Dear Dan,

Why should a king grovel in the mud with the pigs?

Why should one who has faith in God ever bother with empirical evidence?

You cannot serve two masters!

May the peace of God, surpassing all understanding, guard your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus.

Dear Banjo

You chose to progress this discussion using dictionary definitions. But both of the words you highlighted have meanings other than the ones you quoted, and in both cases those other meanings are closer to what I meant.

I don’t have access to the full OED, and the concise version is exactly that: concise, not comprehensive. My preferred single volume dictionary is Chambers because it has more words and more definitions than any other dictionary of its type (I’m a crossword fan).

Many individual Christians base their faith on spiritual experiences that they believe are products of encounters with God. These range from “born again” experiences in charismatic/evangelical traditions, to encounters with the numinous described by mystics and theologians like Rudolph Otto. In these cases, a “feeling” is the closest approximation I can find to describe the experience, and I use the analogies of love and beauty to convey the sense that, even though such experiences are not objectively provable, they are utterly real to those who have them.

Christians also experience Jesus in community and liturgy. In John’s Gospel, Jesus says: by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another; and in Matthew: wherever two or three gather in my name, I am with them. It’s a standard that we often fall dismally short of, but at its best church (as a worshipping community, not an institution) is exactly that – a group of people caring deeply for each other’s social, material and spiritual well-being, and acting out the values that Jesus taught. Of course, these characteristics can also be found in other communities – Jesus didn’t say that only Christians love one another. But they are a model we aspire to. Paul’s metaphor is that the believing community is the body of Christ – the physical presence that does God’s work in the word.

.

Dear Rhian,

.

Thank you for your explanations which I find quite helpful.

Though, apart from the context of your text, I can see some justification for considering “belief” as a personal “experience”, anybody not familiar with your terminology could not possibly imagine that what you refer to as the Church’s “experiences” are, in fact, not experiences as one normally understands them, but simply “beliefs”. In the context of your text, presenting “beliefs” as “experiences” is quite misleading.

It is equally misleading to claim that “Christian liturgy celebrates and symbolizes reality” in reference to the “resurrection” of Jesus. The reality of the resurrection of Jesus has never been established. In the context in which you have presented the term, Christian liturgy does not celebrate and symbolize “reality”. It celebrates and symbolizes “Christian doctrine”.

Unfortunately, in the contexts in which you employ the two terms, “beliefs” are not “experiences” and “Christian doctrine” is not “reality”.

Presenting them as such could be construed to be dishonest which, I’m sure you will agree, is highly regrettable and not your intention.

May I suggest your texts should read :

« The church believes in the resurrection of Jesus and tries to understand, live, and communicate that belief »

« Christian liturgy … celebrates and symbolises present Christian doctrine … Perhaps the most important thing is not the belief that Jesus was resurrected, but the belief that he is resurrected”.

I hope I have correctly interpreted your message and await your comments with interest.

.

Hi Banjo and Rhian,
If we are going to argue about words, can I also mention some grammar?

I believe that Jesus (was) resurrected. Rhian wants to say that he is resurrected, and wants to draw some kind of distinction between 'is' and 'was'. I would suggest that it by simple logic, to say that he is resurrected is to imply that he was first resurrected.

Otherwise said, it is nonsense to say that he is resurrected without saying he was resurrected at some previous point in time.

It's all pretty clear in the text itself (lest we allow plain Scripture to throw light on our interpretations.)

The Bible is mostly non-Christian since most of it was written by Jews. The Bhagavad Gita is the sacred book of the Hindus. The Tripitaka is sacred to the Buddhists. The Koran is sacred to the Muslims. The Jewish Bible is roughly the same as what Christians call the Old Testament, but there are significant differences. The foregoing are all regarded as scripture by one group of religionists or another. I can see no reason for preferring one to another. They were all written by humans, and the main reason that most humans prefer one to the other is that it was the sacred story their parents accepted. At one time people believed the stories told in the Greek myths and regarded them in the same way that people regard the various scriptures currently. Socrates was found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state") and condemned to death. If the charges were accurate Socrates was an atheist as far as the Greek gods were concerned. Since Socrates lived the Christian God and other gods have been invented. It seems to me reasonable not to believe in any god at all since they all are merely human inventions. Everyone who has contributed to this dialogue lacks belief in some gods and is an atheist to those gods. Why believe in any god(s)? What justifies the belief of you who accept the Bible?

Hi Banjo

I don’t think what I describe is far removed from experiences as commonly understood. Have you ever experienced love?

I agree that “beliefs” are not “experiences” and “Christian doctrine” is not “reality”. Beliefs and doctrines are the way we try to understand and express what we experience. So belief is not the most important thing; the most important thing is what prompts that belief. Our beliefs and doctrines are an imperfect and incomplete way of expressing that. As Paul says, we see in a glass, darkly.

Hi Dan

I used the present tense to indicate that resurrection was not a single event in the historical past, but a continuing phenomenon. That’s why we say “Christ is risen” not “Christ was raised”.