Jesus is For Me and Not For You. Stop the silliness
There is no "true" or "real" Christian
Who is Mariann Budde? I realize this is, in the fast-paced ridiculousness of modern political cycles, made only worse by the chaos agent at the Presidential helm, a question behind the times, but hang in there, the point is still relevant.
Seriously, who is she?
Right, glad we’re clear on this. She is both a fearless and bold leader of Christianity while also pushing propaganda such that shows her to be only a faux Christian.
Complicating this further, I’ve lost count the number of avowed atheists celebrating the message and “punching up” (extra impressive to do given she was on a stage) against tyranny. Not once was there any reflective consideration from these atheists who previously and since then lament the evils of “religion” as if it’s some kind of monolith, despite having a glaring and celebrated example that people can agree on one thing and not on another, and that ideological labels are, at best, short-sighted for understanding anyone.
Admittedly, this kind of celebration and declaration of evil or theological malfeasance concerning the exact same person or message, is rather common when it comes to religious ideologies. Everyone wants the being with phenomenal cosmic power in their corner.
That the cosmic power oh so happens to coincide with and support the positions of those who are declaring such adherence to the “truth,” never seems to bother anyone. This is, really, no more than social status games and everyone plays them, albeit not always at the level of geopolitics.
As Will Storr, in his book “Status Games” puts it:
“We don’t feel like players of games. We feel like heroes in stories. This is the illusion the brain spins for us. It makes us feel as if we are the hero at the centre of the universe, orbited by a cast of supporting characters. The goals of our lives are the plots that consume us, as we overcome obstacles and strive nobly towards happy endings. This brain-generated story is self-serving, motivating and convincing in its tiniest details. It feels real because it’s the only reality we know. But it’s a lie.”
Thus it is that we utilize exclusionary tactics to cut off those who don’t belong to a beloved identity and keep close those who echo the narrow vision of who we believe ourselves to be and the world we want to manifest into being. Where it concerns the power and influence of religion, we therefore have debates over what is “real” Islam and Christianity, with various texts being used to rationalize the behavior one was already going to do, and/or condemn behavior one was already going to judge.
In keeping with the original point concerning Bishop Budde, and not wanting to run afoul of Ben Affleck regarding Islam, I want to address just why there are so many iterations of Christianity, and how, in the end, there really isn’t any such thing as a “real” Christian, only variations on what the label means to each person for purposes of social solidarity and assumed linkage with a cosmic power.
Interpretation of "Holy Writ" Is Always Subjective
On the liberal side are declarations that the "real Christian" way is to look at equality with a smile or using a particular verse from "the Bible" like Romans 13:1-2 about being "subject to governing authorities" as a means of putting conservatives in their place. On the conservative side are various protestations of martyrdom and persecution because a particular interpretation of "the Bible" that leads to taking civil rights away from a group of people is no longer justified in the eyes of rational law.
What makes this situation truly amazing, in the sense of being utterly ridiculous, is the utilization of "the Bible" to promote both sides of the debate. The site concerning the passage out of Romans declares: "You aren’t allowed to cherry-pick the verses you like and ignore the ones you don’t." Except of course that this is exactly what the author of the article is doing by focusing on this verse and not Romans 1:26-32 where it declares that everyone who murders, is disobedient to parents, engages in homosexual behavior, etc. is deserving of death. Indeed, the writer of how Christians are now exiles in "their own" country likely has these verses in mind when he declares: "It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue."
Further examples abound, both from the average public and from politicians, to utilize "the Bible" to attempt buttressing their own version of the "no true Christian" defense. Neither side seems to find it at all shocking or worthy of immense personal chagrin that they're using the exact same source to come to diametrically opposite opinions. The irony here is that this very defensive strategy is on the right track, it's just that the conclusion hasn't been reached yet: there is no such thing as a “true” Christian or Christianity for that matter.
There are, at present, over 45,000 groups or denominations that claim the title of being “Christian.” To be honest, I love this. It’s a sign of humanity’s bone-deep desire to find communion with others in pursuit of developing meaning and purpose. The part of me that stepped out of my Bible-college days having deconverted and left Christianity, simply chuckles and shakes his head at how glaringly obvious this indicates the human-made basis of religious thinking. It’s not turtles all the way down, alas, it’s just us.
Why all the denominations? While many would, rightly, note the lack of large differences between many of them, the differences do exist, and for an ideological framework that purports to tell us the moral secrets of the universe that are in alignment with a deity, those differences indicate a problem at core.
Consider this:
As has likely been noticed, "the Bible" here has so far been written with quotations. The reason for this is to point out the futility of establishing any singularity that can be referred to as "the Bible." The Catholic version has different books than the Protestant version and the various iterations of the Protestant version can't agree on the wording, hence the notion of translations. This is more than an issue of literary happenstance. It is foundational to a problem of interpretation. Take for instance the verse mentioned in an above article, Romans 13:1-2 where "governing authorities" is used to point to civil institutions. That word "governing" is found in the New International Version (NIV), but not the King James Version (KJV), where it is translated as "higher." This single word change will support different interpretations, where "higher" can then be taken as referring to "God's" laws or even as an idealized version of civil law.
Here’s a helpful image for comparing various translations, separated by the interpretative framework used to give us the supposedly unchanging and eternal cosmic message:
Notice that even when the same framework is used, there are still variations in how language is translated. From an academic perspective, this can be fascinating, and part of me still finds it to be, though again such fascination is predicated on the acknowledgment that this is all human subjectivity. (As a fun aside, back in my believing days I’d stumbled into the “KJV-only” camp and while I now find it ridiculous, they still offer a lot of resources for noting the contradictions between translations.)
