Unposted Response to a Comment on an Anglican Website

[Editor’s Note. Wren spent some three hours, I believe, framing the following response to a comment on the website, Stand Firm. Somewhere in submitting it, the comment did not go through. As several others had in the meanwhile, all of them equally long, Wren decided her own property was the better place to post her thoughts.

I have edited the original only for better framing in the current context.]

I have been trying to draft a response since I saw your initial comment yesterday. I am new to this site so perhaps my vote does not count so much; nonetheless, that vote always goes to hearing what those who oppose my views say.

I believe that those who see things from opposite corners can help each other refine their own take on a matter. Point, counterpoint, point again. And it is a given in such that each hopes to persuade (if not impress) the other.

Your assessment of our Lord’s views to social justice is more than on the money. A great many who do not accept Him as Lord highly regard Jesus as both a Teacher and as an instrument for social justice.

I suspect, however, that ‘primarily’ stuck in the craw of several. Christ’s teachings cannot be reduced to mere social reform, even were it possible to reduce Him to such. We accept Him as Lord, here. The traditions that have been handed down regarding Him are likewise accepted as authoritative. I will assume you are aware of the Gnostic teachings that in the very earliest decades of the faith already were rewriting those traditions--. The efforts to ‘reduce’ Christ & restructure His teachings go way back--.

The rest of your commentary tends to repeat verbatim ‘stuff’ that is being bandied about (& has been for some years; I used to hear some of it way back - what, late eighties?)- it does not represent, if I may, anything but what various scholars decided somewhere along the way would be a novel take on the matter & remains even now, argued by people like you & me who have the sort of backgrounds that do not allow anything more than repeating what we have heard without adding anything to it.

I would guess most of the people here have heard your material innumerable times.

Additionally, something to be said for debate vs. argument; the words have the same meaning - but the latter has a more common one as well. Sometimes what pretends to be debate is merely some itch in each of us that wants scratching and ‘debate’ will tend the matter as easily as anything else…

One of the things about taking a collection of texts as varied as those of Scripture and reading it as one interconnected text derives from siphoning out particular thematic material that holds to a pattern observed - examining Scripture can be, in a sense, like examining a work of literature; literary study (classical norm, and, to be sure, properly managed) does well as an introductory methodology for the study of Scripture.

On the one hand, any possibility that the books could be considered as ‘one Book’ seems impossible - too many different texts, writers & too great a span of time. But on the other, particular themes are present; they are easily traced; they resonate with something particular individuals recognize as essential truths; particular points appear repeatedly throughout the texts - those points are clearly drawn; they are consistent.

What separates this book, however, from other books is that it is the story of a Divine. (I use “a” rather than “the” because of the lens borrowed; literature is a suitable introductory method to explore the truths of Scripture; what one has when they are found, however, is a different matter.)

The texts proffer many things, but the primary thread is God the Creator piercing the universe He created: He did not merely create it and leave it (as St. Paul references the lovely Psalm), ‘declaring the handiworks of God’ - He did not merely sign His artwork & hang it on a wall!

The faith, if you will, contains the truths revealed in the extraordinary - the mindboggling actuality that God created man in His own image (male & female created He them) and then (as if that were not enough) came to dwell within each of us (those who receive Him)...it is not merely the story of man in his relationship with man...it is the story of God and man.

It is not your average story, my dear!

It is not made of the ‘stuff’ of mere man. Yes, a thousand yeses, it gets interesting...anyone can claim to know God…

But the calling from God is to be holy, as He is holy...what it is to be holy - how we are to live so that our lives reflect the holiness which is our God - these things are laid out consistently, not just in the words we know as Scripture - but in the patterns of the created order as well.

The canon(s) recognized by the Jewish & Christian religions didn’t exactly spring into being in one fell swoop...the faiths which accept these canons as authoritative do not uniformly believe the same things...the Jews of Christ’s time encompassed several sects who likewise believed different truths, much like denominations within the Christian fold today...for this to be the reality, and yet the texts are still uniform in the central (primary or essential) truths revealed; still contain that ‘Law which revives the soul...’ I do not think that mere man could manage such; many writers find it difficult enough to carry a theme through to the end of a novel!

What you proffer - again - is merely what others have tossed out & you regurgitate. If you were to tell me you had read the Bible cover to cover several times - even if you had not read any commentary, linguistic studies, history of the era(s) covered, additional extracanonical texts, or even Gnostic (or other such) texts - even if you had no knowledge of the original languages of the texts, no dictionaries, no concordances - even if you read the whole in one translation only - if all you had done was read the Bible from cover to cover...what you say would perhaps have force.

But I doubt in such instance you would be saying the same thing as what you at present say.

Because, yes, “respectful, intelligent discussions of issues” can be of immense value...but merely parroting what others have said does not mean you have engaged a text or have understanding of it. And this particular text...is not merely a literary work.

Or, as St. Paul also said, “For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk…

But of power.” Our Lord commented several times on the reality that those who hear, hear (and those who do not, don’t). Which is perhaps to say, those who hear do indeed hear. And those who do not...could read for millennia & still not have anything to proffer but mere chatter…

I say these things as kindly as I can - we are all in the same boat here on this planet - that glass we see through darkly (or, as St. Paul said in another letter - looking into the mirror & walking away, forgetting the very image viewed)…

For we are created in the image of God...not something over which to preen ourselves: both response & responsibility inherent in that reality.

As you perhaps note, I have not challenged your [primary] argument(s) - nor do I retell the basic tenets of the Christian faith; others have taken your arguments on & (if you read enough of the material posted at the site, the gist of ‘what is handed down’ on the matters you raised can be easily found) - I urge you again to take on the Scripture in its entirety: much of the NT references the Old…

In the meanwhile, I look forward to your counterpoint(s) - but hope you will engage the texts themselves - you have a keen intellect and seem interested enough to manage…