The benefits of a-la-carte versus set menu...

See, I told you I'd be a useless blogger. It's been about...er, six weeks since my last one? Can I possibly have gone six weeks with having nothing to moan/rant/give an informed opinion on? Nah. Much more likely that I've been busy and completely forgot. Plus that makes me sound all mysterious and interesting, so we'll go with that.

So I met up with my good friend and chaplain at UCC today. Having spent a few moments groaning and facepalming over the recent events at Knock, we indulged in some riveting theological discussions of the Bible. Well I find them riveting anyway. I love a good theological discussion, me. I particularly like theological discussions with sane, rational fellow Christians like this chap. That's one of the few things in life that disheartens me really. The surprisingly low levels of sanity, rationality and plain common sense exhibited by some in modern Christianity (and other faiths, I'm sure. I can only speak for my own lot). I'm currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I must admit I'm not too far into it, what with not being the best at time management and all that. I do find it a really good read. And I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points he makes. Don't get too excited now, all you atheists out there. You still can't claim me as your own. However Dawkins makes very valid points about the damage religion can do to society, which I agree with. I see religious fundamentalism as one of the greatest evils in the world. Where I would disagree is obviously a) the fact that there is no God and b) that the world would be better off without any religion or faith whatsoever.

Many modern atheists would argue that faith, science and reason are completely incompatible. I would disagree. I consider myself a (relatively) sane and sensible person. I have whopping great blonde moments at times, but I have a few brain cells huddling together up there somewhere. There is nothing in modern scientific teaching in areas such as evolution that I disagree with. Yet I am a card-carrying Christian, and not ashamed to say it. I believe in God, and that's it and all about it. I have no emperical or scientific way of proving His existance, so this will do absolutely nothing to persuade any atheists in the audience of either God's existance or my personal sanity. Furthermore, some tend to find it harder to understand how I can remain a believer when I outline my views. However, this isn't aimed at non-believers or agnostics, so you might want to look away now, maybe go get some tea. It's a plea to fellow Christians to stop for a few minutes and use the brains and common sense God gave them.

Yours truly over here tends to fall under the term "a-la-carte Catholic". I'm not sure what to make of this, as it is generally used as a derogatory term by conservatives. The very term implies picking and choosing what suits one's own personal tastes, right? Well, it's not that simple. I take it as sifting through the pile and picking out what makes the most sense, and, most importantly, is the most Christian. Here's the first major sticking point: Sola Scriptura: Yay or Nay? The answer is nay, folks. One thing I am keen to point out about the Roman Catholic Church (and Anglican Churches) is that they do not subscribe to this belief. The RCC fully accepts the scientific evolutionary explanation for creation. A literal interpretation of Genesis is, to quote my aforementioned priest friend, "completely ridiculous and flies in the face of all knowledge and reason". Apologies to any evangelical "Bible-believing" types out there, but that's the truth. "Blasphemy! How can you say this! The Bible is the infallible word of God!!" you screech, when the rage has subsided enough to allow for coherant speech. Er, is it? God wrote the Bible, did he? No, men wrote the Bible. The closest thing in the Bible which could claim to be directly dictated by God are the Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The rest are written by men, and God is generally not speaking to them at the time. The Bible can be called the inspired word of God, yes. It is not the infallible and inerrant word of God though, because God did not directly write, nor dictate and proofread it. Moreover, it has been translated and re-translated thousands of times, so even had He written it, it would not have come to us verbatum. Even Jesus Himself was quoting translation when He spoke of the Hebrew Scriptures, because His mother tongue was Aramaic. See where I'm going with this?

"How can you be a Christian if you admit the Bible isn't true?" Just because I don't believe in the literal reading of the Bible doesn't mean I don't believe the ethos of it. It doesn't mean I don't believe that Jesus was real. I most certainly do. Again however, Jesus did not write the Gospels. And they were not written while he was alive. Yes, Matthew and John were apostles, so they knew Him personally. Their Gospels were not written till at least 30 years later though. Luke and Mark were even later. Furthermore, they did not sit down to write verbatum, infallible gospels. They were writing a record of Jesus and His life and teachings to be used in the Christian communites of the time. They were also not the only ones writing about the subject. By the time of the Council of Nicea came around in 325AD, there were several types of Christianity floating around. The Council codified Christian orthodoxy to follow the "valid" teachings of Pauline Christianity, and compiled the Bible we know today, leaving many contempory Christian writings out. One could spend all day discussing/boring people to death with this, but my point is this: How can people today honestly claim that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God when it has clearly been subject to revision, editing and compilation by man since its inception?

