Elaine Pagels interview

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

Elaine Pagels interview

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:29 am

Hello, everybody,

TIME Online recently released this short interview with Elaine Pagels. Dr. Pagels is a very well-known scholar of early Christianity; you will often find her featured as a talking head in TV documentaries. Although this interview touches on the Gospel of Judas and the significance of theologizing Jesus' death, what may be most interesting is the revelation of Pagels' own life-experience.
Early Christianity's Martyrdom Debate
Wednesday, Mar. 07, 2007 By DAVID VAN BIEMA Corbis
Article ToolsPrintEmailReprints


Princeton University's Elaine Pagels is about the nearest thing there is to a superstar in the realm of Christian history scholarship. It is largely through her work that many understand the early non-Orthodox Christianity that she at one point dubbed (and later un-dubbed, finding the term imprecise) the Gnostic Gospels. She breaks new ground with the debut of Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity, her collaboration with Harvard Divinity scholar Karen King about the second-century "Gospel of Judas" that was made public last year.

TIME: You and Karen write that the "Judas" author was angry, particularly at the Christian church's developing cult of martyrdom. You write that he conveyed "the urgency of someone who wants to unmask what he feels is the hideous folly of leaders who encourage people to get themselves killed in this way." Whom might he have meant?"

Pagels: So far as I know, all the so-called "fathers of the church" glorified martyrdom. Ignatius, who wrote in Syria in around 108 AD, speaks passionately about "being ground up by the teeth of wild beasts to become God's wheat," — that is, by martyrdom, he becomes the bread of the Eucharist.

What could have provoked such adamance?

Christians were undergoing terrible persecution at the time. Leaders like Ignatius felt that a willingness to "die for God" was essential for the movement to survive; otherwise, its members could be intimidated, and it might have died out.

Was it a successful strategy?

Yes. We have evidence to that effect. The philosopher Justin wrote that Socrates said that the purpose of philosophy was to prepare us to die bravely, and when Justin saw illiterate Christians facing torture and execution in the public stadium, he became a convert — and later a martyr himself.

And the Judas author objected to this?

He did not suggest that a believer should deny being a Christian, even if the penalty were death. But he challenges leaders who encourage people to "die for God" with what he thought were false promises — huge rewards in heaven, and guaranteed resurrection.

Does this tell us something new?

Before these discoveries, we knew little about Christians who opposed martyrdom — or opposed encouraging it — because the people who challenged the dominant view were ridiculed as cowards and heretics, and their writings didn't survive. The Gospel of Judas shows what intense and painful arguments martyrdom caused among Christians.

Both Catholicism and, to a lesser extent, Protestantism honor martyrdom. And some scholars suggest that Islam picked up the idea from Christians. Is it possible that despite all that, martyrdom isn't really intrinsic to the faith?

Before either Christians or Muslims spoke of martyrdom, Jewish communities celebrated those who were willing to "die for God." After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, those who still remained his followers were suspected of treason against Rome, and leaders were executed. The focus on crucifixion has a lot to do with fact that his followers remained in danger of arrest, torture, and execution themselves. Without that I can't imagine that discussions of his suffering and death would have occupied the central place that they do for many Christians.

Could Christianity have done without it?

Certainly. Many Christians focus more on Jesus' teaching about relationships — loving God and one's neighbor, caring for the sick, the poor, those in prison and destitute — teaching that what God commands is to "love one another." But because it started after Jesus' crucifixion, his followers often have been willing to risk dying for what they see as the sake of the truth. You can see it in the life and death of Martin Luther King, Jr. — his willingness to risk violence and death allowed him to defy those in power and change our society.

Do you think that the writer of the Gospel of Judas was familiar with the idea the Jesus died for our sins?


Yes — the earliest writing we have about Jesus, from the apostle Paul, says that Jesus "died for our sins," and many insisted that Jesus had voluntarily died a sacrificial death. But others asked, What kind of God are you talking about? If God would not allow Abraham [in the Hebrew Bible] to offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice, but told him to offer a ram instead, would God then sacrifice his son Jesus? Doesn't this suggest that God is some kind of monster, instead of the loving God of whom Jesus spoke? Would God refuse to forgive human sin apart from human sacrifice?

Do you yourself have any affinity for that last question?

I think it's worth asking, and long overdue for those who haven't asked it.

