|
What is the real crux of our faith and beliefs?
Dear Friends,
Daniel Gullotta's lead commentary today is examining this long-debated issue of the significance of the Resurrection of Jesus. Listen, Folks, I am honestly not convinced whatsoever. Let me explain. I've been reflecting on this issue for a couple of decades at least. I think it was the late BA Santamaria who raised the question in my own mind that if we do not believe in the resurrection then the entirety of Christian belief has to fade away to nothing. It is effectively worthless and we have all been following some giant illusion. (They're not precisely his words but that is the thrust of his argument.)
I am honestly not convinced. To me the real crux lies in two other tests: (i) Do the words and modelling provided by Jesus Christ contain "wisdom and truth" — do they "work out" as "effective advice" to us as we live out our lives? And (ii) through that "wisdom", and , more particulatly, it's "truth", does his "Way (of thinking and acting)" lead to our lives been fulfilled in their ultimate spiritual sense? In other, more Churchy words, does "the Way" of Jesus Christ lead to our salvation, resurrection and return to participation in the heavenly banquet or total reunion with our Creator? If there are "flaws" in his advice, if it is in fact "not truth" or "unwise" and it doesn't provide the dividend that it promises then that, to me, is what would make my faith in Jesus Christ worthless. I am honestly not convinced that the Divinity of Jesus Christ stands or falls on some "crux point" as to whether he rose from the dead or not.
Recently on Catholica we have had an invigorating debate on the question of the Virgin Birth. It is plainly, plainly evident today that on the scientific and medical knowledge available to just ordinary people a heck of a lot of people simply do not believe the "Myth of the Virgin Birth" anymore — at least in that literal sense that the fundamentalists would want to force on all of us. A few week's ago I finished reading that controversial novel "The Thirteenth Apostle" (Michael Benoît, Alma Books) which basically revolves around an argument that Jesus' body was stolen by the Essenes and buried in the desert in an unmarked grave. That also is largely fantasy but as with the Virgin Birth, people are becoming increasingly more sceptical about all this "magic Jesus" business. Do we need this God who is constantly performing "magic tricks" for us to prove that he really exists? Don't we already have all the "miracles" we need simply through looking out into space and thinking about the entire wonder, complexity and "miracle" of Creation? Don't we have "miracle" enough simply looking at the "wondrous" functioning of our own bodies, minds and emotions? Even the most disabled person who has ever been born is a "miracle" compared to anything that any buman being has yet invented. These are "the miracles that matter" — not this constant running around seeking out apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary or wanting God, the late JPII, or some other "departed soul", to "magically" reach down and cure our bunions. What if evidence did turn up in due course of the physical reality of Jesus? Say DNA evidence or the hypothetical "bones" that the story of The Thirtheenth Apostle was built around? We'd all look a real pack of dickheads then wouldn't we just as we are beginning to look like an absolute pack of dorks today over this Virgin Birth matter simply through the more sophisticated scientific and medical knowledge God has deigned to give even the least educated greater access to today.
The tests to me as to whether I believe in Jesus or not are NOT ultimately dependent on his Resurrection. They rest on whether or not his words (and the example of his life) is true — as those words and his example are applied in our lives. And my faith rests on whether on not I believe Jesus truly is the incarnation of God. "Circus tricks" like Virgin Births and Rising from the Dead might have been "sufficient proof" for unschooled fishermen on the Sea of Galilee. It simply does not work today when over 70% of the population in a nation like Australia today accept a tertiary education as their right and the "thinking paradigm" in which the vast masses of humanity operate has moved a long way past the naivette and gullibility of a world that was largely uneducated, very unsophisticated in their mental abilities, and who were largely dependent on a priestly caste to interpret life, and the afterlife, for them.
Be clear on what I am arguing here. Even now I can hear the monkeys shouting "Heretic, heretic! Crucify him! Crucify him!" I actually do in fact believe in "The Resurrection" as a matter of faith. I cannot "prove" it though. None of us have the means to do that. How can you "prove" anything one way or the other when, at the core of the argument, there is no physical evidence left behind? We all have to accept "The Resurrection" ultimately as "a matter of faith". What I am arguing against is the proposition that our faith "stands or falls" on the "physicality" of the resurrection. My faith certainly does not. It "stands or falls" ultimately on whether what Jesus Christ has to offer us is "true" or not? Is it of Divine Origin? The "proof" of that, it seems to me is whether or not "it works" if we apply "the truth" and "the wisdom" of Jesus Christ in our lives. Do his "words", and his "example" lead to "resurrection" or "salvation" in our lives?
Our faith is not some kindergarten-level game of running around trying to proclaim how obedient we are — what wonderful little goody-two-shoes we are — and hoping through that that at the end of our lives God will hand out the "lolly-pop" of heaven because we have been such good little girls and boys. Is that not what the present-day leaders of our faith would seem to be trying to offer us all? When are they going to learn? When 90% have exited the pews? Or 99%? Or when they actually have to rock up and meet God face-to-face and answer for their stewardship of the legacy of Jesus Christ?
What do you think of all this as you read the arguments in Daniel's commentary? <Read today's lead commentary>
|
