Religion
How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?
The final twenty questions of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions engages with the Christ we follow.
81. Jesus - the only to follow? How can I be confident that Jesus is the ultimate figure in all history, for us to follow?
With the plethora of religious choice that we have now, how are we supposed to know that Jesus is the right one to follow? Richard Bewes provides three different answers.
Firstly, he argues that Christ has a unique character. He had an innate goodness that was endorsed by closest of his friends. He himself claims that he is sinless, which is a vast contrast to any religious leaders that came before or after him. As these religious leaders advanced in character, they became progressively more aware of their own moral imperfections.
Secondly, Bewes argues that Christ sets the ultimate standard to follow. He forgave those who sinned against him. He forgave those who he never even met.
Lastly, Bewes argues that Christ made unparalleled claims. He made numerous claims like he was "the Son of God, "universal judge" and "the Centre of all Truth."
Although these are all logical points, I think the problem I have with them is that they are not unique to Christianity. Monotheistic religions like Christianity all claim to have the monopoly of the truth. They all claim to be the epicentre of morality and truth. What separates Christianity from these other religions?
85. Did Jesus rise bodily? Must we be held to the crudeness of a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ? Is it not enough to describe the Easter event as a wonderful metaphor of the Christian hope?
Richard Bewes argues that the story of Christ's resurrection mixes both literal and metaphorical language. He definitely died and was raised from the dead. However, the idea that he appeared to his disciples on the third day is completely metaphorical.
But what Bewes stresses is the inherent meaning behind Christ's resurrection. What is most important is the fact that he returned from the dead at all. His return helped to unite his disciples who at this point were a broken mess. Judas had killed himself and Peter, Jesus' most loyal follower, had denied any association with Christ at all. It was only through Christ's return were the Apostles inspired to go and spread the word of God through the Roman empire. Christ's resurrection cemented his longevity.
AMENDMENT:
Bewes concludes by arguing that the depiction of Jesus' resurrection mixes metaphorical and literal language:
"Do the metaphor theorists think Jesus actually died? Yes, yes. Was buried? Sure. Was raised on the third day? (always that insistence on the 'third day'!") Er, no - that's metaphorical. Appeared? No, that's metaphorical too. So within a single sentence, Paul can switch from factual language to metaphorical language? Please!..."
Naomi and I have debated heavily over what this passage means. I thought it was an acknowledgement about how the bible shouldn't be taken 100% literally. I know that I've said this before, and I know that my Christian friend Naomi doesn't like this point, but I don't believe that all of the bible happened. Other than the parables which are just stories, I think that while parts of the bible was based on factual events, a lot of it is prophecy, poetry and parable, which should be considered as such. Not as fact.
However, Naomi absolutely lambasted this point. She argued that Jesus' resurrection happened. It was not a metaphor. It inspired the birth of the early church. Many early Christians were so inspired by Jesus' sacrifice that they would allow themselves to be persecuted and executed for their faiths, rather than renounce it. Would they have allowed themselves to be martyred for a mere metaphor?
Naomi quoted 1 Corinthians 15:6
"then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."
She argued that Jesus had to have appeared to his disciples, as how else would we have witnesses to prove his resurrection. It was written as a historical account and should be acknowledged as such. Even though a lot of the bible is poetry and prophecy, it can still be used to describe the truth.
I would agree with this and acknowledge that I was wrong in my initial interpretation of Richard Bewes' argument. I think he was criticising the people like me who believed that the resurrection and other biblical events were just mere metaphors.
88. Jesus - and the Holy Spirit? What was happening at Pentecost? Is this an extra dimension, on top of following Jesus and being born again?
This question is addressing the relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and I have to admit, at times I've not been too sure of the difference.
Firstly, Bewes states that the Pentecost was an important event in its own right. It was an opportunity for the early Christians to hear the Gospels in their own language and then spread the word. The Pentecost allowed the Gospels an international stage.
In John 14:16-18, Jesus promises the coming of the Holy Spirit:
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you for ever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
The Holy Spirit is not a different advisor to Jesus, but a second advisor, "who would be the 'other,' unseen presence of Jesus himself."
Although Christ's death removed him from the few, it allowed him to become accessible to the masses. "Through 'another Counsellor' (the third Person of the Trinity), the very presence of Christ himself is brought into your one-room flat but [...] right into your heart and life."
Bewes concludes by arguing that the "Spirit magnifies Christ." The purpose of the Spirit is to continue where Jesus left off. To encourage us to forgive our enemies and to know the love of Jesus.
From what I understand of the Holy Spirit, this makes perfect sense to me. I know that the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Holy Trinity and it resides in all living beings. It is what leads people to begin believing in Christ. Naomi had a similar argument. She said that Pentecost was when the Holy Spirit was given to the church. It empowers Christians to live out the Christian life.
89. How is Christ coming back? Isn't the idea of Jesus of Nazareth returning to earth quaint to accept, in our computerised world of e-mails and the Internet?
Unsurprisingly, as a Rector, Richard Bewes is undoubtedly sure that the Second Coming will happen. He argues that "the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will take place personally, powerfully, bodily, visibly, publicly - and instantly. [...] It will be quicker than any email."
It won't be a localised occurrence, but rather a sign of the end of history. A signal of the final judgment. It will bring about a new heaven and a new earth. Bewes also criticises those who waste their time trying to calculate when the apocalypse will happen. Apparently, it's going to end on the 27th of August. And who could forget Harold Camping who has consistently got it wrong when predicting the end of the world.
Bewes argues that Matthew 24: 42-44 teaches that we should not try to anticipate when the apocalypse will happen. It is impossible for us to guess. Instead we should use our time to live our lives. To work, to watch, to witness.
Do I agree with this? Do I agree that one day Christ will come back and the world will end? Well, the world will end one day, but I don't think it will be because of Christ. With global warming, pollution, war, gas attacks, terrorism and environmental damage, we could destroy the world because Christ has a chance.
90. A synthesis of traditions? Is there anything against holding multi-religious services? After all, would it not be helpful to combine the best of the world's beliefs?
One of the biggest criticisms I hear of Christianity or of any religion is the idea that it is mono-theistic. They believe that their religion is the only one that you should worship to. Three of the ten commandments all revolve around not worshipping other gods or idols. And this is what makes it so incompatible with science. While there are definite paradigms in science that can't be questioned like evolution or gravity, science is largely built on cumulative knowledge. Old theories are constantly disproved and replaced with new theories.
AMENDMENT
Naomi offered an interesting counter-argument to this. She believed that Christianity and science are compatible. As God was the creator of everything, he also created scientific processes. Science isn't a separate entity, but rather a means of understanding the world. This is why different theories arise, as we can misunderstand the scientific process.
END OF AMENDMENT
However, this idea of religion being narrow-minded and hostile to external ideas is an over-simplified perspective. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are known as the Abrahamic religions, as they stemmed from Abraham. As such they all share the same prophets, the same stories and the same ideas. In Islam, Jesus is a prophet, although obviously not the son of God. Isaac, Jacob and David also feature in the Qu'ran. Furthermore, it is possible to follow one faith and be respectful of others. My favourite example of this is during the Egyptian Revolution, a group of Christians formed a human chain around praying Muslims. The Muslims later returned the favour. The fact that I am writing these articles show that I believe in religious tolerance. I ask my Christian friends Naomi and Juan for help, as I respect their beliefs and their ideas.
Richard Bewes begins his argument by also calling for religious tolerance. He argues that our attitudes towards other faiths should be one of courtesy, grace and firmness. We should learn as much as we can about these different religions and we should have open discussion about it. There is nothing wrong with Christians attending talks about Islam or Judaism, as long as they're there to observe and not to participate.
However, he says that we should also not be afraid to challenge these people. He says that we need to remember that everyone who rejects Jesus are outside of his covenant. They need to hear the word of Christ to be saved. This dichotomy of respecting other people's beliefs, but also wanting them to become Christian might seem strange, but I think it makes sense. Naomi is always praying that I will hear the word of Jesus and become Christian. Although, I'm not sure whether this will happen, I like how she's doing this. It's sweet of her to wish this upon me.
And of course, these ideas don't just apply to Christianity. You may have a friend who doesn't like to read Young Adult fiction. While you respect this, you are constantly recommending them different titles in the hopes that you'll change their minds.
As always, I am not an expert. If you have a differing belief then comment it below. Just keep it mature. Keep it intelligent. Keep it respectful.
No comments:
Post a Comment