Bock

In Vienna, But Some Things Do Not Change – July 19

I am now in Vienna for the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. I will read a paper on the Historical Jesus here. That should be interesting, since every type of view is likely to be present.

On the train on the way here I read an editorial in the International Herald tribune (July 18 issue) about Pope Benedict Called Pope Benedict’s Mistake, decrying the pope’s attempt to call Europe back to Christ through the Catholic Church through an appeal to the teaching rooted in the apostles (as well as apostolic succession and the tradition of the church) It was written by James Carroll of the Boston Globe. What made the piece interesting was how it attacked the argument of Christianity in general.

I am now in Vienna for the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. I will read a paper on the Historical Jesus here. That should be interesting, since every type of view is likely to be present.

On the train on the way here I read an editorial in the International Herald tribune (July 18 issue) about Pope Benedict Called Pope Benedict’s Mistake, decrying the pope’s attempt to call Europe back to Christ through the Catholic Church through an appeal to the teaching rooted in the apostles (as well as apostolic succession and the tradition of the church) It was written by James Carroll of the Boston Globe. What made the piece interesting was how it attacked the argument of Christianity in general.

He argues that there are no “core beliefs” that the apostles established. He also says “the 27 books were not canonized until three centuries after Jesus.” The point leaves an impression that the key teachings of Christianity were a product of a far later period than Jesus and the apostles. This is happening with all the more frequency in the public square discussion of Jesus.

This view absolutely ignores that a core faith was taught and passed on in the earliest period and that the core of the canon was recognized and even functioning by the end of the second century, a full century plus before Carroll wants to place it (He is referring to the recognition of each of the 27 books, but 21 of them were in place in the earlier period, a point often ignored when such a point about the canon’s lateness is mentioned).

History matters and the roots of the faith are deeper than some which to suggest. Those who lead churches need to help people understand these kind of historical distinctions. In an age of the practical desire to live the faith, the roots of why the faith is true cannot be left in the dust bin. The result of an article like Carroll’s is a relativizing of the uniqueness of the Christian faith. There was a faith “once and for all delivered to the saints” and to call the world to that (nothing more and nothing less) is the task of the church Jesus commissioned to take the gospel into the world.