Do you feel it's strange to say, as orthodox Christians often do, that God required Jesus to die for our sins, and that this is the greatest demonstration of God's love?

Yes. Perhaps especially to a parent whose son has died. That happened to my late husband and me when our first son was six. And like many parents with that experience, we could hardly hear those words the same way others do.

The Judas writer doesn't ask that outright.

No. His concern was about leaders who encouraged martyrdom, and in this gospel, the other apostles stand in for these leaders, and he criticizes them harshly. I don't want to sound like I'm advocating the Gospel of Judas. What I love, is that this sort of document shows you the other side of the moon, the voices of the people who were regarded as not articulating what became the official doctrine of the Church — a more dense, more detailed, more human picture of the early Christian movement than we've ever had available before.
Last edited by _Dolphin on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:17 pm

Hi Emmet,
Time Magazine does a disservice when they claim that Elaine is an expert on early Christian writings. Her expertise is in the Gnostic Gospels, and she is an advocate of including these writings with other books of the New Testament. Any serious Christian who reads any of these Gospels would recognize the same heresies that the early church did.

As to the subject of Martyrdom. Early Christians had a major problem. They were only one of two monotheistic religions. Christians were persecuted in Judea, and the Roman Empire. They really had no safe refuge. Martyrdom was not a choice but a reality that Christians had to deal with. The early Christian fathers did all Christians a service by encouraging faithful martyrdom, and partaking in it themselves. Turtillian said that the blood of the martyrs would be the seed of the saints, and it was. There were mass conversions in the arenas where Christians were martyred. Had Christians not been faithful unto death I doubt that Christianity would have survived, or at least grown at the rate that it had.

Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:59 pm

Yes — the earliest writing we have about Jesus, from the apostle Paul, says that Jesus "died for our sins," and many insisted that Jesus had voluntarily died a sacrificial death. But others asked, What kind of God are you talking about? If God would not allow Abraham [in the Hebrew Bible] to offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice, but told him to offer a ram instead, would God then sacrifice his son Jesus? Doesn't this suggest that God is some kind of monster, instead of the loving God of whom Jesus spoke? Would God refuse to forgive human sin apart from human sacrifice?



What kind of God? The kind of God that requires justice to be served because His nature requires it but shows His mercy by paying the price Himself. Perhaps it's something we can't understand but perfection just can't let sin slide and forgive without the appropriate just price being paid for the transgression.
We may wonder , why can't God just forgive us without Jesus paying the price and i must conclude that He just can't contradict his own nature which is perfection and allow sin to be forgiven without the perfect cost being paid.
I think if that were possible then God would have but i accept that it was'nt possible even though i can't fully understand the entire picture.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to roblaine

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:07 pm

Hello, Robin,
Time Magazine, does a disservice when they claim that Elaine is an expert on early Christian writings. Her expertise is in the Gnostic Gospels, and she is an advocate of including these writings with other books of the New Testament. Any serious Christian who reads any of these Gospels would recognize the same heresies that the early church did.
TIME correctly identified Dr. Pagels' field as "Christian history." As for her orthodoxy, I will speculate that Dr. Pagels views both the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels as products of human religious activity, so for her to "includ[e] these writings with other books of the New Testament" might need to be understood in that light. In such a view, the Gnostic Gospels could be seen as components of a broader Christian religious legacy, though judged heretical by the strain that emerged as "orthodox."


Whatever her views on the gnostic texts, Pagels does make some observations in this interview that are worth engaging. Although the blood of martyrs did serve as seed for the church, it was not the only seed in the church's catalog. It is worth considering what the future of the church might have been like if historical circumstances had favored a greater emphasis on a different type of seed. As it was, martyrdom became so elevated that early church leadership had to correct people who were actively seeking it out!

It is also clear from this interview that Dr. Pagels' personal experience has influenced how she engages her topic. Her own loss as a parent has affected her receptivity to conventional Christian imagery. This is important because it illustrates how scholars are not simply analytical machines, but rather human interpreters - for better and for worse, in my opinion.


This is also important because it springboards into the question of how the church should steward its seed catalog. Let us take, for example, the image of God as Father. This is a very helpful legacy for some people, but some persons who have been severely abused by their fathers may find the imagery an obstacle to nurturing their relationship with God. In such a situation, is it more important that the church pressure such persons with the sacred imagery, or is it better to communicate in different terms? Is the concept of God as Father essential in and of itself, or is it essentially about his having characteristics in common with ideal fatherly character - characteristics which might be communicated in different terms?

