize we’d gotten it so wrong. It’s easy to say this is one man’s opinion until you’re in the Detroit airport, reading this one man’s textbook and look up and see this one man being interviewed on CNN for a special on “The Mystery of Jesus.” Then Googling him to discover he was on the Colbert Report and the Daily Show—thus essentially a god in his own right to the young adult crowd. Verdict: Jesus is still a mystery, but Bart Ehrman knows a lot more about him than me.
I sit in religion class completely enthralled and interested and simultaneously feel one enormous rug is being pulled out from underneath me. Our teaching assistants encourage us to come to class with an open mind. They also make it clear that they are not trying to impose their beliefs on anyone else. But there’s an imposition inherent in the material. PS: John 3:16? Probably not written until nearly a century after Jesus died. Ouch. So just because it’s in red letters in my Bible, doesn’t mean Jesus actually said it? I suddenly feel like Dr. Faustus, education blinding me to God’s salvation.
Paradoxically, the smartest man I ever knew was an Episcopal priest. In the midst of this cycle of study and doubt I think of him. He was never on the Colbert Report and didn’t chair a department and died just before I realized I needed to ask him all these questions—and he probably didn’t have the answers, but he was a man who somehow found that perfect balance of doubt, humility, and belief. Father Dick Osing used to take me out for lunch when I was in second grade and let me grill him about theology in my precocious little kid way. (Okay, Father Osing. So if God exists who made him? So if God exists why does he make some people poor? This questioning in between bites of pancakes and sips of chocolate milk. I remember him taking me very seriously, and liking that.) He’d spent his life studying scripture, he knew the inconsistencies and the scribal errors and the political nature of early church doctrinal formation. He defined the image of “scholar” for me in my formative years. I realize now what special kind of humbleness it must have taken to know that much and bow down and let God be a mystery and just believe.
In Ehrman’s class, we’re up to Paul’s letters now. I haven’t figured it out. I can’t leave my religion outside the classroom, but I can’t quite bring it in, either. When I went home for Easter, my mom gave me a collection of Father Osing’s writings called “A Gentle Man and a Scholar.” I’m finding some solace in those—Father Osing can quote scripture left and right, illuminate mistranslations until the cows come home (and commonly would in his sermons, to the chagrin of some parishioners), but somehow at the end he reconciles information and faith. You can be educated and Christian. I’m still working on both.
Comments (6)
Your message remided me of a time in my life when I questioned the existance of God. My very wise father (who happens to be an Episcopal priest) listened to my ideas, talked to me about his faith and told me, "I'd rather you be a thinking atheist than an unthinking Christian." He demonstrated so much faith through this statement-faith in me to continue my spiritual quest and faith that God would be revealed to me. I believe that a mature faith is developed through(as you have so eloquently and simply stated)"believing in God with all your heart and questioning God with all your mind."
Posted April 19, 2008 12:02 AM
Posted on April 19, 2008 00:02
Kenneth Van Der Slyus writes: "Man is seperate from the animal realm. Evidence: check out the Rainbow. Same whereever, Precision, bands of color, This wasn't an accident, there's a reason for it!"
Rainbows are fairly easy to understand with a little calculus and a little physics under your belt. You've got to consider the angle of incidence at which light strikes rain drops, refraction coming in, the reflection off of the back of the rain drop, and the refraction coming back out. It's pretty straightforward really and the laws of reflection and refraction are easy to grasp. There's no reason to remain ignorant Kenneth.
Posted April 7, 2008 7:03 AM
Posted on April 7, 2008 07:03
To whoever will be reading this: 1st,know the definition of Religion; Mark7 vs 6. The "Good News" the Bible was written by the writers through the inspiration of the Spirit of Christ. Those who are in denial will allow any type of information that may sound good to grab at. Some evidence: a lot of info within the Bible had to be inspired due to a lot of it superseceding human understanding. If we aligned our selves to guidlines within the 'Good News' instead of our own "standards", we'd be in far better shape, however 'we' want our own way. Man is seperate from the animal realm. Evidence: check out the Rainbow. Same whereever, Precision, bands of color, This wasn't an accident, there's a reason for it! thnks, Kenneth V Chico believer since 17 years old
Posted April 6, 2008 11:43 PM
Posted on April 6, 2008 23:43
Dear Erin,
That was a very thoughtful and honest column. It reminds me of a Barack Obama speech, just the right amount of honesty and facts, sprinkled with a little humility.