The Bible is a blurry mixture of literature, history and folktale motifs. "So, if you don't believe the Bible should be read literally, and you're not an atheist, then what's your answer, smart alec?" Like I said, the Bible is a piece of literature. Like one of my English lecturers never tires of telling us: Reading should be an active, not passive endeavour. He talks of unpacking texts. That is what we Christians have to do with the Good Book. Read it actively, searching in between the lines. Think and pray while you're doing it. What fundamentalists do is the merely read it and the regurgitate what it says, without thinking about what it actually says, what it means. This is not proper spirituality. This is not true, living faith. It's like a parrot. It certainly seems like it is speaking, but it isn't. It's imitating speech, but it cannot think of words of its own. Why did Jesus speak in parables if He didn't want us to think about His teaching, hmm?

The biggest mistake they make is that they get so caught up in dogma and doctrine, that they tend to leave out a small little aspect: that Jesus of Nazereth bloke. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but He's kind of important in the whole Christianity gig right? What's He got to say for Himself then? Was He was running around giving out and making big lists of rules and regulations? Er, no actually. He seemed to be a bit too preoccupied with hanging out with all those beggars and tax collectors. He sometimes had a few kind words for widows and lepers, too. This one time though, He got mightily hacked off and smashed up the temple. Now what on earth would drive Jesus meek and mild to lose His temper like that! It was those awful gays, wasn't it. Darn perverts! Funnily enough, no. It was pious, upstanding religious leaders being financially immoral and corrupt in the temple. Hmm...Now I wonder...

Apologies for the descent into such irreverant humour. My devout a-la-cartism also firmly believes in the Divine Sense Of Humour. My point is, so many Christians spend so much time condemning this person and that person for breaking the "rules", without seeming to have any idea of who Jesus was or what He was about. He wasn't about rules and dogma. (I know some smart alec will inevitably quote the passage about Him coming not to destroy the law but to fulfill here). He was about love, compassion, justice, tolerance. The tempatations in Luke 4: 1-13 are seen as temptations to power, prestige and popularity. These are the things which Jesus rejects. This is what He is not about. He then tells us in 4: 18-30 what He is about: He came to bring good news to the poor, release the captives, free the oppressed, etc. How many religious leaders or fundamentalists could claim to do these things? He was about the ordinary people, the sinners. And He treated them with compassion and understanding, rather than lambasting them for their failings. He saw the bigger picture, saw the grey shades of human experience rather than the nice and neat black/white or religious dogma. And he did not say a bloody word about sex. Cue smart alec evangelical type again: 'Mt 5:28, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."' you declare smugly. Ok. In the literal sense, this means thinking about adultery is as bad as acting on it. Adultery is mentioned. Where does He mention the endless litany of other sexual sins you espouse? Using a small bit of brainpower to read between the lines, He tells us that our intentions are what matter, as well as our actions. When the Pharisees are criticising Him because the disciples are eating on the Sabbath when they should fast, He politely reminds them of the time David took the Priest's bread to feed his starving army. Ever wondered why Christians don't have dietary restrictions like other faiths? Because Jesus proceeded to tell these devout and pious men that it's not what enters a man's body that defiles him, but what comes out. In other words, it's what's in our hearts that matters. So the basic idea of Christianity is we are all human, we are all children of God, and we are all to love and treat each other well. Our attitude to our fellow man in our hearts is what matters, not what we eat, who we sleep with, what colour we are, or whatever other stupid reason we find for ostracising people. To all those who accuse me of being "a la carte", are you not doing the same in reverse when you ignore Jesus' teaching on compassion in favour of condemning everyone? Come here a sec, you seem to have a bit of a log in your eye there...

There endeth the lesson. Go in peace to get yourselves some coffee and curse my verbose rantings.