Pagels' interview raises pastoral issues. How does one approach the death of Christ with a grieving parent, or with a soldier returning from Iraq, who has acquired a bitter horror toward expedient death? But it also raises theological issues. How much does the meaning attributed to the historical event of Jesus' death have to do with the immediate historical circumstances of its early interpreters - and how beholden to that legacy must later interpreters be?


Thank you for your response,
Emmet
Last edited by _Dolphin on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to steve7150

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:15 am

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your posting.
What kind of God? The kind of God that requires justice to be served because His nature requires it but shows His mercy by paying the price Himself. Perhaps it's something we can't understand but perfection just can't let sin slide and forgive without the appropriate just price being paid for the transgression.
We may wonder , why can't God just forgive us without Jesus paying the price and i must conclude that He just can't contradict his own nature which is perfection and allow sin to be forgiven without the perfect cost being paid.
I don't agree that perfection requires a price to be paid for justice to be served. What justice requires is restoration of the entire economy of relationship to health. This restoration may at times involve some manner of cost, but as an investment in life, not as a price for sin (unless exacting such a price is a strategic part of an investment into life).

This topic, incidentally, has recently surfaced in the "Misc." forum under "God's mercy and justice."


Shlamaa,
Emmet
Last edited by _Dolphin on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Michelle
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by _Michelle » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:33 am

Hi Emmet,

The article about Elaine Pagels touched me; I feel great sorrow about her loss. I understand that losing a child is the worst loss a person can suffer. I am haunted by the memory of my mother-n-law's wailing when we found her son, my husband, dead in his chair. The tragedy of the loss of her own young son has apparently shaped Dr. Pagels' thoughts and emotions toward God. Maybe soon someone will convince her that God is not a monster, nor a cold-hearted father that watched gleefully as His son died. Hopefully she doesn't believe that God ordained the death of her son.

Although an interview with Dr. Pagels is a controversial thing to post on a Christian forum, I'm intrigued by the questions you asked.

First:
you wrote:It is worth considering what the future of the church might have been like if historical circumstances had favored a greater emphasis on a different type of seed. As it was, martyrdom became so elevated that early church leadership had to correct people who were actively seeking it out!
I would argue that the Truth that believers follow is worth dying for, except that I'm reminded of Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to commit suicide for their faith. What is it that moves these people? Any ideas? I think, guess, hope, that I am willing to die for my beliefs, but to seek out martyrdom...I'm not so sure. I wonder how far that is from "taking up a cross and following Jesus," however.

Second:
you wrote:This is also important because it springboards into the question of how the church should steward its seed catalog. Let us take, for example, the image of God as Father. This is a very helpful legacy for some people, but some persons who have been severely abused by their fathers may find the imagery an obstacle to nurturing their relationship with God. In such a situation, is it more important that the church pressure such persons with the sacred imagery, or is it better to communicate in different terms? Is the concept of God as Father essential in and of itself, or is it essentially about his having characteristics in common with ideal fatherly character - characteristics which might be communicated in different terms?
That's a really good question. Do you have any good answers? Having two adult children who never really knew their father, I wonder about this often. I wonder how they view God. Perhaps I should ask them and find out what metaphors they prefer...

Finally:
you wrote:Pagels' interview raises pastoral issues. How does one approach the death of Christ with a grieving parent, or with a soldier returning from Iraq, who has acquired a bitter horror toward expedient death? But it also raises theological issues. How much does the meaning attributed to the historical event of Jesus' death have to do with the immediate historical circumstances of its early interpreters - and how beholden to that legacy must later interpreters be?
This one doesn't seem that difficult for me because I think it's the resurrection of Jesus that is central to Christian faith, not his death, except, of course, you can't have a resurrection without a death...

