Reverend Chuck Currie of the UCC announces a seminar called "Saving Jesus." (Guess Jesus is not strong enough to save himself these days.)
Ever feel like Jesus has been kidnapped by the Christian Right or the Secular Left?
Where have we heard that narrative before? I guess the silly inclusion of the "Secular Left" (who, we all know, appropriate Jesus constantly) is supposed to imply a tone of balance or neutrality.
And as usual, the core narrative is as forked-tongue as ever, implying simultaneously that their opponents have "kidnapped" the figure of Jesus (implying Jesus is merely an icon, and one rightfully belonging to them), while inadvertently admitting, in the other breath, that is is they who are radically rewriting and repurposing a 2000-year-old tradition.
Rev. Currie wisely gives a warning / disclaimer (from another series) which he says applies here as well. One one hand, it insists:
It is not intended to spell out new doctrine or create new dogma but to serve as a catalyst to perhaps crack open the door to the future.
("Jesus died for your sins" is dogma. "Jesus did not die for your sins" is not.)
On the other:
To make the implicit explicit, this study is not for ... those whose personal faith requires them to believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God [nor] those who believe that the doctrines set forth by the early church are sacrosanct and not to be questioned.
Please be aware that the issues and concepts discussed in the DVDs and written material will challenge many people’s worldview and understanding of the divine. For some it will be radically new information. For others, it will be an affirmation of what they’ve known deep down for a long time. Both facilitators and participants will want to be prepared for anxiety, conflict, and the need to be patient with those who are struggling...
Because, believe me, we'll do what we can to demolish your old, blind faith.
I have no problem with people thinking the bible is not divinely inspired, nor denying the doctrines it contains (those of "the early church"). Nor do I have a problem, per se, with vigorous arguments against mainstream of traditional Christian faith and in favor of another belief system.
But most such critics are honest enough to admit that they are outside that faith. It takes a special kind of dishonesty to imply that people who promote new views are the legitimate heirs of a faith, while those who believe pretty much the same thing their parents and grandparents believed are somehow radicals who are "kidnapping" an ancient faith and turning it into something it has never been.
It's the classic commit/accuse pattern.
Brought to you by the same people who thought voting with marbles was a good idea of how to determine truth.
...who believe pretty much the same thing their parents and grandparents believed...
Not to even leave it at that, that 2000 years of history attest to as good and true, with a net positive effect on the world! (Not to mention the years before Christ, and the Jewish tradition.)
But he is including John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg materials, so you know the event has to have sound reasoning and logic :-).
Nice post. I saw it from Chuck's site, which I checked out when I saw traffic coming from his main page. I got a special mention as well, so it looks like we're both in his fan club.
Good catch on the faux balance re. the secular left comment.
Given the time delay, don't know if any of you will see this but...
He says he's drawn the "wrath" of other blogs. It looks like a better word would simply be "disagreement."
It wasn't actually his most recent posts which drew my attention. I stumbled across one of his older posts which seemed to be admitting things while denying them, and thought I'd check out his more recent posts to see if the same habit prevailed.
I notice, intentionally or otherwise, he didn't address the dissonance between the claim of others "hijacking" a faith and the admission of teachings which contradict core beliefs of "the early church" and which would often be received as "radically new."
Brought to you by the same people who thought voting with marbles was a good idea of how to determine truth.
...who believe pretty much the same thing their parents and grandparents believed...
Not to even leave it at that, that 2000 years of history attest to as good and true, with a net positive effect on the world! (Not to mention the years before Christ, and the Jewish tradition.)
Posted by: Michael Zappe on August 22, 2007 06:10 PM