- 5 Objections
- Response to 5 Objections
- The Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
- 3 Points of Departure
- On Christian Origins
- On the Holy Spirit
- On Belief
- The Trouble with (Traditional) Worldviews
- Imagination, Authority, and Knowledge
- On Marxism
- Christianity and Marxism
- In Defense of Skepticism
- Skepticism and Ethics
- Where I’m Coming From
- Tradition, Knowledge, and Metaphysics
I believe I understand what you mean that the Spirit is a key topic related to everything else we’ve been discussing. It also could very well be the thing about which I am most skeptical — maybe not so much that some sort of Spirit could or does exist that influences people and groups, or even manipulates other parts of the world directly — but that, if it exists and does these things, we are able to reliably discern when and where and how it is working.
I know you yourself have acknowledged the difficulty in discerning where the Spirit is truly guiding the church and, thus, where, if anywhere, the true Church is today. I would go further and argue that this seems to have always been the case in Christianity, at least from very close to the beginning. Some of the earliest texts we have contain Paul’s corrections of people’s beliefs and practices that were apparently wrong. Is this because they were not in line with the Holy Spirit? If so, how so? What I mean is wouldn’t the Spirit simply guide them to the correct beliefs and practices? Or, is the Spirit guiding them mostly through Paul? But, why should we believe Paul had the Spirit and not others? What qualifies him exactly? (I guess I’m actually curious and sincerely asking here, but I’m also sort of skeptical there is a very sound basis for his special authority.)
That’s just the beginning. When I look at the rest of Christian history, it seems almost hopelessly confused. I don’t mean to paint with too broad a brush. There have been certain times and places in which there appears to have been a lot of consensus (at least among church leadership, at least regarding certain things). However, my basic point is that there have been and probably always will be controversies within Christianity, and not just over trivial or “non-essential” issues. By the time we get through the beginnings of the Reformation, it’s as if all bets are off, and you’ve got different denominations popping up like wildflowers, sometimes killing each other over their differences, and all of them supposedly guided by the same Spirit. Then, there’s our time and place today, in which people seem more guided by their personal preferences in music and clothing than anything else and in which “the Spirit” seems most often to refer to a really good feeling you get when the worship team is setting the mood just right.
Maybe I got carried away there, but I don’t think without cause. Where this leaves me is here: In answer to your question — “Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus did these miraculous things, made these extraordinary claims, rose from the dead, but then did nothing to ensure his message and movement would accurately continue?” — I would say, whether it’s reasonable or not, that hypothesis actually appears to be backed up by the historical record over the last 2,000 years, not to mention the present state of affairs. Or, maybe Jesus did do something to ensure his message would continue accurately, somewhere or for someone, but as I said above, I’m not sure how we can reliably discern where or to whom.
As for the idea that “we should accept the theological claims of the early Christian community,” that the answer lies with them, I would simply ask “why?” Because they are early? Fair enough, but if this Spirit was working with them early on, did it stop at some point? And, why? How do we know when it stopped? And, again, I would point out that even at the beginning there seems to have been at least some points of significant controversy.
If we want to make an appeal to majority or consensus — arguing that if the majority of early Christians believed something, this is likely due to the Spirit — I think we are treading on dangerous ground. I’m pretty sure you would agree that popularity in and of itself rarely makes a good basis for veracity. (I might also add that there is some circularity to this line of reasoning.) On the other hand, if we want to argue that the orthodox theology of the early Christians is the correct one because it’s the most reasonable, logical, historically verifiable, or scripturally sound, our argument doesn’t require belief in the influence of a Spirit at all. We could add it on as a sort of “Spirit of the gaps,” but I don’t know that it’s all that helpful as an explanation.
I’m sorry I am apparently long-winded and winding with my replies. I suppose I should end with two softer notes on this issue for now. The first is just to reiterate that I recognize none of what I say here constitutes a knock-down argument against the Holy Spirit existing or working in the world. It only serves as an argument that we seem to have very scant clear and reliable evidence — outside of scripture — for the guidance of the Spirit in matters of theology. Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it sure does make me disinclined to accept this idea just because others consider it part of a “package deal.”
That brings me to the second note. I believe you’ve stated a couple times that your positions tend to be to accept traditional and/or early Christian ideas by default wherever there is something of a question. I’ve stated that my positions tend to be to remain agnostic in such cases. This is certainly the case when it comes to the Holy Spirit. In thinking about why I hold the epistemological position I do, I guess it’s that I’m open to so many possibilities. For me, it’s never as simple as “Is Christianity true or not?” or even “Is the Holy Spirit guiding the Church or not?” I can’t help but consider a lot more possibilities attached to each of those questions, and I’m quite comfortable considering that nobody quite has it right. Add to this that there are all kinds of worldviews and parts of worldviews I find attractive, possible, plausible, reasonable, meaningful, and even beautiful, and you might get a sense of what would keep me from buying into any one completely. Furthermore, I don’t think I need to. After all, that’s not the way we go about believing in almost anything else in life, and I don’t see why religion should be any different. To put it differently, I almost never buy into package deals, religious or otherwise.
I’d better stop there, but I will unpack the Marxist stuff a bit more soon hopefully.