Any attempt at using "context" to get out of the interpretative problem simply expands the issues to be confronted. Who determines what is bound within "context?" The chapter? The entire book/letter? Perhaps even the holistic message of "the Bible" itself? Who decides what that message is? I’ve been in church services of Unitarians, Baptists, Catholics, Pentecostals, and so on. Depending on who is preaching, I have heard from each of them that the others are nothing more than the devil in sheep’s clothing, taking the “true” believers from Jesus. Welcome back to status games.
Few people are aware that theology, the articulation of religious doctrine, is not a singular enterprise. There are entire sub-disciplines of "biblical theology," "historical theology," and "systematic theology" to name but a few. The latter is especially important here. Systematic theology is the process of determining an overarching theme or message from within "the Bible." This is, incidentally, where various Protestant denominations come from, where differences in systematic theology will lead to different practices and schisms. This process is the application of human rationality to create a logical framework for study. Each and every different systematic theology utilizes the injunction out of I Cor. 2:13 to "compare spiritual things with spiritual" and combines it with II Timothy 3:16 that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" to then come up with a systematic means of interpretation. The resulting variations fill entire volumes concerning scriptural exegesis (critical interpretation of text).
There is simply no agreed-upon interpretation anywhere in Christianity, it is all a manner of starting with one's desire and then applying such to "the Bible" through the theological lens explicitly taught or implicitly accepted.
Some, from both liberal and conservative camps, will go on about "original languages" and "historical context." Any form of this leads inexorably to the same conclusion: given that so-called experts of similar scholarly background come to wildly different conclusions, simply adding more information does not help in coming to a more accurate interpretation. All that is being done is piling more information on what is fundamentally a process of desire followed by interpretative rationalization.
Given no unanimity either in translation or in interpretation, the conclusion is then there exists no internal means of determining the one true message of "the Bible" and therefore of Christianity.
As a quick aside, this is where declarations of "mystery" show up, liberal and conservative alike. As with the myriad of means for interpretation, the use of "mystery" is completely arbitrary and dependent on the individual's idiosyncratic belief currently under discussion. There's simply no means of determining where "mystery" starts/ends and "understanding" begins.
Jesus Isn’t For You, Or You, Or You
There are, of course, a great deal many other reasons based in psychology and sociology why there are so many denominations and variations on religious ideology, but it’s always fun to keep within the ideological camp itself to show internally why such disparity exists. Each party in the debate to be the “real” believer and have Jesus on their side, is engaged in projective imagination. The hope is, again depending on the person, to place all that they consider right and true under the heading of religious ideology, declare it sacrosanct and therefore remove it from skeptical inquiry. It’s about having an untouchable authority figure that just so happens to agree with you. It’s really not all that different in politics these days, where the authoritarian impulse of one leader is judged based on disagreement of policy, not on undermining democracy itself.
No matter what conclusion is reached, no matter what argument you can muster to have a deity in your corner, the end result still leaves you in the realm of the pluralistic world in which we all live. If you believe that certain people, due to biological differences, are undeserving of similar rights and privileges that others possess, then rationalizing such via "the Bible" does not make it any less your personal opinion and a reflection of your character. The same applies if the opposite conclusion is reached. Similar goes for child discipline, spousal abuse, sexual practices, and any other of a host of issues condemned and supported by reference to "the Bible" or other "holy scripture."
In the end, it is not that one person is a "true believer" and the other is not, it's that the metaphorical angels and demons of our nature want the world to align with our view of it. The utilization of authority figures, cosmic and earthly, is simply a short-cut to doing the slow work of dialogue, argumentation, and incremental change.
Whatever "god" you believe in does not determine the quality of your character, such is to be found in the treatment given to one another.
Many good points. I especially agree with the point that there isn't a "Bible", but rather many different bibles, especially when we recognize the different Canons. Yes, the Catholic bible does have 7 more books, and that's radically different, but the Ethiopian bible has over 100 books, and there are many other canons, like the Armenian, Syriac, and others - the most recent time a major change was made - when the Catholic bible removed a whole book - was 1979. The books that make up a bible (the canon) have never been agreed upon, ever in history, and certainly aren't agreed upon by Christians now.
At the same time, we have to recognize that words have meanings, and that one Christian's bible has to be given many special favors to make it all right and good - and that all Christians do this as you point out. And it's often not just Christians (as you also point out).
The upshot here is that due to Christian privilege, everyone has to kiss the bibles' butt, no matter how much they have to change the text of their bible to do so, and this recent event is another example of this.
I see this over and over too, where everyone - including progressives (and plenty of Atheists like yourself) - bends over backwards to fawn over a human book that threatened literal human torture and taught authoritarianism, and clutch their pearls if anyone doesn't join in the emperor's new clothes by failing to be a butt kisser of the bibles. It’s all about social acceptance – it’s socially required to kiss the bible's butt, no matter how much one has to lie and dishonestly “creatively reinterpret” the bibles – which clearly show that the bibles are all about human torture, and also supports slavery, religious bigotry, and so many other horrible things.
I think it's an expected part of Christian privilege. Christian privilege has taught us all , and insisted over and over, that we must praise the bibles above all else, no matter what. We can be whatever political party, etc, but holding the authoritarian leader innocent no matter what is the first rule of authoritarian Christian privilege - and most Americans have learned that well. And the bibles' message of torture and absolute rule is much worse than, say, stealing top secret documents (where again we see that the authoritiarian leader is never held accountable by his followers).
Words have meanings. That's why we use written words. Imagine if it was as socially acceptable to treat any other text the way we are taught to treat the bibles - no laws could ever be applied, because everyone would just make up completely different meanings for whatever they wanted them to say, and everyone could love "Mein Kampf" because it's all about including everyone and loving everyone, right? But with the bibles, because we were taught Christian privilege, all that is OK - not just OK, but socially required in public discussion.