Ross Douthat: (h/t, John Armstrong)
The real-Jesus project, though intended as a rebuke to biblical literalism, has ended up vindicating modern fundamentalism twice over. One the one hand, the self-understanding of fundamentalists depends on the assumption that once you depart even an iota from a literal-factual-commonsensical reading of Scripture you’re on a slippery slope to denying basic Christian dogmas–which if course is exactly what most of the historical Jesus popularizers believe as well! (The example of a figure like Ehrman, who lost his faith completely when he went to graduate school and realized that actual human beings might have been involved in the composition of the gospels, is almost a parody of a fundamentalist cautionary tale.) At the same time, the way that many fundamentalists actually interpret the Bible–through Cyrus Scofield’s dispensationalist framework–is precisely the sort of do-it-yourself Christianity that real-Jesus “scholarship” implicitly encourages. What are the Left Behind novels if not a “new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judaeo-Christian drama and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings”? Like Funk and Pagels and so many others, fundamentalists have fashioned a Jesus in their own image, and declared that he is good (Bad Religion, 179).
Yes, my dear John, I shall read it as soon as I get my hands on it. You only need a few more paragraphs like this, Ross, to make it worth whatever I might spend. Note to Bryan Cross: I cannot find the CtC article from recently with similar thoughts. It's subtitled "An Unlikely Agreement" or "Surprising" or something. It was Anders-flavored, thought I, but I combeth the archives with little success.
I actually read some Tillich in the library back in my seminary days. It didn't suck that bad. Maybe like Barth, he theologically kills you slowly, but makes you comfortable on the way. Wow, I enjoyed writing that sentence. [You enjoy writing all your sentences, you vainglorious toad.--ed.] True again!
The real-Jesus project, though intended as a rebuke to biblical literalism, has ended up vindicating modern fundamentalism twice over. One the one hand, the self-understanding of fundamentalists depends on the assumption that once you depart even an iota from a literal-factual-commonsensical reading of Scripture you’re on a slippery slope to denying basic Christian dogmas–which if course is exactly what most of the historical Jesus popularizers believe as well! (The example of a figure like Ehrman, who lost his faith completely when he went to graduate school and realized that actual human beings might have been involved in the composition of the gospels, is almost a parody of a fundamentalist cautionary tale.) At the same time, the way that many fundamentalists actually interpret the Bible–through Cyrus Scofield’s dispensationalist framework–is precisely the sort of do-it-yourself Christianity that real-Jesus “scholarship” implicitly encourages. What are the Left Behind novels if not a “new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judaeo-Christian drama and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings”? Like Funk and Pagels and so many others, fundamentalists have fashioned a Jesus in their own image, and declared that he is good (Bad Religion, 179).
Yes, my dear John, I shall read it as soon as I get my hands on it. You only need a few more paragraphs like this, Ross, to make it worth whatever I might spend. Note to Bryan Cross: I cannot find the CtC article from recently with similar thoughts. It's subtitled "An Unlikely Agreement" or "Surprising" or something. It was Anders-flavored, thought I, but I combeth the archives with little success.
I actually read some Tillich in the library back in my seminary days. It didn't suck that bad. Maybe like Barth, he theologically kills you slowly, but makes you comfortable on the way. Wow, I enjoyed writing that sentence. [You enjoy writing all your sentences, you vainglorious toad.--ed.] True again!
Comments