One needs to treat Jesus, God and the Church as separate constructs. All are dynamic and their character changes over the years.

The for example has fifteen Jewish Popes/Bishops. In 800 CE the Holy Roman Emperor was crowned as the successor of Augustine not St. Peter. That is secular power.

Natural philosophy became intermingled with what became science in the Great Divergence [.1760.]. That is, alternative explations for creation.

Leading into the Enlightement there were plays involving the Franch, English and Spanish Court, while the Scientific Revolution was underway. The Church secular power by leveraging religious power. And may have retained both had Spain won the The Spainish Armada [1588]?

Going back to my first paragraph when read the Bible you do do through the lense of fourth century scholarship. The Enlightenment found conflict with the body of doctrine via science vs primative natural philosophy. God [if doable] and Jesus should analysed by histirians and anthropolists, who have the skills and knowledge to analyse religions.

Kind regards,

O.

Sells,
Thanks for your reference to the interesting Hauerwas’ lecture. As a RC I do not think I should comments on it, especially since some nuances there, as well as in the numerous comments, I could not follow. However, the following quote called my attention:

“ Protestant medicines taken without Catholic food are poison; Catholic food taken without Protestant tonics and exercises cause the body to bloat and distort.”
[“A (Somewhat) Protestant Response to Richard John Neuhaus” in Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox in Dialogue (Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1997) p.61.]

It strikes me as similar to my view of Protestantism as a needed correction to (Roman) Catholicism, a correction that cannot survive on its own: when Protestantism forgets about its function as a correction, rather than a complete replacement, it becomes eventually swallowed up by the “Spirit of the Times” (Zeitgeist), be it in Western Europe (and Australia?) where secularists reign, or in other parts of the world where the irrational and emotional evangelicals are gaining the upper hand within Christianity.

As mentioned before, I see also Enlightenment, in the broadest sense of the term, as a needed correction to Christianity (at least within the Western cultural realm) whose attempts to survive on its own are going to lead the West, as we have known it, into a cul-de-sac, unable to comptere with e.g. a more vigorous Islam. The food vs. medicine metaphor seems to be fitting also here.

Sorry, "compete", not "comptere"

George, Sells

I have just been re-reading "The Wise Man from the West". Different times have judged Ricci differently but it is fascinating to see that missions were already struggling with this issue in the 16th century. Where is the right balance between maintaining one's own integrity and honoring/respecting another person's faith/religion/culture?
Sells, you 'condemn' the liberals for going too far with accommodation and losing their 'Christian' integrity.
The counter-argument is that those who are unwilling to put their own faith at risk, those who choose to remain within their own comfort zone cannot engage the 'other' in a meaningful way. They are more likely to impose their own version of faith on others than to invite new faith into being.
The last thing we need is universal church union. That would make for a large,powerful and truly evil institution. Diversity is our salvation. Lets not bemoan it

waterboy,
I agree that we do not need a “universal church union”, presumably meaning Christianity undifferentiated and united as before 1054, though I am not sure this is “the last thing we need”. It would depend on the structuring of this union. I could imagine situations that are much worse.

The fact that there is a variety of Christian churches -- never mind that in the technical language of the Catholic Chrurch they are not “the Church“ -- makes the sincerity of dissent and open agitation suspicious when made by people who claim still to be Catholics. In this sense I see the Reformation as a blessing, an outlet for experimenting with new ideas without endangering the foundations of a two milenia “tall” edifice. I think this is compatible with “traditional“ Catholicism, although this tradition is often not to be taken literally but kept on an abstract, higher (symbolic if you like) level, something like we “keep” Genesis I and II in spite of modern cosmology. And this position is, I believe, also compatible with tolerance, i.e. an unwillingness to “impose one’s own version of faith (or conscience) on others”.

George,

I have a little trouble with the notion that the Church was once 'undifferentiated and united'. The 'unity' of the Church lies in the common confession of Christ crucified and risen, not in ecclesial conformity. Even in the early Church Paul and James held very different views on various fundamental issues. In the first century Marcion exemplifies the divergent views of different branches of the church. Why were the creeds necessary if not to clarify issues that were dividing the church? 1054 represents the final break between East and West not as something new at that time but as the culmination of a thousand years of 'differentiation and disunity' let alone the fact that there were other Christian Churches beyond those controlled by either Pope or Patriarch.
My point is simply that I am convinced that all the Churches have it wrong in one way or another and that the diversity expressed in differentiation and disputation is healthier than any sort of theological despotism. It is no coincidence that the 'reformation' immediately preceded the 'enlightenment' and it would be disastrous to 'undo' the reformation by reuniting the western Churches.
Vive la difference!