Michelle
Last edited by Guest on Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:03 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Reason:

_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:08 am

Hello Emmet,
Thanks for your response.
TIME correctly identified Dr. Pagels' field as "Christian history." As for her orthodoxy, I will speculate that Dr. Pagels views both the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels as products of human religious activity, so for her to "includ[e] these writings with other books of the New Testament" might need to be understood in that light. In such a view, the Gnostic Gospels could be seen as components of a broader Christian religious legacy, though judged heretical by the strain that emerged as "orthodox."
You may choose to view her expertise in early Christian writings if you want, but the fact remains that these gnostic gospels are not Christian writings. The intent of these writings were to introduce polytheistic beliefs into the church, which is anti-Christian. Now I would agree that these writings are part of an over all Christian religion legacy, because they were rightly rejected by the early Church as heresies. You say " judged heretical by the strain that emerged as "orthodoxy"". Of course they were. We have reliable historical recording of Jesus' life, His teachings, death, and resurrection in the early gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These later Gospels (some of which I have read) go on to teach something much different, and attach names of historical figures that were long dead by the time they were written. Now quite frankly, I'm surprised that this statement came from an ultra-skeptic like yourself, seeing that you have your doubts about the authenticity of the early Gospels, which are much more reliable. Do you actually think these gnostics have any credibulity?
Whatever her views on the gnostic texts, Pagels does make some observations in this interview that are worth engaging.
Absolutely! Thats why I responded.
It is worth considering what the future of the church might have been like if historical circumstances had favored a greater emphasis on a different type of seed. As it was, martyrdom became so elevated that early church leadership had to correct people who were actively seeking it out!
Like I pointed out earlier. The early Church really had no choice in the matter. They could either deny the faith or die faithfully.
It is also clear from this interview that Dr. Pagels' personal experience has influenced how she engages her topic. Her own loss as a parent has affected her receptivity to conventional Christian imagery. This is important because it illustrates how scholars are not simply analytical machines, but rather human interpreters - for better and for worse, in my opinion.
I have never had to deal with this type of loss myself, but I am aware of many who have, and don't attempt to reshape Christianity because of there own personal loss. I have serious questions about how strong her views were before her loss.
This is also important because it springboards into the question of how the church should steward its seed catalog. Let us take, for example, the image of God as Father. This is a very helpful legacy for some people, but some persons who have been severely abused by their fathers may find the imagery an obstacle to nurturing their relationship with God. In such a situation, is it more important that the church pressure such persons with the sacred imagery, or is it better to communicate in different terms? Is the concept of God as Father essential in and of itself, or is it essentially about his having characteristics in common with ideal fatherly character - characteristics which might be communicated in different terms?
So what are you saying? If some has had a bad relationship with there father, and a good relationship with a mother or grand parent, should we let these relationships have rule over how we approach God? Should people refer to God as "mother in heaven" if the wish? I think not. Jesus said that we should pray " Father who is in Heaven. This is the model I will go by, and the church is correct in referring to God as Father.
Pagels' interview raises pastoral issues. How does one approach the death of Christ with a grieving parent, or with a soldier returning from Iraq, who has acquired a bitter horror toward expedient death? But it also raises theological issues. How much does the meaning attributed to the historical event of Jesus' death have to do with the immediate historical circumstances of its early interpreters - and how beholden to that legacy must later interpreters be?
If a parent is grieving of the loss of a child, I'm not sure why at that time it would be necessary to approach the subject of Jesus' death, especially if we are talking to a Christian. Regardless of the individual circumstance that people are dealing with, I think it is important that when the subject arises to teach Christ Crucified and resurrected, and without these there is no forgiveness of sins.

What I think we are dealing with here is someone who has personal objections to the atonement. I personaly doubt that Elaine is a Christian herself. When I see anyone who allows themselves to be swayed by these gnostic Gospels, I have to asume that they have some sort of agenda that is motivated by an anit-christian sentiment.


Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to MichelleM

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 pm

Hello, Michelle,

Thank you for your response!
The article about Elaine Pagels touched me; I feel great sorrow about her loss. I understand that losing a child is the worst loss a person can suffer. I am haunted by the memory of my mother-n-law's wailing when we found her son, my husband, dead in his chair. The tragedy of the loss of her own young son has apparently shaped Dr. Pagels' thoughts and emotions toward God. Maybe soon someone will convince her that God is not a monster, nor a cold-hearted father that watched gleefully as His son died. Hopefully she doesn't believe that God ordained the death of her son.
I appreciate your empathic response as someone who has suffered widowhood, Michelle. Dr. Pagels lost her husband as well in a hiking accident, little more than a year after her son died.

The personal revelation in this interview was really striking for me. It helps to highlight that ideas are not formed in a vacuum, sheerly transcendent of life-experience. It also highlights the potential difficulties we can run into relationally, if we are not sensitive to how our ideas may interface with others' life-experience.

