Home > Religion > Does mainline/liberal Christianity make sense?

Does mainline/liberal Christianity make sense?

That’s today’s question.

It’s hard to actually define the sort of Christianity I want to discuss. There probably isn’t a clear definition. For my purposes I mean the belief that the Bible is not inerrant and that many events described therein are myths (creation, Noah’s Ark, Tower of Babel, etc). However, not all important events are mythological, even if there’s some embellishment. In some form, Jesus was the son of God, was killed, and was resurrected. Generally, I’m discussing Christians who land somewhere in the middle of inerrantists and general mythicism. Mainline, I think, best describes that middle ground. Liberal Christianity would mean belief that the Bible is completely (or nearly so) myth. John Dominic Crossan, for example, is a Christian who doesn’t believe Jesus was literally resurrected. I’ll get to beliefs like that at the end.

You might see what my main point is going to be by now. When people say they believe in evolution, but are still Christian, does that make sense? I only use evolution as an example; I could easily use Noah’s Ark instead.

Generally, creationism is rejected on the basis of scientific evidence. Evolution is seen as better supported, so it is accepted. This is all well and good. It seems to undermine Christianity as whole, however. Let’s take the virgin birth stories. They don’t agree with each other except inbroad outline:

Is nothing at all to be made of the fact that, e.g., while Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem where Jesus is born in their home, and only later relocating in Nazareth to seek shelter from Archelaeus, Luke makes the couple residents of Nazareth who only “happen” to be on their way to Bethlehem for a census registration when Mary’s water breaks? Luke’s manifold historical inaccuracies and narrative absurdities pose no problem at all for the true believer, but McDowell can hardly expect an outsider to be persuaded of Luke’s reliability simply by the sleight-of-hand of ignoring them. A census requiring people to register where their remote ancestors lived a millennium before? A man stupid enough to take his nine-months-pregnant wife on a donkey ride over unpaved hill trails?

And the notorious gaff placing the birth of Jesus both before Herod’s death (4 B.C.) and during the census of Quirinius (6 A.D.) will not go away. Of this last McDowell says, “some now believe that Quirinius served two terms of office, the first of these being 10-7 B.C., which would put his first census at the time, roughly, of Christ’s birth shortly before Herod’s death in 4 B.C.”[6] Some apologists now believe it, but no one else. It is a piece of pure guesswork floated by apologist William Ramsey on the basis of a single ambiguous inscription which noted Quirinius had been rewarded for a great military victory. There is no hint of the nature of this reward, but Ramsey figures it might as well have been another term of office! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Sorry, but that’s ruled out by the fact that we know who the Roman governors were at the time of Herod’s death, namely Quintilius Varus and Sentius Saturninus. And there couldn’t have been a census previous to the one in 6 A.D., since the outrageous novelty of that one (to think: that Romans should exact tribute from Jews!), sparked the bloody uprising of Judas the Galilean. A related problem is that no census Quirinius conducted would have involved residents of Bethlehem, since in Quirinius’ reign, Judea was a technically independent client state allied with Rome, not subject to taxation, unlike Nazareth, part of the Roman province of Syria. Of all this Josh is as ignorant or as heedless as Luke himself.

And of course, Mark doesn’t even mention it. He may even contradict it, depending on the translation of 3:19. Jesus’ baptism in Mark certainly seems odd if you assume Jesus was always the son of God (does he need to be told he’s God’s son (1:11)?).

It certainly seems that reason and critical analysis show that the virgin birth story is a myth. There’s nothing fundamentally different about the methods used here than those used in science. Both are based upon reason. Why would you believe in evolution, presumably due to the scientific evidence, and believe in the virgin birth? Perhaps faith is the answer? The contradiction is still there: you’ve chosen to reject blind faith for one event and accepted it for another. Why?

This problem is encountered constantly. Anything you reject from the Bible creates a new problem: why did you reject that piece, but not another? Don’t think a widow should have to bear a child with her dead husband’s brother, but think it’s good to give to the poor? Why have faith in one and not the other? Obviously, one seems wrong and the other seems right. People didn’t always think that, though.

