|
D r a g n e t
WAS JESUS SPEECHLESS?
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 1
 January 1994 
|
|
|
The January 10 issue of Time magazine
reports on three newly-published books challenging traditional
readings of the Gospels. Some of the conclusions of these books:
"While Jesus may have been a carpenter, that probably meant he
was illiterate and belonged to a low caste of artisans. He did not
preach salvation from sin through sacrifice; he never said `Blessed
are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God'; neither
did he say `Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.'
For that matter, he probably never delivered the Sermon on the Mount.
As for the question posed to Peter and the disciples ["Who do
you say that I am?"], Jesus never asked it. And he never cured
any diseases. As for the other miracles? No loaves and fishes, no
water into wine, no raising of Lazarus. And certainly no resurrection.
What happened to his body, then? Most likely it was consumed by wild
dogs."
Stuff like this has been coming from the ranks of the heterodox for
centuries; but, as the Time article notes, although scholars
such as the authors of these books have until now mostly confined
their ideas to the "rarefied and theologically-correct atmosphere
of seminaries and elite universities," they are now "coming
out of the closet," seeking respectability and recognition on
the same level as their more traditional counterparts.
One of these scholars is John Dominic Crossan, whose Jesus:
A Revolutionary Biography denies, among other things, the divinity
of Christ. Jesus wasn't God, but, in "a mixture of myth, propaganda,
and social convention," was deified by his followers. "It
was simply a thing that was done in the ancient Mediterranean world,"
he asserts. (A broad statement: For the pagan Romans this might be
so, but not for the stubbornly monotheistic Jews.)
Jesus' healings were not miraculous cures, says Crossan, but in a
way "he did `heal' people by refusing to ostracize them because
of their illnesses." In a similar vein, Jesus' exorcisms were
really "trancelike therapies" used to "characterize
Roman imperialism as demonic possession." Crossan pictures Jesus
as a revolutionary of the temporal order who taught "radical
egalitarianism" and was thus perceived as a threat by the
Romans. As one might expect, Crossan dismisses the Resurrection accounts
as "latter-day wishful thinking."
All of this "reconstruction" of the Gospels follows from
the logical fallacy of petitio principii--begging the
question. Scholars such as Crossan begin with a preconceived anti-miraculist
bias; the fact that the Gospels contain miracle stories "proves"
they can't be historically accurate. Since the Gospels aren't historically
accurate, the miracle stories (and any other accounts one might disapprove
of) are therefore false and need to be re-written from an anti-miraculist
point of view.
Yet miracles are not merely incidental details, but the very substance
of the Gospels. The circumstances of Jesus' birth, the signs he performs,
his death and resurrection--his entire life bears the mark of
the supernatural. The "historical Jesus" and the "miraculous
Jesus" are bound inextricably. There is no distinguishing them
without doing violence to the texts which depict them. To interpret
any text, sacred or secular, one must respect the context and purpose
of the writer. (Imagine, for instance, trying to figure out the Yellow
Pages if you denied the existence of telephones.) All of this amounts
to just a re-hashing of old heresies concocted by a world too scandalized
to accept Jesus as he really is and as the Gospel writers faithfully
recorded him: God made man.
We spotted an interesting ad in the January
28 issue of the National Catholic Reporter. It was for a two-week
retreat entitled "Jamaica: A Journey into Self-Discovery,"
and the intended retreatants are "priests and men in ministry."
"This residential encounter offers a safe environment for the
exploration of the unconscious and conscious aspects of our lives
and how these forces relate to ministry, spirituality, relationships,
sexuality, masculinity, behavior, and addictions.
"Participants will be assisted with exercises in relaxation,
body movement, creative meditation and discernment, and the development
of hope, confidence, self-awareness, and self-esteem; a trained massage
therapist is on staff. A supportive community atmosphere prevails.
Second week allows for vacation activities: golf, tennis, swimming,
and personal relaxation." Sounds like a blast. But the Church
(heck, the world) has seen enough of this weak, nonsensical psychobabble.
Soft bodies foster soft spirits. Prayer, fasting, and a holy life
will win more souls than massage therapies and a low handicap.
It's no great revelation to hear of the inroads
which Evangelical Protestantism has made into Central and South America
during the last few decades. The proselytizing efforts of the Jehovah's
Witnesses in these areas are also well-known. But what about the Mormons?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints arguably possesses
the most zealous and well-organized missionary force of any religion,
and this is beginning to show in Latin America.
Against opposition from left-wing and nationalistic groups, who view
the Mormons as an example of unwanted American intrusion into Latin
America, the Latter-Day Saints have brought tens of thousands of Chileans,
Bolivians, Peruvians, and others into their fold. In Bolivia alone
the Mormons total 71,000, a number reported to be growing by fifteen
percent a year.
There are several reasons for this. One is the importance Mormons
place on family life, which the Latin temperament shares and is drawn
to--especially as dissent over Catholic social teaching has damaged
the integrity of the Catholic family as a whole.
Further, Mormonism stresses personal experience of the divine--the
burning in the bosom, the hope of individual divinization. The very
roots of Mormonism are found in private, not public revelation (which
is the foundation of Christianity). This emphasis on individual, tangible
contact with the divine is more appealing on a superficial level than
the corporal, sacramental relationship most Catholics (other than,
say, mystics or visionaries) have with God.
But the biggest reason for the Mormons' success is their organization
and uncompromising dedication. Which leads us to the big question:
If fewer than eight million Mormons worldwide, preaching a false gospel,
can convert such large chunks of predominantly Catholic peoples, how
much more could 900 million-plus Catholics, bearing the fullness of
Christian truth and with the Holy Spirit as their ally, accomplish
with a similar effort?
Puzzling Nomenclature Dept.: We've recently
become aware of a magazine published by Interpraise, a cooperative
venture by several Christian organizations (none of them Catholic)
at San Diego colleges and universities. It's called The Rock.
Coincidence? We're not sure, but this just might be the most confusing
development in apologetics since the debut in 1990 of Our Sunday Visitor's
bimonthly magazine The Catholic Answer.
When Jesus comes back he'll arrive first in
Abilene, Texas, according to The House of Yahweh, a Fundamentalist
sect headquartered in--surprise!--Abilene. Previously conspicuous
for his eccentric transliterations of Bible names and books (James
is rendered "Yaaqob," Ezekiel becomes "Yechetzqyah,"
John the Baptist is "Yachanan the Immerser"), Elder Yisrayl
Hawkins of The House of Yahweh has determined, by a confusing patchwork
of scriptural verses and citations from Hebrew lexicons, that Abilene
is to be the site of the "re-establishment of the house of Yahweh"--the
Second Coming of Christ. Jesus' visit to Abilene is imminent, says
Hawkins. (We hope we're not caught out on the links in Jamaica when
it happens.)
Recently a woman from Washington State called
our office and said her husband was arguing that the Catholic Church
might be the Whore of Babylon from Revelation 17.
He noted that the Whore of Babylon is said to be a city seated on
seven hills (Rev. 17:9), a natural allusion to Rome. He then
pointed to a footnote in the woman's Catholic Bible. It said that
Vatican Hill is one of the seven hills on which Rome was built. The
woman was troubled by how to respond to this.
We gave her several responses, one being that Vatican Hill is not,
in fact, one of the "seven hills." All of the seven are
located on the left bank of the Tiber River, while Vatican Hill is
located on the right bank.
We sent her a couple of maps, one of ancient Rome, showing the locations
of the seven hills--the Quirinal, the Viminal, the Esquiline,
the Caelian, the Aventine, the Palatine, and the Capitoline--on
one bank, and one of modern Rome, showing the location of the Vatican
on the other. We will contact the publisher of that Catholic Bible
and suggest that it correct its footnotes on the seven hills.
The fifth annual Defending the Faith
Conference will be held at the Franciscan University of Steubenville
June 24-26, 1994. The theme is "The Splendor of Christ in His
Church." Organizers note that "apologetics is more than
a vigorous defense of Church teaching. It expresses the irresistible
splendor of the truth of Jesus Christ."
