Chapter 1 "Discussion"

Last night was the book study where we went over Chapter 1! But it was not as enjoyable as I had hoped.

Apparently everyone there already agrees with the book, and the "discussion" leader was simply going over how great it was and how excellent the author's points were. We weren't there to see if it was true, we were there so it could be affirmed to those who already agreed with it just how great it was.

I asked for proof of any of the author's assertions, and was told that they were later in the book. I pointed out that the first chapter is kind of the foundation of the book, and so it was of some importance to know why the author was believing in such a different way.

I got nothing more than the very non-answers the author had gave. That the need for giving up a personal God was due to some having had trouble believing in Him, so that this way those people can have an easier time remaining in the faith.

Some of the others wished to conflate my disagreement with the author into the apparently "conservative" practice of forcing them to believe something against their will. I had to assure them, I am not sure how many times, that the issue was not whether they had a right to believe the author, but rather why I should believe the author?

No answer to that one.

It seemed to boil down to this. The author, and various others, back in the sixties, were disaffected with the more conservative churches (which were most churches back then), and how such churches typically did not give very good answers as to why God is an existent being, or how Jesus did miracles, or where heaven was, and other such "Cain's wife" questions.

Relying upon authority instead of loving explanations, the churches back then created a noticeable minority of disaffected members, including some in the clergy.

This author then - as some others had before him - tapped into that, and instead of simply calling his leaders to account to give (or find) the real answers out there, decided to chuck it all out, and go with his "feelings".

That the author was one of the leaders of one of the churches back then is rather sad, as he is then reacting to his own failings at getting the gospel message shared appropriately. Oddly, as I pointed out in my review of that chapter, the author admitted that his not accepting the traditional view was far more likely due to his "spiritual inadequacies", a point I think is much overlooked by the author's fans today.

Nowadays, the author's liberal progressive successors and fans seem to have now developed the very traits that probably prompted the author to this in the first place.

That is, a heavy reliance on authority instead of evidence. I heard things from the "discussion" leader like, "Given my many years in the ministry" or "The three cited were great theologians", and others in the room would cite their retired ministerial status to lend weight to answers that otherwise would have to be considered to be fashioned out of helium.

Yet neither his years, nor the greatness of the men cited, or the collective ministerial experience in the room, aided him or anyone else in having any answers. Like the conservative boogeyman church that apparently prompted this in the past, I was to rely solely on "argument from authority".

That the three cited were a minority among theologians of their time? Made no impression. That C.S. Lewis, their contemporary back then had vigorously disagreed with them?

"He wasn't a real theologian."

Oh. Well, then. If the only theologian that any of you reading this - or anyone in the English speaking world - is likely to be able to name from the 20th century isn't a theologian, but the no-names advising that God is a feeling, Christianity doesn't need religion and the New testament doesn't need miracles are "great", then what can I say to that?

That last was sad. One of the men - er, "great theologians" - that the author had quoted was putting forth the position that we needed a New Testament stripped of the miraculous things, so that the message could be gave without confusing the laymen.

It was both sad and interesting. Sad that this should be what can be agreed with, interesting in that it did not seem to be something that many wanted to out and out admit they agreed with.

Me: "So Jesus did no miracles?"

Leader: "That's not what the author said."

Me: "He said that we needed to strip the miraculous from the New Testament, and named the miracles of Jesus as an example."

Leader: "He just meant that the miracles were not necessary to know of and have a relationship with Christ."

Me: "He said the authors of those New Testament books used that 'language of the miraculous' to get people interested, doesn't that mean that the authors were then just making up that 'language'?"

Leader: "He just meant that we don't need the miraculous to know Christ!" (note that's the same answer that meant nothing before)

Me: "So this is that whole 'Jesus as a social reformer' thing, he said some good stuff, so the authors tossed in miracles to sell it?"

Leader: "No, that's not what he meant!"

Me: "Then let's figure it out this way - did Jesus do miracles?"

Leader: "Uh, that's not relevant to the message is what the author is trying to say."

Me: "But did he do them?"

Leader: "We're almost out of time, and we can't solve all the issues of the world, let's move on for now."

Oh, yes indeed, I thought. Let us move on for now. With the sure and certain knowledge that once moved past, we'll be on Chapter 2 next week, and discussion of last week would not be "relevant".

Were the author alive today, he should be proud. Or ashamed. He's succeeded however he'd feel about it, or however he should feel about it.

A kind of success.

He has an entire group of what I can see are the intellectual leaders of a random church in my town - and from what I understand, this church is representative of all other mainline Protestant churches - who not only agree with his ideas, but defend them as vigorously and unswervingly as the conservative churches of his time defended against him.

I guess that could be a cause for "pride". But that those same churches have consistently had membership decreases since adopting those ideas might seem to be a better reason for "shame".

Funny, it was brought up to me in all the verbal chaff flying about last night, that many back then were disaffected with the too authoritarian church and this author was aiding those who no longer believed in miracles and a God "up there" to stay in church!

I think next week I'll ask, "How'd that work out?"

How it worked out.