Surely Christians have heard this argument made by fundamentalists. Oddly enough, it makes sense. Picking and choosing your articles of faith follows no line of reasoning. I prefer it to fundamentalism, but I think fundamentalists are more intellectually responsible in this case.

Before I stop, let’s look at more extreme liberal Christianity. The type that would say the Bible is entirely metaphorical or legendary. They find profound meaning in the tales, so they’re still Christian. This doesn’t make sense to me, either. People can create profoundly meaningful works of art. This is especially true with mythology. Christian myths are not especially unique, either. If you think the profoundness of Christian mythology is evidence for Christianity, it stands to reason that Greek mythology is evidence for Zeus. Then again, I’m unclear on just what sort of concrete beliefs the sort of extreme liberalism I’m talking about entails.

Finally, a problem in writing this post was obtaining a clear idea of the beliefs I’m arguing against. If I’m attacking strawmen, I want to know.

Categories: Religion
  1. October 23, 2005 at 8:47 pm

    I love reading your posts, but normally I do not comment. Here I think there are two things to comment upon:
    1) The comment that Fundamentalist Christians are more intellectually consistent than their liberal brethren is frighteningly dead on. Sure, there are hosts of problems with their beliefs/reasoning, but to think they make more sense than someone else is chilling.
    2) Something I feel you overlook. It is great to talk of logic and reason; it is great when things make sense. Only, people normally don’t. The most foundational reason I have found for people being religious in the first place is the comforting idea of belonging to something bigger than one’s self. Liberal types who don’t want to be literal about the bible and who don’t want to hate on abortion and gay marriage still sometimes find comfort in Christianity, no matter how illogical it is.

  2. October 23, 2005 at 10:35 pm

    I do realize that people aren’t completely rational about religion. I don’t think finding comfort in something means the claims made are correct, however. In the end, their correctness is what matters to me.

    It also seems that whether comfort is the foundational reason or not, many people convince themselves of the rationality of their beliefs. Seldom will anyone admit they believe something simply because it makes them feel better. Forcing someone to think about their justification can have an effect. It won’t all, or even most, of the time, but I think it’s useful.

  3. S4R
    October 24, 2005 at 3:31 am

    I see no strawman, the never ending morphosis of religion amongst sects and individuals is proof positive that it’s the self-serving manmade bullshit story it was always meant to be.

    You are correct, fundamentalists are more intellectually consistent than their liberal brethren, but either way, invoking the supernatural will always explain precisely nothing.

  4. October 24, 2005 at 4:25 am

    Not all morphosis of the religion is due to being self serving. Some is due to basic mis-interpretation. I have read seven bibles of differing translations cover to cover and each tell a differing story. Whether the translation was “welf serving” (and I do believe that the King James version was, to some extent self serving…), would have to be determined by the historical or social reason for the translation.

  5. S4R
    October 24, 2005 at 2:02 pm

    Not all morphosis of the religion is due to being self serving.

    Assuming religion isn’t in and of itself self-serving. 😉

  6. October 24, 2005 at 7:43 pm

    Here’s a book recommendation (much more worthwhile than that Josh McDowell cr*p):

    A layman’s guide to protestant theology by William Hordern

    A very interesting & brief discussion for anyone who wants to know how American fundamentalism fits into the history of Christian thought. (Interesting even for us non-fundies).

  7. October 25, 2005 at 12:56 am

    I don’t buy the argument that all religions are fundamentally self serving. While there is a history of it in most religions, it was not a function of the religion, itself, but rather a function of someone using the religion for self serving purposes.

  8. S4R
    October 25, 2005 at 4:46 pm

    I don’t buy the argument that all religions are fundamentally self serving. While there is a history of it in most religions, it was not a function of the religion, itself, but rather a function of someone using the religion for self serving purposes.

    That’s a lazy way of thinking. You may as well say, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” There are serious dysfunctions inherent in certain “tools.” Guns make it extremely easy to kill people, and religion makes it extremely easy to control people’s thinking. Why do you think religions were created? Because everything was hunky-dory between all classes of society, and the privileged and educated at the time just wanted a means to bring everyone together in peace and harmony? You may certainly argue there are positive functions for religion, but in this world, I think you’ll find it an impossible task to suggest that on the whole religion has been beneficial to humanity.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: