2019/04/28

Seminary President Admits She Doesn’t Believe in Heaven, Miracles or Christ’s Resurrection

Seminary President Admits She Doesn’t Believe in Heaven, Miracles or Christ’s Resurrectionhttps://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/seminary-president-admits-she-doesn-t-believe-in-heaven-miracles-or-christ-s-resurrection.html?utm_medium=fbpage&utm_source=chpg&utm_campaign=chupdate&fbclid=IwAR093HzYmsrhOcj_XY0dsLKi4ozIaKhdOPPKojDr3t23n5n0xrlnT_I21Ms

Michael Foust | ChristianHeadlines.com Contributor | Thursday, April 25, 2019


SEMINARY PRESIDENT ADMITS SHE DOESN’T BELIEVE IN HEAVEN, MIRACLES OR CHRIST’S RESURRECTION

318Comments


The president of a seminary founded in 1836 on the “infallible” Word of God says in a new interview she doesn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, the power of prayer, a literal heaven, or miracles.

Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary in New York, made the comments in an interview with Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times for an article published Easter weekend. Although the author’s intent may have been to inspire readers, it also served to spotlight the leftward drift of many seminaries.

Union Theological Seminary’s founding constitution stated the seminary’s goal was to “promote” the “Kingdom of Christ.” Professors were required to affirm they believed “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God” and the “only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

But as Jones made clear, the seminary is a very different school today.

She rejects a literal bodily resurrection of Christ.

“When you look in the Gospels, the stories are all over the place. There’s no resurrection story in Mark, just an empty tomb. Those who claim to know whether or not it happened are kidding themselves,” Jones said. “… Crucifixion is not something that God is orchestrating from upstairs. The pervasive idea of an abusive God-father who sends his own kid to the cross so God could forgive people is nuts. For me, the cross is an enactment of our human hatred. But what happens on Easter is the triumph of love in the midst of suffering. Isn’t that reason for hope?”

She rejects the idea that God miraculously heals through prayer.

“I don’t believe in a God who, because of prayer, would decide to cure your mother’s cancer but not cure the mother of your nonpraying neighbor,” she said. “We can’t manipulate God like that.”

She rejects the virgin birth.

“I find the virgin birth a bizarre claim,” she said. “It has nothing to do with Jesus’ message. The virgin birth only becomes important if you have a theology in which sexuality is considered sinful. It also promotes this notion that the pure, untouched female body is the best body, and that idea has led to centuries of oppressing women.”

Asked what happens when people die, Jones responded, “I don’t know! There may be something, there may be nothing. My faith is not tied to some divine promise about the afterlife.”

Asked how we can reconcile an “omnipotent, omniscient God” with evil and suffering, Jones responded, “At the heart of faith is mystery. God is beyond our knowing, not a being or an essence or an object. But I don’t worship an all-powerful, all-controlling omnipotent, omniscient being. That is a fabrication of Roman juridical theory and Greek mythology.”

When Kristof asked her if he can be considered a Christian after not believing in a virgin birth or resurrection, Jones answered, “Well, you sound an awful lot like me, and I’m a Christian minister.”




R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said Jones rejected the “entire edifice of orthodox, biblical Christianity.”

“This is not Christianity,” Mohler wrote. “This is a new religion, a new god, formed in an image intended not to offend modern secular sensibilities. She has constructed a god from post-modern theology that in no way resembles the God of the Bible – the one true God.”

Mohler observed that Jones denied “the reality of the resurrection, the necessity of the virgin birth, the attributes of God, the power of prayer, and the existence of heaven and hell.”

“According to Jones,” Mohler wrote. “there is no cross on which Jesus died for sin, there is no Father who sent the Son to pay our ransom, there is no bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead as a sign and seal of God’s promises – indeed, she has denied everything that makes the gospel good news. She even denies that God is a ‘being.’”

Jones claims to be a Christian minister while simultaneously rejecting “every tenet of the historic Christian faith,” Mohler said.


“Why would anyone identify as a Christian minister and then deny the entire superstructure of Christian theology?” Mohler asked. “What we see here is a hope to replace biblical Christianity with a new religion without anyone noticing.”

Michael Foust is a freelance writer. Visit his blog, MichaelFoust.com.