Speakers will include Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua
of Philadelphia, Fr. Ray Ryland, Thomas Howard, Peter Kreeft, Alan
Schreck, Steve Wood, and Karl Keating.
Last year more than 1,200 people attended. Comfortable accommations
are available on campus, and there is always a deeply joyous and profoundly
Catholic atmosphere. We recommend this program highly. For information
call (800) 437-6314.
The Duchess of Kent, whose husband
is the eighteenth in line for the British throne, was received into
the Catholic Church in January, only the second member of the royal
family to convert since the 1701 Act of Settlement. With the words
"I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes,
teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God," she was received
by Cardinal Basil Hume in his private chapel at Westminster.
The 60-year-old Duchess had informed Queen Elizabeth of her
intention to convert, and the Queen, who is the Supreme Governor of
the Church of England, was reported to have raised no objection.
One irony is that the Duke of Kent is the country's foremost
Freemason. Catholics are forbidden to join Masonic lodges, in part
because of Freemasonry's antipathy to the Church.
The press naturally speculated whether the conversion of the Duchess,
whose name is Katherine Worsley, means that other prominent Anglicans
will "pope." Catholic ecclesiastics, who are well aware
that many Anglicans, including priests and bishops (Graham Leonard,
the retired bishop of London, is one), are seeking entrance into the
Catholic Church, smiled and said little. There was no need for triumphalistic
words.
The Anglican Bishop of Wakefield, Nigel McCulloch, said, somewhat
disingenuously, "This is simply part of the two-way traffic which
has been going on for some time." Yes, the traffic has been two-way,
but the two ways have not been equal in numbers. Few Catholics in
Britain convert to Anglicanism. Most of the traffic is in the other
direction.
The Anglican Archbishop of York, John Habgood, said, "For
some reason more publicity attaches to an Anglican becoming Roman
Catholic than the other way around." This truism may be due to
the dual facts that more people cross the Channel heading south than
north and that Catholics still suffer from vestiges of the legal disabilities
that began to be lifted only in the nineteenth century. The Act of
Settlement, for example, provides that no Catholic may take the throne.
John Shuster bills himself as "a
married priest." That's how the cover of his book describes him.
The title is Framework for an American Catholic Church: A New
Catholicism for the United States. Shuster isn't talking about
the Catholic Church in America. He's talking about a new denomination,
and he wants to start it.
"Can you imagine a Catholicism that will allow the vision of
Vatican II to become a reality?" he asks in an advertisement
for his book. "A church life marked by intellectual freedom,
full participation for all its members, and a democratic administration?"
Have you interpreted the code words correctly? These should be old
hat to you by now, but let's spell out the real meaning of Shuster's
lines. We'll let him do it himself. He wants to see "a new
Catholic rite." He says, "The American Catholic Church
already exists in our minds, hearts, and in small communities across
the nation. When we join efforts, stand up, and call ourselves the
American Catholic Church, we can begin the process of making our dream
come alive." Shuster advocates schism, and he's quite forthright
about it.
But apparently he's also smart enough to know that he may not get
any bishops to cooperate. What then? He'll change the way in which
priestly ordinations are conducted. He foresees "a renewed church
where women and men will prepare to be ordained to the priesthood
by their communities"--not by a bishop.
His list of changes "you want to see" includes:
1. "Reconcilation of divorced and remarried couples."
2. "Ordination of women and married men."
3. "Acceptance of birth control."
4. "Democratic participation and decision making" (but not
so democratic, presumably, that his proposed changes could be voted
down by the unprogressive).
5. "A balanced approach to morality and ethics" (translation:
abortion, fornication, and adultery are okay.
Shuster's brochure quotes comments from readers of his book. A man
from Nashville says, "I see no danger of schism or anarchy,"
which perhaps means he only skimmed the book. A Protestant couple
from Silverdale, Washington, are pleased to see someone promoting
a religious organization "without the negative man-made restrictions"
they don't like--perhaps all those beliefs that separate authentic
Catholicism from liberal Protestantism. A fellow from Milford, Pennsylvania,
says Shuster's book "is a provocative challenge to those who
take seriously the call to be Church"--so seriously, it seems,
that they want to be their own, separate Church.
|
