Catholica Commentary by Fr Peter Dresser: God is Big .... Real BIG! (Chapter 6: Religion and Literalism Part 1)

"God is Big ..... Real BIG!" by Fr Peter Dresser (Chapter Six - Part 1)

Today we begin Chapter Six of Peter Dresser's book. It is a lengthy exploration of the problem many seem to have today of sorting the religious and theological meaning of Scripture from historical fact. Today's commentary might be viewed as an introduction or overview to a number of specific instances where Scripture is often taken too literally at the cost of obscuring the deeper mythological, theological or religious meaning.

Chapter Six (Part 1): Religion & Literalism

A child's letter to God...

I came across this little letter in a church recently. It reads simply:

Dear God,

I didn't think orange went very good with purple until I saw the sunset you made on Tuesday. That was cool.

Eugene.

Very cute when viewed from a child's mythical perspective of God somehow creating the sunset. Very cute but very wrong! The letter becomes a lovely example of poetry but must not be taken literally. Like all young children Eugene finds it difficult to separate myth and reality. As we grow older, it becomes easier and indeed imperative for us to separate myth and fantasy from reality. Santa Claus and his reindeer must eventually give way to reality and truth! God did not make the sunset. Gaseous substance, meteorological variants and other conditions made the sunset. The sun and the earth had a part to play as well. Myth always contains an element of truth, however, and so God may very well have been a part of Eugene's sunset but certainly not its immediate creator!

Now to the adult problem of religious mythology...

So before proceeding further, it is necessary to explore in a little more detail the interpretation we give to aspects of our Christian thought and doctrine, to Scripture and to such phrases as Son of God and Virgin Birth and Resurrection and so on. In treating these and many such matters literally we have done considerable harm to these doctrines and intolerable violence to our collective intelligences.

As I write on this Feast of the Annunciation I cannot but help thinking that many spend so much time speculating on the particularity of God's incarnation into this Universe in the person of Jesus. There cannot be any problem here surely? Jesus was born as he was, at the time that he was just as you or I are born in our respective places. He was an avatar born at that particular time because of the religious and political tensions abounding in his country. There were avatars before him, manifestations of the divine. There have been avatars since. The followers of Jesus fervently believed that he was indeed divine and gave evidence that Jesus was the promised Messiah. One only has to look at the efforts of Apollos in the energetic way he refuted the Jews in public and demonstrated from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ [Acts 18:28]. In their zeal it is evident that the early Christians used the Scriptures fairly liberally to support their point of view! It was not unusual for the Jews to use Scripture in this manner — and it is something that we need to be conscious of when looking at the history and genealogy of Jesus as we have it presented to us. Jesus is said to have been born in Bethlehem — only because King David was born there and Jesus was proclaimed to be descended from David. In this context even the name Bethlehem (house of God) takes on a special significance. Jesus was the promised Messiah. Certainly the early Christians were faith-filled and their belief in the divinity of Jesus was a developing one and their acknowledgment that Jesus was the Messiah was beyond dispute. But the Gospel writers and other writers of the New Testament were speaking a kind of religious truth rather than historical truth. That is not to say they were telling lies. They were simply arguing and writing in the typical Jewish manner of the time.

Religious Truth -vs- Historical Truth: the Gospels and other New Testament writings are faith comments. They belong more to the realm of religious truth rather than historical truth. Jesus himself made constant appeals to the Scriptures in order to settle an argument with his opponents. Indeed some teachings of Jesus seem like a patchwork of Old Testament words and ideas. Jesus' predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and of his own second coming are full of Old Testament language. Above all, his teaching about his own role in the purposes of God depends entirely on the conviction that he must fulfil the Old Testament. The New Testament thus endorses the Old and the writers of the Gospels argued in much the same way as did Jesus to ensure that he was viewed as the Messiah promised in the Scriptures. Thus the Gospels and other New Testament writings are faith comments. They belong more to the realm of religious truth rather than historical truth. In a similar way our Catholic dogma and doctrine have to be better understood and interpreted in our contemporary world if they are to remain relevant and meaningful.