I would argue that the Truth that believers follow is worth dying for, except that I'm reminded of Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to commit suicide for their faith. What is it that moves these people? Any ideas?
Your comment here was thought-provoking for me.

Is it the Truth that people die for, or is it the relationship of faithfulness and/or honor? Do people die because they refuse to disclaim what they believe, or because they refuse to be disloyal to someone they love? I imagine the two are not necessarily exclusive.

I will speculate that some Islamic fundamentalists embrace suicide attacks because they see bleak hope for their futures, and martyrdom seems an honorable way to achieve glory and terminate their earthly discontent. But then again, some suicide commandos come from a well-to-do background, so those persons may be responding emphatically to what they have seen as worldly superficiality. Similar factors may have contributed to some persons' eagerness to embrace martyrdom in early Christianity, too.

People may also rush to embrace martyrdom out of the sheer romance of it - for what is a greater monument to love than to surrender one's own life? (But I suggest it is a greater monument to surrender one's life in the living of it than to do so in the giving of it. Granted, not everyone has the luxury of choosing freely between the two.)

I think, guess, hope, that I am willing to die for my beliefs, but to seek out martyrdom...I'm not so sure. I wonder how far that is from "taking up a cross and following Jesus," however.
An interesting point, especially in light of the question "To what extent did Jesus seek out martyrdom?" Is Jesus' call contextually-specific? Or should Christians who live in a hospitable setting relocate to a field where they might be subject to martyrdom? Is it the essence of the call to serve under peril?

Quote: This is also important because it springboards into the question of how the church should steward its seed catalog. Let us take, for example, the image of God as Father. This is a very helpful legacy for some people, but some persons who have been severely abused by their fathers may find the imagery an obstacle to nurturing their relationship with God. In such a situation, is it more important that the church pressure such persons with the sacred imagery, or is it better to communicate in different terms? Is the concept of God as Father essential in and of itself, or is it essentially about his having characteristics in common with ideal fatherly character - characteristics which might be communicated in different terms?

That's a really good question. Do you have any good answers?
The good answer is to engage each person according to the direction of the spirit.

Beyond this: rather than pushing people to transform completely overnight, discipleship usually has to do with helping people wrestle with the immediate frontiers of their personal growth. This is often the way God deals with us - patient and evolutionary.

If one metaphor or image for God is not likely to be fruitful in an individual's development, then perhaps another option will be more appropriate. As the individual grows and heals through their relationship with God, they may find it easier to engage the sensitive imagery. But if the imagery is unlikely to accomplish its purpose - if it is unlikely to accurately convey the character of God to its audience - then insisting upon it may be a practical betrayal of it, and of the One who inspired it.

This one doesn't seem that difficult for me because I think it's the resurrection of Jesus that is central to Christian faith, not his death, except, of course, you can't have a resurrection without a death...
Definitely a worthwhile comment. I'd like to know more about your thoughts in this department.

Why does the resurrection stand out for you as being central to the faith, over-and-above the death of Jesus? Do you see atonement as pivoting upon his resurrection, rather than upon his death?


Thank you again for your response, Michelle. I respect your spirit in this forum, and it's a privilege to enjoy your participation in this line of discussion.

Shlamaa,
Emmet
Last edited by _Dolphin on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Michelle
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by _Michelle » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:11 pm

Hi Emmet,

Thanks for your reply and your kind words to me.
I appreciate your empathic response as someone who has suffered widowhood, Michelle. Dr. Pagels lost her husband as well in a hiking accident, little more than a year after her son died.
I looked up her biography after you posted the original article. She has lived/is living an eventful life.
The personal revelation in this interview was really striking for me. It helps to highlight that ideas are not formed in a vacuum, sheerly transcendent of life-experience. It also highlights the potential difficulties we can run into relationally, if we are not sensitive to how our ideas may interface with others' life-experience.
I agree with you. I think somewhere (now I can't find it) you mentioned remembering that scholars are human, not analytical machines. How radical of you to suggest that Dr. Pagels might be a person who loved and lost, and struggled to deal with it. Next you'll be telling us that God loves her, too!

Perhaps some might have a tendency to go overboard, however, and either dismiss good scholarship because a writer has had a difficult time, or be too accepting because of the hardships suffered. Also, it doesn't seem fruitful to try to suss out motivations and agendas. Maybe the best policy is to just judge the work by, well, the work.
Quote:
I would argue that the Truth that believers follow is worth dying for, except that I'm reminded of Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to commit suicide for their faith. What is it that moves these people? Any ideas?


