WWJD?

Several years ago, the acronym "WWJD" was seen and heard everywhere within the conservative Christian communities. The premise was simple. Following the outline of the 19th century novel, In His Steps, written by the Kansas Congregationalist minister, Charles Sheldon, contemporary Christians were enjoined to base their actions on what Jesus would do. Books were written using the concept as the guiding principle; sermons were preached on it; classes were taught on it.

Now, though, it seems that many conservative Christians believe that what following Jesus means is to be abusive toward others who do not believe as you do. Devotees of talk radio and attenders of political meetings seem more adept at hate filled speech than 'divine-love-filled' speech. Of course, you may think that this type of discourse is what pleases God. And, you may believe that Jesus would join in and be better at it than you.

Interestingly, during his prayer at President Obama's inauguration, Reverend Rick Warren addressed God with this request: "As we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ."

You have to wonder if current actions and comments by those who say they are Christians, and who often portray themselves as the only true Bible-believing, God-fearing Christians around, should be seen as fulfilling the intent of this prayer.

Book Burnings for God

From North Carolina comes this story [as found at: http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-pastor-bible-burning,0,7909354.story],

A church leader in North Carolina is burning versions of the Bible he doesn't agree with.

Pastor Marc Grizzard of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton is building a bonfire on Halloween to destroy Bibles that aren't the King James Version.

His reason for burning the holy books?

"What we're doing is we're burning books that are satanic. I believe the King James version is God's preserve, inspired, in erect, infallible word of God."

The pastor also says well-known Christian ministers like Billy Graham and Rick Warren are heretics whose books belong on a long list of negative influences and should be thrown to the flames.

I am not quite certain what Pastor Grizzard means by his description of the KJV Bible in the 4th paragraph of the story, but it is obvious that he is following many others who hold the inerrant and infallible, God inspired version of the Bible is the KJV. Having been in Canton, NC, I can believe he and many others hold that view. This position certainly eliminates the issues of textual variations and the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words used. This position also gives ample justification to many who believe the society described in the KJV is the one they want to exist now.

I do not agree with this position. For my money, a person who is serious about being faithful to God ought to use a translation that is based on the best manuscripts available. The KJV does not.

Even with that, however, what purpose does it serve to burn other translations other than a self-seeking desire for publicity?

The Case for 'Faith', not 'Belief'

In an article written for the Washington Post "On Faith" section, noted author Karen Armstrong discussed her new book. Here are part of her comments:

Why did I write "The Case for God"? I was becoming increasingly concerned about the nature of the discussion that followed the publications of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam HarrIs and wanted to bring to the table some of the things that I have learned from my study of world religion during the last 20 years

First, on both sides, the discussion was often aggressive and antagonistic. To quarrel about religion is counter-productive and an impediment to enlightenment. When we are talking about God, nobody has the last word because what we call God lies beyond the reach of speech. It also violates the Western rationalist tradition: a Socratic dialogue was a spiritual exercise and, Socrates insisted, would not work unless it was conducted throughout with gentleness and courtesy. Nobody 'won' the argument: a Socratic dialogue always ended with participants realizing that they knew nothing at all, an insight that was indispensable to the philosophic quest.

Second, on both sides people were equating 'faith' with 'belief'. This is a recent aberration and one that is peculiar to modern Western Christianity. We do not find it in either Judaism or Islam. The Middle English 'bileven' meant 'love, trust, loyalty, and commitment' it was related to the German 'liebe' (beloved) and translated the Greek 'pistis' ('trust, commitment, engagement') in the New Testament and the Latin 'credo' which derived from 'cor do' ('I give my heart'). It was only in the late 17th century that 'belief' came to mean an intellectual assent to a rather dubious proposition. Just look up 'belief' in a good, historical dictionary!

At this time, truth was becoming more notional in the scientific West. We were losing the more traditional form of faith which saw religion as a practical activity. Like driving, swimming, dancing or gymnastics, you learn the truths of faith only by constant, dedicated practice - not by reading texts or adopting a metaphysical 'belief'. Like a myth, a religious doctrine is essentially a program of action. It makes no sense unless it is translated into practical action that helps you to dethrone egotism, selfishness and greed by practicing compassion to all living beings. In the book, I try to show how doctrines like the Incarnation or Trinity were originally a summons to selflessness and compassion and that we only discover their truth by making these qualities a reality in our own lives.

Finally, in the pre-modern world people knew that it was very difficult to speak about God, because God could not fit neatly into a human system of thought. People like Aquinas, Maimonides or Avicenna would find much of our modern certainty about God frankly idolatrous. They knew that we could not prove 'his' existence, that even revelation did not provide us with privileged information about the divine but simply made us aware of what we did not know, and that all our God-talk - even the language of scripture - could only be symbolic, pointing beyond itself to transcendence, because when we speak about God we are at the end of what words or thoughts can do.

And this only sounds amorphous and vague if you are not a dedicated practitioner. If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!

This is the second discussion I have found in recent days - the other being from Harvey Cox - drawing a clear and sharp distinction between faith and belief.

Do you think such a distinction can be made? Do you agree with Armstrong that people like Aquinas would find our certainty about God 'idolatry'?