It is necessary for us to throw much of our doctrinal and dogmatic anchors overboard and cut loose the chain. The fact that much doctrine and dogma have been interpreted incorrectly has lead many of us from properly appreciating the message of Jesus. Moreover a poor understanding of these anchors has hindered the Good News being delivered to people living in a new world and with a greater enhanced knowledge of cosmology and Scripture and everything else for that matter.

Several well-intentioned theologians today attempt to merge traditional Scripture and church doctrine with evolution and the cosmological viewpoint of modern science. It is not possible if they still want to envisage such doctrines as Original Sin. They finish up doing a juggling act — and not doing it very well![35] Much of the baggage I am referring to has to do with a misunderstanding of the language that Scripture and Doctrine and Dogma and Church Councils use when making propositions. One of the reasons for so much confusion and concern and for so much violence committed against our collective intelligences is that people fail to see that the language employed in matters of religion is invariably religious language. It is trying to make a religious statement and in no way is such a statement to be taken literally. To take religious statements literally, particularly in our modern scientific world, is to make a joke of everything we believe in, to make a joke of what is scientific fact, to make a joke of ourselves, and probably what is most sad, to make a joke of God. As was stated in the Prologue, it is necessary today perhaps more than ever before to listen to the voice of wisdom and simplicity, the voice that reasons beyond Cleverness and knows beyond Knowledge.

NEXT WEEK: Chapter Six Part II: "Religion and Literalism"

“To take religious statements literally, particularly in our modern scientific world, is to make a joke of everything we believe in, to make a joke of what is scientific fact, to make a joke of ourselves, and probably what is most sad, to make a joke of God.” ...Peter Dresser

FOOTNOTES:
[35] See for example, Denis Edwards, The God of Evolution, Paulist Press, New York, 1999. This is not meant to disparage in any way Edward's theological contribution. His writings show a warm experiential understanding of God. My point of departure is that God is not a God of Evolution; God is more a God within Evolution. The contemporary scientific understanding of evolution cannot allow our God to have some kind of controlling influence on the course of evolution. Our God is part of the entire evolutionary process.
References will be made to Edward's appealing theology later in this book. I am truly indebted to his insights.

IMAGE CREDITS:
Clicking on the images in the body of this article will take you to the original source and further information.

Peter Dresser grew up in Orange NSW. On completing his Leaving Certificate he studied for some years at Springwood and Manly Seminaries. His life journey has led him down diverse paths and he enjoyed the experience of many and varied employments including postman, public servant and factory worker. He has appreciated his exposure to different life styles and religions and his involvement with music and sport, particularly Rugby League. He eventually turned to teaching where he found an easy rapport with and respect for young people. Peter decided to continue with his studies for Priesthood and entered St. Paul’s Seminary. He was ordained in 1990. Peter's love for his Catholic religion dates from his very early years. His involvement with Science is only a recent phenomenon. His fascination with nature has always been predominant. His continuing pastoral concern is that the Good News proclaimed by Jesus be preached and mediated meaningfully in all its richness and fullness to the contemporary world. Peter holds degrees in Arts and Theology and a Diploma in Education. He produced this document in 2004 whilst Parish Priest of Kandos in Central West NSW. He now lives privately in retirement at Kandos where he spent six memorable years.

What are your thoughts on this commentary?
You can contribute to the discussion in our forum.

Share |

[Index of Commentaries by Fr Peter Dresser]

Michael Morwood: "The Challenge in Resurrecting Jesus in Society Today" In this address given to WATAC (Women and the Australian Church) members on 26th March 2013, Michael Morwood outlines the challenges he sees the Church facing in the years ahead. This address was given in the theatrette of the NSW Parliament at a meeting to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. 33m 34s [Commentary on the Catholica where this address was published on 29Mar2013] | [WATCH THE VIDEO]

Reports 028: 29Mar2013

Visit the revamped website of the Australian e-Journal of Theology

This site was developed and is maintained by

www.viastuas.net.au
Click HERE to email the Webmaster