Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Science, Faith, History, and the "Tomb of Jesus"

The Dallas Morning News religion blog has a strange quote from David Frankfurter of the University of New Hampshire about the current "Jesus tomb" controversy - no attribution as to the source, unfortunately.

It's remarkable that Christian groups are getting so hot under the collar about the implications of this. Scientific archeology can't touch religious tradition and conviction unless religions come to depend on science for their validity.
What a bizarre statement. The Christians opposing this "tomb of Jesus" nonsense are defending the historical truth of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension (and, of course, his non-marriage to Mary Magdalene). But Frankfurter's position makes sense if you view "science" and "religion" as two independent spheres of knowledge with little or no overlap. (The assumption, to the popular mind at least, is that "science" is "real" while "religion" is "helpful.")

The Unity of Knowledge
This is not what orthodox Christianity teaches, however. As the Nicene Creed begins,
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
All of creation - heaven and earth, visible and invisible - is unified, because it was made by the one God. By implication, all of knowledge is integrated. The content of Jesus' sermons, the historical data of his birth and death, and the molecules forming his flesh are all part of the same, unified reality. We may not know all of that reality perfectly, but Christians, from the earliest days, have firmly connected their beliefs to the historical events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. As only one example from many, when Jesus' disciples were selecting someone to replace Judas as one of the Twelve, Peter said,
Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22)
I am not at all sure what is so "remarkable" about Christians defending the reality of the event that forms the basis of our faith. Like the first disciples, we serve as "witnesses of his resurrection," through our religion, our science, and through every other aspect of our lives.

Monday, February 26, 2007

The Argument Against Community, Part One

In future posts, I will be explaining why I feel that community is so vital for Christians, particularly in America, and exploring important aspects of community life. It occurs to me, however, that most Americans, even most American Christians, do not view community - whether religious or secular - as central to their lives. Why not?

1) "Religion is a private affair." It is an American axiom that one does not discuss religion or politics in polite company. The mix of the First Amendment, freedom of religion, and our culture's view of tolerance as an important virtue have created a climate in which one's personal religious beliefs are literally no one else's business. Compulsary church attendance, which was common in Europe and in colonial America, seems radical and almost totalitarian to contemporary Americans. I doubt our Founding Fathers would have envisioned that their goal of religious freedom would have one day resulted in a culture in which individuals create "salad bar" religions, combining favorable bits from Christianity, Buddhism, and whatever other spiritual tradition happens to be available.

For people not actively involved in a religious community, their deepest held beliefs are often formed in isolation from other people. The common language, common context, and even common biases of any human community are difficult for the individual to enter, even more so when religion is viewed as private and therefore is not openly discussed. The beliefs of a community must first be passed through our private lens before we can trust those other individuals, and our individual beliefs pass judgment over communal beliefs. By viewing religion as private, a wall is built between our individual selves and any community we come into contact with.

2) Religion as an op-ed position. The irony of America's view of religion as private is that religion is also viewed as an op-ed position: a series of positions or arguments which can be promoted, opposed, agreed upon, or disagreed with. Some people possess a literal list of theological positions with which one must agree in order to be a "true believer." Religion, rather than being the worship of God or even some sort of personal development, is an exercise of opinion and argument.

Communities, in this mindset, are puzzles to be deciphered. Do their beliefs align with mine? How many points do they get right? How many do they get wrong? This is not a process that ends easily. At first contact with a community, and with each subsequent contact, the individual stands ready to oppose the community's position. For some individuals, this may even be seen as a "holy" role, such as that of Elijah or John the Baptist, holding up the light of truth in a world of darkness. Like those saints of old, these individuals are lonely prophets, who wonder why the blind laugh so much and feast.

Next, the priority of the individual and the priority of the family.