A kind and loving God…

My new found web friend, Edward Michael George, at some length (here and here (get a tall cup of coffee)) takes me to task for suggesting that the Anglican Church and its bishops, in particular, Bishop Ingram of my ex-diocese of New Westminster, might have a point in suggesting that Christ was more about the purpose of rules rather than the rules in themselves. There is a great deal of learning, thought and intelligence in what Mr. George writes and I urge you to pour that coffee and, as we enter Holy Week, spend a little while reading and considering it.

I have neither the wish nor the ability, to categorically refute Mr. George’s points - most are sound and some are illuminating. Our dispute is really not an artifact of Anglican history or the efforts of the Caroline Divines or, indeed, the truth, utility or status of the Church’s teachings on any number of moral questions. Rather it is a question which goes to the very heart of Christian belief: is Man (in the gender inclusive sense of that term) born into Sin? And, the meta question, why would we believe such a thing?

Mr. George’s end of the Church, hewing close to St. Paul - and even closer to the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church - has a very hard time imagining what Christianity would look like without the sins of the father being visited upon the sons. But that end of the Church has to go a step or two further: it needs to be able to say that even if your father is entirely without Sin you are still screwed because of the rather unhappy fairy story of Adam and Eve. And then they go on to commit what I believe is the monumental heresy of suggesting that the Death and Resurrection of Christ atones for this putative Original Sin. So much for a loving (in any sense of that word, Ted) God.

When you adopt that view it makes a certain sort of sense to take a trawl through Leviticus for assorted personal sins de jour to drop on the heads of disobedient children, unfaithful wives, homosexuals, shell fish eaters and bacon lovers. Because the underlying premise of the Original Sin game is that God just hates his Creation. Every last one of us….right down to the newborns. (In fact, he hates us unto the moment of our conception when Adam’s sin attaches itself to our wee souls.)

Which I think is nuts.

But entirely justified if you take the Old and the New Testaments as Part I and II of the same book. I am reminded of the story Evelyn Waugh told of - on being cooped up on mission in Yugoslavia with the endlessly loquacious and usually drunk Randolph Churchill - betting Churchill that he could not read the Bible cover to cover simply to have a moment’s peace. Churchill was about halfway through the Old Testament when he wandered into the cabin and announced, “God really is a shit.” It is a pretty inescapable conclusion on reading the Old Testament. (Go read it - Job, Lot’s daughters, version one of the Garden of Eden, Noah, Bathsheba and Uriah. It is not a pretty picture.)

The Pauline version of Christianity - and I simplify greatly - wants to carry on this version of God notwithstanding the Birth of Christ. After all, what is a religion without sin, damnation and hellfire? Paul was educated as a Pharisee and, prior to his conversion on the road to Damascus, spent his time persecuting Christians as, in effect, bad Jews. Like Jesus, Paul was a Jew; but a Jew of a particularly doctrinaire sort. It is not at all surprising that his huge influence on the Church sought to integrate his understanding of the vengeful God of the Jews with the Good News promised by and incarnated in Jesus. But was this view right? Remember, Paul never met Jesus.

Albert Schweitzer notes: ““Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the ‘Our Father’ (Lord’s Prayer). Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord.”

Given the choice between the Pauline Church and Pelagius Mr. George unhesitatingly opts for the Pauline. Which makes me wonder why he is bothering with the Anglican Church at all. The fact of the matter is the Roman Catholic Church is entirely capable of saying St. Paul was right and Pelagius was a heretic; the Anglican Church, as it reforms itself, is not so sure. And it is into that uncertainty that I place my faith in the ultimate ability of my Church to reason her way to love.

Which will be my second installment…In time for Easter I hope.

Written by jay on April 2nd, 2007 with 4 comments.
Read more articles on religion.