| | A Defense of the “Human-ness” of Christianity
Preamble: Over the years I have had three encounters that have presented me with the trouble of the “human-ness” of the Christian tradition. I had not been previously prepared for a proper answer of this question. I believe that I am now.
My first encounter with the “human-ness” of the Christian tradition was when a friend of mine told me that he could not believe that the Bible is the word of God because it is too human, as if humans being involved in the process of writing it fouled it up.
My second encounter was more challenging and much more enlightening. My college course about the Trinity forced me to seriously look at how the doctrine of the Trinity came about, what inspired it, and why its current formulation has prevailed.
My third encounter with the idea of the “human-ness” of the Christian tradition came more recently, as I was preparing for an interview with Bart Ehrman and reading his Jesus Interrupted. It seems to me that Ehrman left the faith largely due because of the problem of the “human-ness” of the Bible, especially its clumsy transmission from the original letters and documents to its current form. Struggling to find a more authentic solution, one more true to reality than Ehrman’s brought many of my thoughts together. This essay is an attempt to bring together all of my thoughts on the problem of the “human-ness” of the Christian tradition.
Over the past few years I have gradually come to understand that theology is a scientific discipline in many ways. The big difference between theology and a science such as physics or math is that the main data being worked with is a matter of supernatural revelation. Though God has given humans the capacity to do math and physics, and the data is given and is observed (and in every way it was created by God, and therefore supernaturally), the data of the un-theological sciences can be discerned naturally, without extra help.
The same cannot be said of theology. In theology, most of the tools people have to work with are natural (reason), but the data that theologians handle comes from supernatural revelation. For instance, people would have never been able to figure out that God is Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without having been introduced to this idea by Jesus, the Son. Also, the extent of God’s grace would not be evident.
Despite the “given-ness” of supernatural revelation, people still have to interpret the data. For instance, through an incredible encounter with Jesus, wherein the Apostles found themselves worshiping Jesus as they did God (which would have been a terribly troubling experience for a first-century, monotheistic Jew, especially one the likes of St. Paul) and so they had to come to a new realization of who God is. Then, they begin worshiping the Holy Spirit in a similar way. All of a sudden, within the first century of Christianity, we find that the main rite of the church, baptism, is done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as though all three are to be worshiped.
As the gospel spread, it had to come to grips with how to explain this “three-ness” of God to others. The Jews thought it was blasphemy to preach that Jesus could be worshipped as God. The pagans had many gods already. Some thought that Jesus was a lesser God. Others thought that Jesus was the good God, while the God of the Old Testament was the evil God.
So, over the centuries, many theologians came up with theories of how to explain the “three-ness” of God in a way that was both true to the data of revelation (i.e. the worship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit) and logical.
Most Christians probably do not know how messy and long the process of describing the “Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity” was. Politics, philosophy, culture, and 350+ years all held their place in the debate.
This messiness can be troubling. Many Christians believe that the Trinity is clearly shown in the New Testament, but this is simply not true. It is clear to us because it has been shown to us, without any (or very few) conflicting ideas. The truth is that the New Testament data of the three-ness of God can be understood in many ways. However, after studying the history and some of the main texts, it becomes clear that the “Orthodox” party provided the best explanation of the three-ness of God.
However, what is one to do with “the humanness of it all”? Restated, the question is this: The discovery of the doctrine of the Trinity was messy, full of controversy and politics, and God did not intervene in the process in any overt-miraculous way, so how human is religion? And should the humanness of religion be troubling?
Seen in another light, the doctrine of the Trinity can be compared to scientific realization of the Earth’s place in the solar system. At first, the Earth was flat, then it was round; first the Earth was the center of the solar system, then it was in the middle. Each of the changes in understanding of the solar system came as a result of observation of planets, experiences, mathematical equations, politics (especially in the case of Galileo), better instruments, and other data and factors.
Similarly, whereas God’s unity was first believed to be singular, through experience of the worship of Jesus Christ (understood empirically), and by the use of philosophical categories and terms, God’s unity has come to be understood (and I think properly) as a kind of three-ness.
Another expression of my basic question has been developed by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman was a Christian (and this is my opinion, he would say that he stopped being a Christian much later) until the question of the intertwining of the human and the divine came to his attention during his study of the New Testament. Ehrman learned that the history of the New Testament texts was very messy, including tampering, fraud. In fact, Ehrman learned that the texts that have come down to us are most likely not the same words that the original authors wrote, and that even the original authors of the New Testament disagree on many points. Ehrman’s question to those who stake so much on the Bible is this: How can we trust a book that humans – sinful as we are – have tampered with or have been involved with? Why didn’t God just write the Bible and be done with it? Perhaps, if there is a God, he didn’t care much for teaching the truth clearly or perhaps God did not write or inspire the Bible in any way, and the Bible is purely human.
