Evolution of Christianity
The latest thing I’ve been thinking about a lot is slightly out of the realm of language and religion. It has to do with the evolution of religious concepts within a particular religion. Really, it’s not outside the realm of language. Language is the vehicle by which totality of evolutionary changes in religious concepts is carried. But that’s a different issue than I’ve been considering lately. My recent focus has been on what the evolution of religious concepts means for the religion.
Let’s imagine for a moment that thousands of years ago a religion came into existence and we’ll also imagine that the religion’s God-concept was rather unique for its time. (For this excursion, I’m not interested in the details of how the religion came into existence or how it came to spread. I’ll talk about that more in the future.) Let’s say that the God-concept is of a being, an entity that’s identified as male. This entity shows distinctly human qualities of anger, vengefulness, jealousy, love, a desire for recognition and a willingness to reward for recognition or cause suffering for lack of recognition. This God identifies itself with a particular and small group of people (it just so happens that it’s the people who came to believe in the God) and not with all the other people. This God has no qualms killing (i.e., punishing) those who would threaten the small group of believers and will punish the group of believers for their sins by causing military attacks against them or starvation from the ruination of crops or suffering from plagues of disease.
You may recognize this God as the God of the Old Testament, of the Torah. It’s the God of Moses and Abraham; the God of the great flood and the exodus from Egypt; the God that caused the people of Israel to wander for 40 years in the desert because they hesitated in their belief that they could defeat the people who populated the land God told them they should take; the God that caused seven plagues to afflict thousands upon thousands of Egyptians who likely had never heard of the Israelites. He was a God prone to acts of conspicuous intervention (bringing down the walls of Jericho) and non-intervention (the slaughter of all the people, men women and children, in Jericho). A God with particularly small thoughts (the only way to control the people he populated the earth with was to kill them all in a great flood) done in a big way (you have to admit that raining for 40 days and nights with enough water to completely cover the Earth is pretty spectacular). A God who didn’t hesitate to punish someone in an extremely severe manner for a relatively minor offense (turning Lot’s wife to a pillar of stone for the disobedience of looking back at Sodom’s destruction). This was the beginning of the God Christians now worship.
My guess is that most Christians would argue that the God they worship today is not exactly the same God as the one described in the Old Testament. (Actually, we’re probably all over the map here. There are Christian sects that hold that the Bible, all of the Bible, is the infallible, divine word of God. The evangelicals that believe the earth and the universe is no more than 6,000 years old based on a literal reading of the Old Testament might be one extreme. The other extreme might be some new age interpretations of the stories in the Bible. How we got to the point where there are so many interpretations of something that started at one point is very interesting and related to where we’re headed here, but not directly. It’ll be another discussion. For this discussion, we’ll avoid the extremes. In fact, for the sake of argument, we’ll be Protestant, taking the position of the majority of Christians in the United States. This by no means claims that Catholicism is an extreme. In my mind, the extremes of Protestantism tend to define the extremes of Christianity. But those aren’t the Protestants we’re going to be for this argument. I’m not going to identify the position with any particular denomination, though I certainly believe the denominations are important. And I don’t mean to say I’m taking the position of a “non-denominational Christian.” I find that claim to be a rather ludicrous attempt to place themselves above the problems of various Protestant denominations. What they don’t realize is that by believing that they’re ‘non-denominational,’ they’ve made themselves into a denomination. I’ll have more to say about denominations in a later post.) When asked why, they may respond with:
“There have been events in the history of our religion that have served to more clearly define how we understand God. In fact, the totality of the Old Testament with its writings from prophets and the reports of God’s actions show the growth in our understanding of God. Ultimately, the teachings, life and death of Jesus gave us the greatest clarity on the nature of God.”
“The more we learn about the world, the more we understand the nature of God. The ancients understood very little of the world.”
“The God of the Old Testament is unsophisticated because the people of the Old Testament were unsophisticated people. We are much more adept at logical thinking and can see that some of the things the ancients believed are not possible in a being with the core nature that God must have.”
So, I have a few questions:
1. How would you explain the difference in what you now believe is the nature of God and what the Old Testament says of the nature of God?
2. If, for example, someone believes in a God that intervenes and another person believes in a God that doesn’t intervene, do they not believe in two distinct Gods?
3. If the God that Jesus believed in was the Jewish God (since Jesus was Jewish) and the God that we profess is our God today has different traits from the God that Jesus believed in based on the teachings of Jesus, do we not believe in a different God than Jesus?
