Biblical inerrancy has always been rejected by mainline Christian denominations, including the oldest of them all: the Roman Catholic Church. Tradition, history and science have always served as filters that moderate Biblical claims, while providing insight into the underlying circumstances and intent of Biblical authors as they struggled to use imperfect and since-forgotten languages to express what they understood to be God’s concerns. The Church’s faith in these filters has — ever since the Reformation — placed the Church at odds with conservative Protestants.
In a teaching document called The Gift of Scripture, the Catholic bishops of England, Scotland and Wales remind the faithful that fundamentalisms:
- distort the intended meaning of religious texts by stripping away the history and tradition from which the texts derive their meaning,
- dangerously encourage the people of some nations to perceive a Biblical mandate for their own superiority over other nations and cultures, and
- fuel egotistical and sadistic violence by fundamentalist ideologues against other nations and faith perspectives.
More information is available from The Times of London, Google News, and the blogosphere.
Much of the blog commentary seems to be under the mistaken and historically ignorant impression that the Roman Catholic Church was once fundamentalist. However, I believe longtime Catholic Andrew Sullivan gets it right:
Anyone who believes that the world was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago is not expressing his or her “religious beliefs.” Believing something that is demonstrably and empirically untrue is not religion. It is simply superstition or lunacy. It has nothing to do with faith in things we cannot know. The notion that it should actually be taught in public schools as science is beneath even debating.
Ex-Gay Watch welcomes comment from Exodus leaders Alan Chambers (who is a Biblical inerrantist) and Randy Thomas (who is a six-day creationist).
(Hat tip: Regan DuCasse)
Let us also have commentary from those liberal Christians who also reject Biblical Inerrancy. That would be helpful also. It seems that the Bible, and the Christian faith in general, have become a trademarked slogan of the fundies. Now would be a good time for those Christians who are not fundies, if indeed there are such people, to speak up.
I am always amused at claims of “biblical inerrancy.” There are many instances of internal contradictions within the bible itself. Moreover, there have been more than a few translations, into English alone.
One wonders, if the bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of an omniscient God, why can’t that God get a better editor (to remove the contradictions) and translator.
This reminds me of when I was in third grade at Catholic School and we had just read the Genesis story. I raised my hand and asked our Sister if God created the world in six days, and we had just learned in science that dinosaurs were extinct long before man arrived on the scene, then where were the dinosaurs in the Bible?
Not bad for a eight-year-old, huh?
I remember she gave that question quite a go… Trying to distill some of the more advanced Catholic theology in a way a third-grader could understand. Concepts of time/timelessness/eternity, sories and parables that weren’t literally truth but spoke to a greater truth, etc.
I wasn’t satisfied at the time because I couldn’t follow what she was trying to say. But I remembered her words anyway, and when I got to be much, much older, I was very impressed with her valient efforts.
Never once did anybody ever try to convince me of the world-in-six days, Noah’s flood, Jonah in the whale, etc. etc. etc. But ask me what they mean, and there’s a nice long conversation over a bottle of wine.
First a correction, the Catholic Church is not a “mainline” church.
That term is used for moderate-to-liberal American protestant churches and generally includes the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran and some of the smaller but culturally significant churches such as the Congregationalists (UCC) and Quakers.
The mainline churches are currently going through great turmoil in trying to decide how gay people fit within the body of Christ. Some, like UCC, are campaigning in favor of gay marriage. Some, like the Episcopal Church, ordain gay ministers. Others allow the local congregation to decide and some have a bizarre policy of opposing gay ordination but allowing churches to ignore the policy if they wish.
The ones we have to be frightened of are the “evangelical” or “fundamentalist” churches which tend to be rabidly anti-gay. They more of less consist of the Southern Baptists and various Pentecostal churches (Assemblies of God, etc.) along with non-denominational churches and some smaller denominations.
Finally is the Catholic Church which is pretty much in a category of its own (with maybe Greek or Russian Orthodox). The hostility on the part of the Church is dependant on the issue (marriage very hostile, non-discrimination not so hostile), on the Bishop or Priest, and to a great extent, on the current Pope (this one is downright vile).
There are even some churches, such as the American Baptists, that seem to be in the middle of a major shift from one category to another.
From a religious point of view, it’s a very interesting time to be a gay Christian. In many ways (though of course not all ways) it is akin to being a black Christian right before the civil war. You are the subject of a good many sermons and people of faith are staking out positions on all sides of the issue that directly affect you. At times it’s exhilarating and at times downright frightening.
Timothy, it’s an issue of semantics, but it’s not exclusively sematic, at the same time. Yes, those moderate to liberal churches you mention above are mainline churches, but I usually hear them referred to as “mainline protestant.”
The Catholic church is also in some degree of turmoil over the issue of how to treat glbt people, however. While the rhetoric from the current Pope (I agree, he’s pretty nasty) is virulently anti-gay, the rhetoric from the bishops and local priests is all over the place. Some are very sympathetic, some are not. It’s a matter of luck and partly geography.
When I lived in Chicago, the Archdiocese operated its own outreach ministry to gays and lesbians, which is quite successful. Cardinal Bernadin (the late, great cardinal Bernadin) insisted that this ministry be under the auspices of the official church and not under the auspices of a renegade group. While I didn’t like the idea at first, once I saw how it was done, I came to embrace it.
As to whether the Catholic church is mainline, it depends where you live. In many cities and areas of the country, Catholics outnumber any other denomination (or for that matter all other denominations combined), so, in those areas, the Catholic church is, indeed, THE mainline denomination.
Phil,
I think that common usage does not include the Catholic Church within the category of “Mainline” (it’s not about majorities – for example, even in the South, the Southern Baptist Church is not “mainline”). But, then again, categories change frequently (remember when “evangelical” meant something quite else?).
I think for purposes of structure and how doctrine is determined/accepted, the Mainline churches (protestant) are fairly similar. And they greatly differ from the Catholic Church in that way.
“The Catholic church is also in some degree of turmoil over the issue of how to treat glbt people, however.”
I agree with you. And that is a very important point.
However, unfortunately I don’t think it is capable/susceptible to change in the same way that the Mainline churches are. The Methodist Church, for example, could vote at any convention to endorse gay marriage, and vote out any leader that disagreed. For the Catholic Church to do so, God would have to strike the Pope dead.