Your comment here was thought-provoking for me.

Is it the Truth that people die for, or is it the relationship of faithfulness and/or honor? Do people die because they refuse to disclaim what they believe, or because they refuse to be disloyal to someone they love? I imagine the two are not necessarily exclusive.

I will speculate that some Islamic fundamentalists embrace suicide attacks because they see bleak hope for their futures, and martyrdom seems an honorable way to achieve glory and terminate their earthly discontent. But then again, some suicide commandos come from a well-to-do background, so those persons may be responding emphatically to what they have seen as worldly superficiality. Similar factors may have contributed to some persons' eagerness to embrace martyrdom in early Christianity, too.

People may also rush to embrace martyrdom out of the sheer romance of it - for what is a greater monument to love than to surrender one's own life?
It's thought provoking for me, too. I wonder how much it matters why you died? I'm pretty sure it would matter to God in the sense that if you only had two choices; to either deny the faith or die, it would be better to choose death over denial. But I wonder about the friends, family, and faith community -- does it really matter? Most likely they'll make it out to be a wonderful, positive, romantic, as you say, martyrdom. Maybe that's why it rose to be such a prominent theme in the early church? Not that I don't admire and seek to emulate the faith of the early martyrs! Well, all Christian martyrs, actually.
(But I suggest it is a greater monument to surrender one's life in the living of it than to do so in the giving of it. Granted, not everyone has the luxury of choosing freely between the two.)
Great point! I think it's harder to live day by day, year in and year out, than to die once.
Quote:
I think, guess, hope, that I am willing to die for my beliefs, but to seek out martyrdom...I'm not so sure. I wonder how far that is from "taking up a cross and following Jesus," however.


An interesting point, especially in light of the question "To what extent did Jesus seek out martyrdom?"
Well, he wavered a bit that last night.
Is Jesus' call contextually-specific? Or should Christians who live in a hospitable setting relocate to a field where they might be subject to martyrdom? Is it the essence of the call to serve under peril?
Hmm. I think we are called to live it where we find ourselves.
Quote: This is also important because it springboards into the question of how the church should steward its seed catalog. Let us take, for example, the image of God as Father. This is a very helpful legacy for some people, but some persons who have been severely abused by their fathers may find the imagery an obstacle to nurturing their relationship with God. In such a situation, is it more important that the church pressure such persons with the sacred imagery, or is it better to communicate in different terms? Is the concept of God as Father essential in and of itself, or is it essentially about his having characteristics in common with ideal fatherly character - characteristics which might be communicated in different terms?

That's a really good question. Do you have any good answers?


The good answer is to engage each person according to the direction of the spirit.

Beyond this: rather than pushing people to transform completely overnight, discipleship usually has to do with helping people wrestle with the immediate frontiers of their personal growth. This is often the way God deals with us - patient and evolutionary.
Good points.
If one metaphor or image for God is not likely to be fruitful in an individual's development, then perhaps another option will be more appropriate. As the individual grows and heals through their relationship with God, they may find it easier to engage the sensitive imagery. But if the imagery is unlikely to accomplish its purpose - if it is unlikely to accurately convey the character of God to its audience - then insisting upon it may be a practical betrayal of it, and of the One who inspired it.
I asked my son about his feelings about the image of God as Father, since he never knew his earthly father. He said he preferred the image of God as King of Kings, which...huh? He's an American and has never had a monarch, either. I think (based on this extensive research on one person) that even if you have a negative, or no experience with an image, you still can understand the perfect example of that image in God. I have no experience with shepherds, but I can get "the Lord is my shepherd." In my son's case, I think he is uncomfortable at this point in his life with the intimacy involved in the fatherhood of God.
Quote:
This one doesn't seem that difficult for me because I think it's the resurrection of Jesus that is central to Christian faith, not his death, except, of course, you can't have a resurrection without a death...


Definitely a worthwhile comment. I'd like to know more about your thoughts in this department.

Why does the resurrection stand out for you as being central to the faith, over-and-above the death of Jesus? Do you see atonement as pivoting upon his resurrection, rather than upon his death?
I really need to think about this more to give an adequate answer, if I can pull it off at all. From off the top of my head: Everyone dies; there's nothing remarkable in that. In fact, two other men died the same day, the same way, and in the same place that Jesus did. Except he was God, so it shouldn't have happened. I really don't understand how the atonement works, but I'm sure that the resurrection proves that it was accomplished and by God, himself. Plus, Paul said:
14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! (1 Corinthians 15: 13-17)

Thanks for engaging me in the conversation. I've enjoyed thinking about these things. Well, not about death, it's sad. But I enjoyed thinking...