Whatever responses I get will form the basis of the next post. If I get no responses, I’ll use the ones above as representative.
Comments
There's so much here, I'm not sure where to start.
My reaction to this post: I think your first two questions are valid discussions (I'm always interested to hear Christians pick and choose different parts of the Bible to adhere to; for example, is it "eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"? I hear Christians take each side). I don't really buy the third one though; if you read how Jesus talks about God in the New Testament, I think it's clear he describes a very different God than the one presented in the Old Testament. I don't think the God Jesus describes is very different than the God most Christians worship today (and I say this in a very generalized sense).
Your post (and I think your tease of related future posts) reminded me of a news article I read a year ago. According to a study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the "religious identity" of the U.S. is "rapidly changing." The study said, "44 percent of American adults have left the denomination of their childhood for another demonination, another faith, or no faith at all." Protestantism, as a whole, is declining (evangelical protestantism is growing, the rest is declining). The report said "the willingness of Americans to change thier religion is a relatively new phenomenon."
Patrick, good comments. I'm not particular about what Biblical stories are chosen. The fact remains that the things I mentioned are there and need to be dealt with in any discussion of what the early God-concept was. As for the 3rd question, I'm not sure I'd agree or disagree that the God Jesus talks about is a very different God from the early books of the Old Testament. I guess I'd need examples of how they differ before I'd agree. The fact of the matter is that it appears the Bible claims God interceded by sending his son and then didn't intercede to prevent the death of countless first born at the hands of Herod. Jesus does talk about what seems to be a kinder, gentler God, but is he really? I don't know for sure. Maybe someone will read this and give us their scholarly opinion.
I think I saw the Pew study and remember those very findings. Fascinating reading and it should be a wake up call to Christianity in America and all religions for that matter.
I'm sorry, Tammy. I can imagine how frustrated you must be. I'm frustrated because I was looking forward to your comments in particular. I've never had the problem you seem to have with Vox. I've lost comments before when the machine hiccuped, but never partial losses. What I've done is to start writing my posts and comments (this is an exception) in Word and then cutting and pasting it onto Vox. That way, if it doesn't take, I still have it.
Again, I'm sorry this keeps happening to you. I'm seriously considering moving to WordPress. It seems to get better reviews.
Re-read your post and questions, and I think there's a fallcy in the third quesiton. For the example you laid out, there’s an assumption that Jesus is separate from God, yet most Protestants believe Jesus is God (I’m hesitant to kick the hornets’ nest of the Trinity and get off track, but this is an important point). When you view Jesus as God, and study his life, teachings and sacrifice, that shapes the New Testament view of God many Christians trust today. The Gospel (New Testament) flips traditional thinking related to Religion (and the Old Testament view). For example:
For the Protestant group you describe in your post, Jesus-as-God changed the view of God forever.
Concerning the second question, the more I think about it, the more I think this is a non-issue. I think there is a shared core belief in the One God. Imagine this as a central hub. Stemming from this hub are man-made constructs to build on the idea of God: personal intervention, predestination, Bible as God’s divine word, prefers newborn baptisms, etc. These are what humans project onto God, yet it doesn’t change the central hub. Everything else is added by humans and given weights of importance by humans. Can a Christian who doesn’t believe in predestination worship next to someone who does? Yes. In churches across the world, Christians worship together with people who think differently about topics such as intervention. From a personal standpoint, I live with and love a person who believes in intervention, while I do not. Yet, I’m confident we worship the same God. The disagreement is a difference in theological opinion; yet our central hub, our core of belief, is the same. For your outlined Protestant group, and I’m willing to include all denominations for this comment, think back to the central hub I mentioned: One God. That is a shared belief, and I’m willing to go so far to say I think Christians can even believe in the same God that Muslims do. The differences stemming out from the central hub, which lead to denominations, are added by humans for a variety of reasons as they seek out God.
Patrick, I'm going to tackle your comments one at a time and likely will raise more questions than I will answers. So, as for your first comment about Jesus being God, my immediate reaction was "Really?" And then I thought better of it realizing that that's probably true today. But, that raises the question of whether Jesus considered himself as God or if that interpretation is a more recent development. If today's Christians consider Jesus to be the same as, as in a different manifestation of, God my question would be "Then who was he talking to prior to expiring on the cross or when he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane?" There are many instances of Jesus praying which would be an odd thing for God to do. I have a hard time imagining that Jesus knew himself to be God. That kind of cheapens the crucifixion than, doesn't it? I mean, the whole point of the crucifixion was that God so loved the world that he gave his only son. If it really was God in sheep's clothing and not his son, there wasn't much point in the crucifixion. No, I think Jesus as God is a more recent development and a bastardization of the story in the Bible. (By the way, the Trinity was never postulated by Jesus. It was developed a couple hundred years after Jesus' death.)
So, I still think the third question is valid. If Jesus was a self-professed Jew (which I believe there are examples of), does that mean that he professed belief in the God of the Jews? And if so, if our God-concept is different today from the God-concept of the Jews in Jesus' time, do we not believe in different Gods?
I'll come back to your second comment shortly.
I can now fully sympathize with Tammy. I’d written a response to your second comment. I hit the Post button and Vox went straight to the blog page without telling me the post was successful. When I looked, there was nothing there. Frustrating. Do you think God’s punishing me?
So, as for your second comment about my second question . . . I’d be interested in hearing what you think the core to God is. I suspect that what you believe to be the core would be something that would be disputed by someone. I think that by the time we got to a core that everyone would agree on, it would be insignificant. Besides, I think you may be discounting concepts that might be crucial to others. For instance, the concept of intervention. Those who believe that God intervenes are not likely to discount it as something that could be wrong. After all, isn’t the Bible intervention. It is “the word of God.” And the Bible is full of God’s intervention. Was it wrong? Did he intervene for a while and then give up? Non-intervention would seem to negate the point of much of prayer. Intervention, predestination, and others establish a character to the God that get to the core of the concept.
On top of that, the idea that these things are features that are on the periphery implies that they’re features about which the person who believes them could be wrong. So, for instance, you could believe that God doesn’t intervene in the world (contrary to everything in the Bible). By your own admission, you could be wrong and God does intervene in the world. If you believe you could be wrong, do you really believe it? Is it something you have “religious conviction” about? If not, then why hold it as a tenant of your religious belief? At what point do you draw the line on what it is you believe?
Steve, I just read your responses and planned to reply when I had more time to commit. Yet, after typing, I realized I wrote quite a bit. I enjoy the discussion and debate.
I agree the issue of the Trinity is muddy, but having grown up in the Protestant example discussed in your post, I can assure many people hold onto the idea (depsite the lack of explicit evidence in the Bible, only implicit). Unfortunately, the damage caused by the late insertion (and later removal) of 1 John 5:7 can still be seen today (as it is still included in the King James version, which some sects still devoutly adhere to).
Thinking about this makes me wonder if there's an important difference in Jesus thinking of himself as God, God-like or just a tool for God to work through. I know I if started to perform various miracles, I'd wonder. We do know Jesus (and Protestant Christians) didn’t consider Him to be of Man, but of God (John 8:14-18; John 8: 23; John 8:58; Isaiah 9:6; Luke 22:70; etc.)
I also think verses, such as Luke 22:69 and Luke 22:20, point to the change in how people now view God. Through Jesus, and his death and resurrection, modern Christians see a new covenant (and relationship) with God. As I noted earlier, the Gospels paint the picture of the modern opinion of the nature of God. So, I guess that’s my answer to your first question.
Of course, these verses only mean anything if you believe in the validity of the Bible.
As for your third question, I’m not entirely sure Jesus believed in the “Jewish God,” as your question suggests. I need to investigate more, but for now, I point to John, chapter eight. Specifically, in verses 19 and 54 (where Jesus tells a group of Jews,” My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.”).
I also believe Jesus knew he would be crucified, as he references the fulfillment of the prophecies numerous times. I think most Christians don’t think that cheapens the crucifixion, as he still suffered, and more importantly, in the act of the resurrection, Christians believe Jesus set people free from the bonds of sin (and need for Old Testament-style sacrifices and worship).
Regarding our different viewpoints on distinctive Gods, I will need to post later. The cliff notes version: my core to God is that there is greater entity to this world that people feel drawn to believe in. For me, everything else isn’t really crucial, because at the end of the day, we don’t really know (I openly admit this gets really sticky when you throw in the Protestant belief that you can only get to heaven through Jesus). Because we don’t really know, I think it’s foolhardy to get too worked up in believing something unproven, that you think is right, should make or break it for your belief in One God. If I don’t think God intervenes in our daily lives, and somehow I find out he does and I’m wrong, that really doesn’t bother me. How was I supposed to know to begin with? It was just my opinion and it would be foolish for me to base my faith on that (and to assume I knew what God was up to). I think as people seek out God (as I mentioned, many humans are drawn) they shape God with things they can understand. I think God is bigger than these character traits. If you’re getting hung up on predestination, I think you’re missing the point. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christians should break up the church into different denominations by arguing about theological theory.
(and just for the record, I believe God can intervene, but at this time in my life, I don’t think God plays a part in the mundane of people’s lives. Also, non-intervention doesn’t negate the point of prayer. I don’t believe in God so I can petition him. Prayer life consists of praise, adoration and fellowship.).
Patrick, I find it interesting that you reference the gospel of John rather frequently. If my recollections are accurate, the gospel of John is the most suspect of the four gospels, generally ascribing many more miracles to Jesus and with Jesus making many more claims of his relationship with God. I've seen it said that this gospel was written with the intent of providing evangelical fervor (hence the name John the Evangelist) to the writer's audience. I've also found that there's considerable debate on who the author of all the books ascribed to John really was. In any event, the gospel of John is the most distinctive of the four gospels in its description of miracles and Jesus' self-reflection. I keep hearing the kid's song, "One of these is not like the others" . . . it goes a long way toward establishing the character of validity of the Bible.
The validity of the Bible seems to be a squishy thing. There are parts that people would just as soon not admit to and other parts they're vehement about. My question is, can you pick and choose what you want to accept as valid from something like the Bible? Can I say "I believe the creation story, but Noah and the flood thing is a bit much" and still have the Bible stay meaningful? Aren't I then changing the religion to suit me? What about the whole "Word of God" idea? If parts aren't the word of God, how do we know what parts they are? There's part of me that believes, as untenable and ridiculous as they sound given our current level of knowledge, that the new Earth Christians, the Christians who believe in the absolute literal truth of the Bible and the Earth is only 6,000 years old, are the most consistent and least hypocritical of all Christians. And they're also a prime example of the nonsense that is religion.
You reference passages in Luke as evidence for how the view of God changed for later Christians. I won't argue the point that Jesus, through some of his teachings, changed the discussion of God, but I would argue not as much as you might think. After all, the Old Testament is still part of the Bible and is referenced each Sunday in the readings at many churches--Catholic, Protestant, and Non-Denominational. The fact of the matter remains that the God most Christians now look toward is significantly different from the God of Judaism prior to Jesus. So different, in fact, that the only explanation for the difference would be that God has evolved over the years and that evolution has been a product of humans changing their concepts of God to be more in-line with current thinking. How many people today would say that the God they worship would destroy a city and kill all its inhabitants and turn to salt someone who looked back? How many people today would say that God would take sides with one people against another (I know, we do it all the time during war, but who really believes a God would do that?)? How many people today would say the God they worship would condone the slaughter of women and children like he apparently did when the Israelites conquered Jericho? It just doesn't make sense when we think about what a God would be today. Yet, it's still part of the Bible and we still refer to the stories from that section of the Bible as though they are no less true than those stories in the New Testament.
And I do believe that Jesus believed in the God of Judaism. I think you'll find most Biblical scholars hold that Jesus was certainly Jewish. There are numerous references to him going to the temple, from the time of his youth (when Joseph and Mary find him in discussions) to his adult life (the story of the moneychangers at the temple). And he references many events from the Old Testament (Sodom and Gomorrah and the great flood, for instance) that shows that he was aware of and believed the Judaic notion of God, vengefulness and all. So, the question is, if Jesus held to the nature of God as contained in the Jewish teachings (presumably the same God as in the Old Testament), is that consistent with what we now assert was Jesus' teachings on God? Or, if Jesus fundamentally changed the understanding of the nature of God, why do we still cling to the Old Testament?
That's probably enough for one day. I'll leave the discussion about your paragraph on the core to God, the crucifixion and suffering for another day.
So, having participated in this discussion now, I’m curious if you were ever generally interested in a conversation, or just wanted someone to offer opinions you knew you could refute due to the narrowed subjects of the offered questions. You asked for answers to three questions from a mainstream Protestant viewpoint. My responses have been to offer that viewpoint, even though in much of this discussion, they’re not my own (but it is what I grew up with and am still familiar).
I’m curious if you attend church. Otherwise I’m not sure how you can assert that many churches reference the Old Testament. I can assure you that many modern churches do not. Many Christians have trouble understanding the Old Testament and often choose to not read or study it. Many modern Christians instead view those books as not reflective of the personal God relationship defined after Jesus. Many modern preachers are changing how they approach Old Testament stories.
I’m afraid my point about Jesus’ belief in a Jewish God wasn’t written well enough by me. Of course Jesus was Jewish. Of course he knew the Jewish history and of course he would reference it to relate to his audience. My point is that I don’t think he thought of God as the God of Judaism. I think he thought of him as the God of All, not to be claimed and held by one nation. I also think Jesus escorted in the new view of God as Father, different than the Old Testament. Jesus believed in the same God, but brought a new sense of relationship. He expanded the meaning of God beyond the Old view.
I also feel like your missing the impact of Jesus and The Gospels on modern religion. Your explanation for the difference in how people view God isn’t the only explanation. Modern Protestants consider Jesus as the true and better version of the Old Testament (that might sound weird, but it’s from a quote by Tim Keller, one of the leaders of one of the newer Christian movements). His sacrifice and victory over death changed the game. It changed how God interacts with humans and humans communicate with God. After his death, there’s no longer a need for the Temple, no more animal sacrifices. I’m afraid your reasoning here is one that will rarely win over a Protestant Christian. They look at it completely different than what you’re arguing. You can attack the credibility of John all you want, but it’s in the Bible and it’s what people believe.
I think many modern Christians recognize horrific things happen, but are willing to accept them in the world, citing, “God must have a reason.” (personally, I’m in stark contrast to this viewpoint, but I’m trying to contribute to the conversation you asked for originally in your post). And if you devoutly believe God has a hand in all things, then you have to accept that woman and children die daily and that God has a role. Therefore, are God’s traits really that much different? This is something many Christians are probably uncomfortable discussing and admitting.
Christians still include the Old Testament because they still hold to the idea that the Bible is (mostly) God’s Word. I think the high percentage of Protestants accept this without question. So, even though it doesn’t jive well with the current view, you can’t just cut out what you believe God wanted you to hear.
You mention the validity of the Bible as a squishy thing (which is what I alluded to in my very first comment). For me, this is one of the most important discussions. I don’t believe in the validity of the Bible. It wasn’t long ago in my life that I regularly took the Bible to task on every detail (Why did Jesus say the mustard seed is the smallest seed, when as God, he knew there were smaller seeds in the world? Why are there two varying accounts of Jesus’ birth?). It becomes a personal choice I still struggle with today---if one part of the Bible is false, does that mean none of it is credible? I think there is little argument that the Bible is not a flawed book, edited by people during many centuries. My opinions on this get me into a lot of arguments with my Christian friends (Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic and non-denom).
Patrick, if I gave you the impression I was setting you up, I apologize. That was not my intent. Sometimes I forget myself. It's been quite a while since I have been involved with church . . . say 25 years. So, I don't feel that I can speak with authority about religion. That's why I ask the questions. I'm sorry if I got carried away by the subject.
That being said, I'll mull over your comments tonight and build a response tomorrow, and hopefully it won't sound aloof. Thanks for participating Patrick.
Truth in lending . . . I have a specific goal that I'm driving toward and I'm using the questions to try to get passengers engaged and to come along with me. The goal is to show that Christianity, and by extension all religions, evolve. The process of religious evolution may be claimed to be the result of revelation, prophesy, miracle, etc., but is actually a process conceived by humans. I hoped, by asking questions, to show that the God of today's Christianity is so removed from the God of the Old Testament and the God of Jesus' time that it begs for some sort of explanation. And the only explanation is that the religion evolves. By evolution, I mean that through the ages various cultures stamp their idiosyncrasies on Christianity, through translation of Bible texts, introduction of interpretations, attempting to apply the tenants of the religion to the circumstances of their times, etc. These cultural twists may not seem like much at the time, but cumulatively over the 2,000 years of the existence of the religion, they have fundamentally changed our concept of God to the degree that the evolved God of today and the God of Jesus' time are comparable by only the most meager threads. So, the point is that the God that Jesus believed in and talked about, the God of Abraham, is probably nowhere near the God that Christians believe in today and the only explanation is that man has changed him and that makes him a man-made product.
Going even further, part of the reason some Christians today feel so uncomfortable with the Yahweh of the Old Testament is because the Old Testament makes God out to be a vengeful, angry, self-centered God perfectly willing to slaughter the many to save a few and perfectly willing to favor one tribe over another. Not attributes most people would commonly associate with a God that is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-love. (I’m not discounting the fact that there’s talk of a loving God in the Old Testament as well, but that doesn’t squelch the ugly things it says God has done.) Yet, they profess that the God they believe in did many of the things that only come from the Yahweh of the Old Testament. This is a bit problematic.
After considering what to say next, I’ve decided to let this rest for a bit. I’ll probably come back to it at some point. But I crossed the boundary of being threatening and that’s my cue to let it rest.