These are questions that must be asked. There seem to be two approaches to Western religion (I do not know enough about Eastern religions to comment on them): The Jewish and Christian understanding of religion has always been an intertwining of human and divine action, a type of drama in time. Fundamentally, this can be seen in the Bible when God created humans in his likeness, not meant to be the same as God in every manner, but not made to be wholly different. Also, the Bible can be understood as something of a dramatic history book (though it is much more than that). The main precepts of the Jewish and Christian religions stay the same over time, but the accidents, the particulars change frequently.
Contrasted to the Judeo-Christian drama, Islam presents a whole book that has been given straight from God (interestingly, Mormons lean this way too, in their understanding of their sacred tests), never to be altered or even spoken in a different language. The Koran is not to be understood as a dramatic history, but as God’s word for all time.
It seems to me that the Judeo-Christian approach is more true to reality. Both the unchanging and the changing are important in the Bible. The basic precepts remain, while the ways that they are lived out vary from culture to culture and person to person. This is also how wisdom and prudence are shown in every day life. We know that we should be kind to our spouses, but sometimes kindness is expressed through shared tears and sometimes it means telling them something they would rather not hear. The Koran (and the Book of Mormon), in its very nature, to me, does not show this same kind of prudent wisdom, nor does it show a true respect for culture.
But can we trust the Bible or church doctrine such as the doctrine of the Trinity when it is so human? Perhaps a basic understanding of God would be helpful here. If there is a God (and I believe there is), then he gave humans the ability to be joyful, he made them social, he gave them truth, and goodness. These can be discerned without the use of the Bible. If God created man to be this way, then he must appreciate the finer things in life such as joy, community, etc. Therefore, it seems safe to say that God probably is not aloof, because an aloof human is an unpleasant human. It is unlikely that God made humans to be fulfilled and yet he is an uncaring, disinterested Being.
Due to the very will of God, we have been created to be similar to Him in some ways and different in other ways. (Of course, God does not need to eat like we do, but the joy we have in eating good food surely is not missed by Him.) This means that, right from the first human, it was God’s intent to intertwine the human-divine relationship; to make the divine somewhat accessible to humans.
Now, it is a matter of debate how strong the human-divine connection is, but it is true that, if you believe that Something or Someone created humans, and that everything that exists does not exist purely by chance, that there has always been some kind of connection, some sort of touch between humans and God. This means that the humanness of the Biblical texts, and the doctrines of the church do not call into question the validity of the Christian faith. In fact, this seems to me to be a validation of their realness, in that they mirror creation and the way that things are.
It would come as no surprise to theologians such as St. Augustine or St. Thomas that the humanness of the Christian religion should be on the intellectual level (i.e. working out the best understanding of the Trinity, or interpreting History in the light of Divine activity such as in the Bible). Augustine, Thomas, many others, and I would say that the intellect presents the strongest connection in the human-divine relationship. They said that the intellect was the highest part of man (this doesn’t mean that the will or emotions or basic motor skills are not important, just that our intellect should be master over them…lest we become controlled by will or appetite like animals). Augustine and Thomas argued that the highest part in man – the intellect – was largely what God was talking about when he said that he made man according to his image in the book of Genesis.
It may seem strange to end with the thoughts of a pagan philosopher, but perhaps this will display the universality of this divine-human connection. Though Aristotle still thought of God as something of a deistic Divine Mind (after all, he did not have supernatural revelation as Jews and Christians have), he still was able to grasp for divinity:
“So if the intellect is divine compared with man, the life of the intellect must be divine compared with the life of a human being. And we ought not to listen to those who warn us that ‘man should think the thoughts of man’, or ‘mortal thoughts fit mortal minds’; but we ought, so far as in us lies, to put on immortality, and do all that we can to live in conformity with the highest that is in us; for even if it is small in bulk, in power and preciousness it far excels all the rest.” (Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, p. 272)
---------
“Since, then, men weary us with asking such questions, let us unfold to them, as we are able, whatever wisdom God's gift has bestowed upon our weakness on this subject; neither let us go on our way with consuming envy. Should we say that we are not accustomed to think about such things, it would not be true; yet if we acknowledge that such subjects commonly dwell in our thoughts, carried away as we are by the love of investigating the truth, then they require of us, by the law of charity, to make known to them what we have herein been able to find out. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect (for, if the Apostle Paul, how much more must I, who lie far beneath his feet, count myself not to have apprehended!); but, according to my measure, if I forget those things that are behind, and reach forth unto those things which are before, and press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling, I am requested to disclose so much of the road as I have already passed, and the point to which I have reached, whence the course yet remains to bring me to the end. And those make the request, whom a generous charity compels me to serve. Needs must too, and God will grant that, in supplying them with matter to read, I shall profit myself also; and that, in seeking to reply to their inquiries, I shall myself likewise find that for which I was inquiring. Accordingly I have undertaken the task, by the bidding and help of the Lord my God, not so much of discoursing with authority respecting things I know already, as of learning those things by piously discoursing of them.” (Saint Augustine, De Trinitate, 1.8) |