Michelle
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to roblaine

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:38 pm

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response!
You may choose to view her expertise in early Christian writings if you want, ...
I am not really familiar with Dr. Pagels' work, as I am relatively uninterested in Gnostic Christianity, but seeing as she completed a Ph.D at Harvard (with distinction) under Helmut Koester, I will not be cavalier about dismissing her expertise. Of course, you may choose to discount credentials, if you want.

...but the fact remains that these gnostic gospels are not Christian writings. The intent of these writings were to introduce polytheistic beliefs into the church, which is anti-Christian. ... These later Gospels (some of which I have read) go on to teach something much different, and attach names of historical figures that were long dead by the time they were written. Now quite frankly, I'm surprised that this statement came from an ultra-skeptic like yourself, seeing that you have your doubts about the authenticity of the early Gospels, which are much more reliable. Do you actually think these gnostics have any credibulity?
We appear to have a difference of paradigm here. You are approaching this from a pious vector; my comment articulates a rather more academic view.

I stated that, from a viewpoint that sees both the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels as products of human religious activity, the Gnostic Gospels could be seen as components of a broader Christian religious legacy. Here we enter into a matter of scholastic discretion: how far must a movement diverge before it no longer subsumes under a broader tradition, but merits its own category? Are sundry Mormonesque churches (e.g., CJCLDS, Bickertonite, Community of Christ) fairly categorized under Christianity, or the Druze under Islam? How about Jehovah's Witnesses, or Christadelphians, or Samaritans, or Sufis, or Alawites, or Subbotniks? For many scholars of religion, this is a dispassionate (though challenging) matter of taxonomy.

Quote: It is worth considering what the future of the church might have been like if historical circumstances had favored a greater emphasis on a different type of seed. As it was, martyrdom became so elevated that early church leadership had to correct people who were actively seeking it out!

Like I pointed out earlier. The early Church really had no choice in the matter. They could either deny the faith or die faithfully.
These were not the only choices. Some parties were choosing to undergo the trial, when they might have avoided winding up in the position of being pressured to deny their faith. Even Paul left town (by means of a basket!) to avoid fatal intent.

And in any case, the reality of the threat does not negate the importance of critically engaging its effect on the evolution of Christian theology.

I have never had to deal with this type of loss myself, but I am aware of many who have, and don't attempt to reshape Christianity because of there own personal loss. I have serious questions about how strong her views were before her loss.
A very pastoral response :| . I'm sure those "serious questions" would be quite helpful.

Then again, it is important to remember that those who shaped Christianity in the first place were doing so in reaction to personal loss. One may likewise have serious questions about their reshaping of the theology that antedated them.

And, of course, "strong" preconceptions can blind one to what one is supposed to learn through personal experience....

So what are you saying? If some has had a bad relationship with there father, and a good relationship with a mother or grand parent, should we let these relationships have rule over how we approach God?
To quote myself: Rather than pushing people to transform completely overnight, discipleship usually has to do with helping people wrestle with the immediate frontiers of their personal growth. This is often the way God deals with us - patient and evolutionary.

If one metaphor or image for God is not likely to be fruitful in an individual's development, then perhaps another option will be more appropriate. As the individual grows and heals through their relationship with God, they may find it easier to engage the sensitive imagery. But if the imagery is unlikely to accomplish its purpose - if it is unlikely to accurately convey the character of God to its audience - then insisting upon it may be a practical betrayal of it, and of the One who inspired it.


Should people refer to God as "mother in heaven" if the wish? I think not. Jesus said that we should pray " Father who is in Heaven. This is the model I will go by, and the church is correct in referring to God as Father.


Isaiah 66:13.

The pastoral question is not merely "is the church correct?", but also "is this the correct way to communicate the truth which the church honors?"


If you are interested in a fairly recent treatment of Elaine Pagels, you might check the article linked below; it may answer some of your serious questions, if not to your satisfaction:

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/maga ... agels.html


Shlamaa,
Emmet

P.S.: edited to fix the link (my bad) and add this postscript....
Last edited by _Dolphin on Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”