The Two Religions
Peter at Quaker Pagan seems to have found a very interesting book on the deep philosophical schism in the modern Christian church which I think I will have to pick up. Arthur Marcus J. Borg (unfortunate name, that) identifies the schism as between “‘literal-factual’ way of reading the Bible and a ‘historical-metaphorical’ way of reading it.”
This schism is mostly invisible to outside observers because the “historical-metaphorical” adherents also tend to be fairly private worshipers. They may under the right circumstances tell you that they are Christian, but since they don’t see themselves as belonging to the “army of God” — are in fact often repulsed by the idea — they don’t show up as talking heads on one of the many cable news talking-head cage matches. The argument happens inside church doors.
Once upon a time my methodist church got a new associate pastor, a young man just out of theology school. At a meet-the-pastor meeting, he was grilled by a parishoner who wanted to know if he was one of them new-fangled preachers who didn’t believe Christ was the literal son of God. As I recall, our new pastor tried to duck the question, saying Christ’s lineage was not as important as Christ’s message. But everyone in the room understood what he was saying — he was on the historical-metaphorical side, and the parishioner was on the other. And I felt the tension go up in the room considerably.
Interestingly, it is this “literal-factual” position that most atheists engage, in extreme cases refusing to acknowledge that the “historical-metaphorical” practitioners even exist. I have often wondered why this is the case; I think it is partly because the literalists are much easier prey, but also because so many atheists have come out of rigidly dogmatic “Bible-based” authoritarian churches and are used to thinking in absolutist, dogmatic terms. Those of us on the squishy side can be infuriating because we’re quite willing to admit that we might be wrong and we’re spectacularly unimpressed with supposed proofs against miracles, etc. On the other hand, it’s pretty hard to explain how we approach religion differently.
Even though I’m not a Christian any longer, I might have to pick up Borg’s book and see if it offers any better way of describing what the “historical-metaphorical” position is. I’m tired of defending religion against knee-jerk uninformed atheist argument. I want to help other people understand what it is we’re about.
I’m kind of an all or nothing guy. Back when I was a Christian I always felt like a terrible one, because although I tried to live by the rules set out in the bible, there were others that I broke.
These days I don’t think of myself of an atheist either, partly because I don’t want to be defined by anything that has an -ist, and also because to me, that kind of sounds like a religion in itself. Really, I like to think that when it comes to religion I have none, because when you start adhering to one set of rules and close yourself off to the things against it, you’re no longer allowing yourself to be challenged by things you don’t know.
I don’t deny that Christianity has some good messages, but I take issue with conservatives who denounce something new they don’t understand because they’re afraid of it, or try to tell others how to live and then say it’s in the name of a god.
This is the part I have the most trouble explaining. Thanks to fundamentalism and the overly-dogmatic political authoritarianism of Christian and Islamic theocracies, most western-minded people at least see religion as a series of rules you follow because someone told you to follow them. And while I know that many people do treat religion in precisely this way, it’s so far from how I and similar-minded people treat religion it seems deeply strange to me. It’s like, I know people eat SurstrÃ
For me, personally I would only base my beliefs principally on one doctrine if I thought I had to, when the fear of god was in me. When I stopped believing that the doctrine was a must, I pretty much considered it as credible as any other religion.
Of course my own beliefs probably have more Christian in them than that of any other religions, but I see those more as human than Christian.
Intriguing. I will have to check this book out. I struggled most of my younger life in my private fundy Christian schools and my Southern Baptist Churches, arguing theology with preachers and my Baptist seminary boyfriends and friends. I never really thought of it in the terms you used — “literal-factual” and “historical-metaphorical” — but I think my issues with the Christian Church may have been in the attempt by anyone to use the Bible as a literal road map to the Christian faith. There are simply too many contradictions, especially concerning the most trivial choices in life. No wonder the hardcore denominations are fighting amongst themselves. In recent years, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the overall message that’s important.
Heck, I’ve even come to the conclusion, as my Buddhist step-grandmother once said, that most religions worship the same God, but we all need to worship differently.
I’m not sold on those terms, they strike me as being too academic for most people. I also think they need a paragraph or two of definition behind them before people can understand what is meant (which might be the same as being too academic).
Well, I’m not sure we all worship the same god, but I think it’s pretty clear we all need to worship (or “practice our religion” if you prefer) differently.