we folk are odd critters. i read bart ehrman's book, god's problem: how the bible fails to answer our most important question--why we suffer yesterday, on the feast of st. clare of assissi. i sat in the bright sunshine beside the bay, and i smoked two cigarettes. i know that i might get skin cancer or lung cancer, but i did it anyway. i hope that if i do "develop" cancer, as we say so interestingly, that i do not blame it on god, and say, "now it's your problem." i had just finished reading brett grainger's in the world but not of it: one family's militant faith and the history of american fundamentalism: odd reading, perhaps, for the feast of a very roman catholic saint.
but clare was, to say the least, a bit "against culture," and i perhaps humour myself that i am, too, and i was trying to understand a bit better that part of american culture that we call "fundamentalism." the grainer book therefore seems obvious, and it was very helpful, reminding me of things i had more or less forgotten from american history and church history, things which many fundamentalists have perhaps never known or choose to ignore. for instance, i had forgotten the close connexion between the first vatican council (1869) and the niagra bible conference (1878), at which biblical literalism in its modern form was birthed. (when earlier christians spoke of the literal meaning of the bible, they were not speaking of the same sort of thing as 19th century american protestants at all, as anyone who has read augustine's confessions in book nine of which he discusses the "literal meaning" of genesis, knows.)
grainger ends his largely autobiographical story with his returning to anglicanism, from which his grandfather had strayed. his chapter about his new/old faith is short, but very insightful. it is about christology, and how the early church wrestled with whether jesus was man or god, and how it decided both, as expressed in the nicean creed. for grainger christianity is about christ, not about a book. the word of god is a person.
ehrman's trip has been from early episcopalianism through just about every bible-centered part of american christianity there is. his school connexions start with moody bible college and end at princeton and chapel hill, both of which i suspect are considered rather different from moody. but i suggest that he has remained a fundamentalist, even in his present "non-believer" stage from. he looks at the bible as an answer book, one which fails to give him a satisfactory answer. in this he continues the sort of struggle with a book which has been at the center of fundamentalism.
but christianity is not about a book, it is about christ. clare and francis are famous, and influential far beyond "christianity," because they took christ jesus seriously, accepting the words of the gospel as his, and actually trying to follow them rather than argue about them. jesus said, "blessed are the poor," so those who follow along with clare of assisi are still called "poor clares." simple. radical. entirely anti-cultural.
there is nothing counter-culteral about erhaman's book, which probably explains his popularity among readers who would like to avoid the claims of jesus. his introduction includes celebrating ". . . long evenings . . . drinking scotch, smoking fine cigars, and talking . . . .does it get any better than that?" (p. x) after this introduction i find it rather fascinating that he then quotes amos,
"hear this word, you cows of bashan,
who are on mount samaria,
who oppress the poor, crush the needy,
who say to their husbands,
'bring me something to drink." (amos 4:1)
"every time i read this passage i imagine an heiress to millions sitting in a lounge chair by her outdoor pool, asking her 'dawlin' husband'for another daiquiri." (p. 98)
"surely there's a way to solve [starving people's] problems . . . . i don't much like tohinking about this myself. . . . but maybe i should think about it, and maybe i should try to do something about it." (p.200)
most fascinating is that erhman finally does find his answer within the text of the bible, choosing ecclesiastes, his exegesis of which is his conclusion:
"by all means, and most emphatically, i think we should work hard to make the world--the one we live in--the most pleasing place it can be for ourselves. we should love and be loved. we should cultivate our friendships, enjoy our intimate relationships, cherish our family lives. we should make money and spend money. the more the better. we should enjoy good food and drink. we should eat out and order unhealthy desserts, and we should cook steaks on the grill and drink bordeaux. we should walk around the block, work in the garden, watch basketball, and drink beer. we should travel and read books and go to museums and look at art and listen to music. we should drive nice cars and have nice homes. we should make love, have babies, and raise families. we should do what we can to love life--it's a gift and it will not be with us for long." (p. 277)
these are fine words for those of us who enjoy driving our suvs to mall book stores. but by ehrman's own criterion of how they sound to people starving in ethiopia, they merely express clearly, even violently, how little we love our brothers and sisters. now, you may find me hard on ehrman. actually, i expect no more from an honest apostate. the horrifying thing to me is that his conclusion seems to be the one by which most of those who call themselves christians in bellingham live as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment