Remembering Wednesday: Christmas [RC]
Mine was a beautiful Christmas. Worship, family, feasting. Quiet at work, plenty of space to think and move projects forward without many interruptions. Sauna, splitting wood in the clear winter sun, scraping snow off the driveway like a scytheman.
My religious thoughts this Christmas are colored, as much of my recent thoughts have been, with certain desires:
To know better the person of Christ and understand the way in which I encounter Him
To understand the worldview of Dissenter Protestants.
To weigh the truthfulness of Scripture
Firstly, there is something immensely comforting about the Incarnation. Spiritual matters can be subtle and hard to grasp. There is a temptation to intellectualize such things. But in the Incarnation we have something definite. I could be convinced that the mass of theology, all the accumulations of anathemas, fire-crackled heretics, and creedal clauses men lost their tongues and hands over, is nothing more than a series of mistakes and misapprehensions, faulty models. I could be convinced that every miracle in every gospel is a pious lie, an anachronism and artifact of an age where such tales fed belief in spiritual power of things told, and that these tales of miracles only discredit the teller. All this does not prevent me from declaring now and for all time that Christ has touched my soul and profoundly healed me. I touch the hands that were ordained by His apostles, I read the words dictated by them, and I am made whole.
<insert transition to Dissenter Protestantism discussion here>
I see as the rightful heirs of Dissenter Protestantism both theological liberals such as the modernists who engage in higher criticism of the Bible, and fundamentalists or Evangelicals such as those who signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This is true in a simpler sense, as the “Dissenter” label includes the Quakers, Mennos, and Methodists who directly begat the Social Gospel. It is true in a more nuanced genealogical sense: Puritans begat both UUs and American Baptists. But it is even true in an abstract way: the skeptical and critical impulse that led the Dissenters to leave the established churches of Rome and England needs grist to chew through, and thereby turns against perfectly normal traditions and social customs, in the conservative case, or the Bible itself, in the case of the liberals.
We love our beautiful Puritans. What other Christian group could ban Christmas? That’s right, for much of the 1600s, Puritans in England and in Massachusetts made repeated efforts to abolish Christmas, many of which were temporarily successful. They made Christmas illegal! So, when Baptists embark on their “Holy-ween” crusades, or when UUs and Secular Humanists insist on “Happy Holidays!”, know that they are both living out a proud, old, tradition, each in their own way. Though not, of course, a tradition as old as Christmas 🎄
It brings me much rivalrous glee, as an Apostolic Christian, to have this splinter to jab at the Fundies with. But, we are called to criticize ourselves first. That is because no rule you can follow, and no tribe you can join, can save you. So it is good to remind ourselves to celebrate Christmas in moderation, with a focus on Christ, charity and goodwill, and on guard against greed, having fun at others’ expense, gluttony, and the rest.
I have many other scattered thoughts, and if I had the time to weave them into a narrative I would. But sometimes you just have a smorgasbord rather than a tightly-timed series of dishes.
Against Higher Criticism: The more I learn about higher criticism, the more it seems to me that they conflate the fact that they have institutional support from most universities, and the idea that they are rigorous, intellectual, and scholarly. C J Cornthwaite in particular says that Evangelicalism is “anti-intellectual”. It is not, it is anti-modernist, and the modernists have taken over many of the universities such as Princeton. “Anti-Intellectual” is simply a bizarre charge to level against the likes of Vern Poythress or Gavin Ortlund. That being said, I don’t think you can achieve union with God through intellectual means alone, study alone, though especially for those so inclined that is a necessary prerequisite. To close, much of higher criticism is just conjecture and supposition. I see many people being carried away by the beauty of their weapons, these clever ideas. Sometimes the truth is complex. But sometimes it is quite plain.
I am saddened, though, that they do have some points I can’t dismiss. The more I study the Bible, the less I believe it is a unified, self-defining divine utterance in the Chicago Statement sense. I quote here from the RSV-2CE.
Joshua 10:13 “… Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?...” and 2 Samuel 1:18 “and he said it should be taught to the people of Judah; behold, it s written in the Book of Jashar…” appears to be citing, as scripture, the Book of Jashar, which has been lost to time
Similarly, Numbers 21:14, “Wherefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord... ” appears to cite as scripture another lost book
Book of Enoch: cited as prophecy in Jude 14-15. I checked that this matches the Dr. Jay Winters version of 1 Enoch 1:9. It is also acknowledged as such in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible footnotes, along with a note about inclusions from a Jewish legend called “The Assumption of Moses”.
Many quotations of scripture in the New Testament that are paraphrased, misquoted, or cannot be found in extant writings. Any of the big commercial LLMs can give you a list of these.
The best explanation for all this is that the writers of the Bible simply had a different relationship with scripture than we did, with our canons and standardization, and that the Bible we have today emerged over time. While I have some strong reasons I would want to join the Evangelical movement, this is a blocker for me. Thank God for the Apostolic Faith! Thank God for Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger!
Despite these human blemishes. through the grace of God, as I study I also grow in conviction that the Holy Bible is a trace of and conduit for the Holy Spirit. I have been reading, and was so perplexed by the genealogies. And here I am, writing this, with my begats. It’s just that Puritans, and Southern Baptists, and Robert Noyce all mean something to me, so it is meaningful to trace the family tree, as it was meaningful for the authors of Genesis to trace the generations of Esau. So I believe that the Bible was written for me, in a sense, just not TO me.
Finally, I will pass on some musings about the practice of opening the Bible to a random page, and reading as if the words are addressed TO you. This is, frankly, divination. It is using the Holy Scripture to cast lots. After consulting with my Priest [EO], I will no longer be doing this practice — instead I am trying to simply read the Bible more regularly on my own as part of a organized study group.