After being an active Christian for over 25 years, my scientific and logical (software engineer) orientation finally forced me to look at religious dogma with an objective eye. Actually, for about 5 years before, I struggled with doubts about the existence of God and wound up dumbing down God so that he was just this amorphous being who didn't do much but allowed me to continue to fool myself about his existence.
I had been moving in this direction for a while, but what forced me to "come out of the atheist closet" were the following stories:
One story is about a Muslim living in Jordan who, on his wedding night, discovers that his bride is not a virgin (or at least he concludes she is not). He proceeds to beat her to death, drags her body to her father's doorstep and, after placing a few stones around the body, goes home. The stones symbolize death by stoning which is the punishment proscribed by the Koran.
The second story happened closer to my home in the North Carolina. A woman working as a police dispatcher for the police department of a small town was suddenly fired. When questioned as to the reason, the police chief revealed that he had found out that this dispatcher was now living with her boyfriend (I think the dispatcher was 26) and that violated the police department's morality clause. The police chief is a strong Baptist and everyone knows that God does not want a man and a woman living together in sin.
In rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa a number of nuns from Catholic charities work tirelessly in order to relieve the burdens of those infected with HIV. Day after day, they will treat people with AIDS as best as they can.
Unfortunately, they will not do the one thing that would prevent the next generation of African women from dying and leaving an enormous population of orphans thereby extending the cycle of disease, death and misery. As part of their treatment they will not give out condoms because they KNOW that condoms could interfere with God's will for more children. Treat HIV infections fine -- prevent HIV infection no good.
All three of these stories are examples of people working within their faith and acting the way their religion teaches them to act.
In my view, all three are morally repugnant and yet, God has never performed an action that tells true believers that their beliefs are wrong. We may each disagree with one or more of these actions but each one acts according to their religious principles. Why hasn't God made clear which of these are truely behaviors that he wants and which ones should be abandoned?
The only answer I can give is that there is no one up there to do that and because everyone interprets what they think God wants them to do, we are left with people flying planes into buildings or withholding simple birth control measures simply because that's their interpretation.
Any God that existed and would allow that to go on is not worthy of worship.
Try reading Sam Harris' End of Faith. It's probably the most reasonable discussion of religion, its dangers and the need to interject reason into our lives, that I've ever read.
Posted April 6, 2008 4:51 PM
Posted on April 6, 2008 16:51
It's no fun finding out you've been taught things that are incorrect and/or incomplete.
What percentage of the people that inculcated you with incorrect/incomplete information do you suppose were aware of, and intent on, deceiving you?
Posted April 2, 2008 5:47 PM
Posted on April 2, 2008 17:47
> I’m not quite that upset by hearing that
> the Gospels conflict with one another,
The Apostles were too busy living the faith to write it all down immediately. (Easier and more effective to speak and act than write.) And the gospels come from different traditions (due to them evangelizing the world). The gospels are actually very very very similar (ahem, Holy Spirit), so you only have to read them to know they fully agree "theologically".
> or that Paul probably delivered a
> message pretty different from what
> Jesus originally preached.
Impossible, as he was sent by Jesus and worked alongside the Twelve.
> I’m not that upset by hearing that
> scribes changed many verses of the Bible
> in myriad ways over the centuries.
Protestants don't accept all the books of the (older) Catholic Bible. And they have their own translations (e.g. King James vs. Vulgate). But it is in no way accurately considered "warped", it is God's word (whether we understand it correctly or not).
Posted April 2, 2008 1:10 PM
Posted on April 2, 2008 13:10