---------------



  • 뉴욕 유니온 신학교는 미국 진보적 신학, 특히 정치 신학의 산실인데..새로 부임한 학장이 자신은 천국, 기적, 그리스도의 (육체적)부활을 믿지 않는다고, 악과 고통의 현실 한 복판에서 신을 전지전능한 분으로 믿을 수 없다고 말해서 논란이 일고 있다. 그녀가 말한 내용들은 사실 그리 새로운 것은 아니고 현대의 신학적 경향의 한 특징을 보여주고 있다. 특히 화이트헤드 과정철학에 기초한 과정신학자들에게서 흔히 들을수 있는 얘기.
    18세기 계몽주의 영향으로 19세기 유럽의 신학적 풍토는 철저하게 이성적 판단에 기초한 기독교를 추구했고, 이미 이때 이런 비슷한 얘기는 많이 나왔고, 이성에 대한 신뢰는 역사가 진보할 것이라는 믿음을 낳았는데, 1,2차 세계대전을 겪으며 이런 희망이 초토화 되었고, 신학은 다시 종교개혁가들의 유산을 계승하는 방향으로 선회했고, 이에 크게 기여한 인물이 칼 바르트. 그는 젊어서는 노동자들 사이에서 사회주의적 경향의 목회를 하기도 했고, 히틀러와 대결하는 운동을 조직하기도 했고, 현대사회의 문제의식을 정확하게 파악했지만, 결론은 종교개혁가들 처럼 '성서로 돌아가자' 였고..오늘날 유럽의 기독교는 크게 보아 여전히 그의 영향하에 있다 해도 과언은 아닐듯. 바르트를 계승한 젊은 신학자 본회퍼는 히틀러를 암살하려다 실패하고 이른 나이에 처형된 순교자인데, 사실 본회퍼는 19세기 자유주의 신학의 문제의식을, 바르트는 거부했지만, 간직하면서 바르트의 신학과 결합하고자 했고..본회퍼의 이러한 관점은 현대신학에 크게 영향을 주었다. 미국에서는 한편으로는 과정철학에 기초한 신학이 저변으로 확산되면서도, 예일 대학의 한스 프라이 교수(1988년 작고)와 그의 제자들을 중심으로 바르트 신학을 계승한 흐름이 형성되었는데 post-liberal 자유주의 이후 학파라 불려진다. 이 그룹에 속한 신학자들은 매우 탄탄한 신학 저작들을 내놓았다. 지금은... 1960년대 미국 사회는 세속화의 물결이 크게 일어났는데, 베드남전 반대운동을 비롯해..다양한 운동들이 기존의 권위를 부정하며 등장했고..당시 이런 흐름을 반영한 세속화신학이 등장했었고, 세속화신학이란 이름은 그때 반짝하고 사라졌지만, 사실 그런 경향은 계속 확산되었고, 요즘 교회들이 유럽은 물론 미국과 캐니다도 급격하게 쇠퇴하는데 60년대 부터 생겨난 세속화 물결의 결과라 생각한다.
    신학적으로는 성서에 기초한 종교개혁가들, 바르트, 그리고 한스 프라이의 제자들이 저술하는 책들이 흥미진진하다..기독교의 핵심을 보존하면서 현대상황과 씨름하는 모습들..그러나 이런 저술들에 흥미를 느낄 기독교인들은 원래가 많지 않았는데..어느날 갑자기 썰물처럼 교인들이 사라진 지금의 텅빈 교회에서는 더 그렇다..
    그러는 사이 교회를 빠져나간 신학자들, 교인들은 거대한 세속화 물결 속에서 기독교 전통을 포기하고 통속적인 경향의 가벼운 사유에 만족하게 되었고..
    그런 류의 책들이 베스트셀러가 되고 있고, 이런 경향이 현대적이라는 칭송을 받고 있다. 안타깝게도 이런 경향은 점점 더 커질 것 같다.
    Comments
    • Younghwa Hyun 20세기 양대산맥인 불트만을 이야기해주셔야.. ㅎㅎ 
      '예수와 복음서에 솔직하게!' 일본처럼 영적, 질적으로 성숙된 종교인을 겁내지 않아야.. 😅
      1
    • Jeong-Woo Lee 불트만의 비신화화, 실존주의적 해석은 앞으로 더 중요하게 다뤄져야 한다고 생각합니다. 
      서양 학자들 신학책 강독도 재미있어요. ㅎㅎ
      1
    Write a comment...

  • 캐나다 연합교회(UCC) 어느 목사도 그녀 스스로 무신론자라 선언했지요. 이 때 '무신론자'란 기독교의 전통적 신관을 문자적으로 받아들이지 않는 이를 지칭하는 것입니다. 신학자나 목사들 중 이런 분들이 부지기수라 할 수 있습니다. 유명한 유니온 신학대학원 총장의 발언은 놀랄 일이 아닙니다.
    이 페북에서 이런 주장을 열심히 역설하고 있는 전 캐나다 연합교회 Sungchul Choi 목사님의 글을 읽어보시거나 제가 쓴 <예수는 없다>라는 책이나 존 쉘비 스퐁 신부나 마커스 보그 교수의 책을 보시면 '새롭게 등장하는 기독교'가 어떻게 변하고 있는지 보실 수 있지요.
    전문을 번역할까 하다가 귀찮아서 세렌 존스의 발언 부분만 대충 번역했습니다.
    마지막 남침례회의 아무개가 떠든 반응이 재미있어요. 정확하게 예수님을 반대했던 당시 종교인들의 광광대는 소리랑 일치하는 듯??
    =================
    <신학대 학장이 자신은 천국, 기적, 그리스도의 부활을 믿지 않는다고 인정하다>
    1836년에 "무오한" 하느님의 말씀을 기초로 해서 설립된 신학교의 학장이 새로운 인터뷰에서 그녀는 그리스도의 육체부활, 기도의 능력, 문자적인 천국이나 기적을 믿지 않는다고 말했다.
    뉴욕 유니온 신학대학의 학장인 세렌 존스는... 문자 그대로의 그리스도의 육체 부활을 거부한다.
    "복음서를 보면, 그 이야기들은 여기 저기에 나온다. 마가에는 부활 이야기가 없다. 그저 빈 무덤만 있을 뿐이다. 무슨 일이 일어났는지 알고 있다고 하는 사람들은 자신을 속이고 있는 것이다. 십자가 처형은 하느님이 저 윗층에서 조종하시는 그런 사건이 아니다. 하느님이 사람들을 용서하기 위해서 자기 자녀를 십자가에 보내는 아버지 같은 폭력적인 하느님이라는 만연한 생각은 미친 소리다. 나에게 십자가는 우리 인간의 증오로 만들어진 법(enactment)이다. 그러나 부활절에 일어난 것은 고통 가운데에서 일어난 사랑의 승리다. 그것이 바로 희망의 이유 아닐까?"
    그녀는 기도를 통해 하느님이 기적적인 치료를 하신다는 개념을 거부한다.
    "나는 기도하면 당신 어머니의 암을 고쳐주지만, 기도하지 않는 당신 이웃의 어머니는 고쳐주지 않는 하느님을 믿지 않는다. 우리는 하느님을 그런 식으로 조종할 수 없다."
    그녀는 동정녀 탄생을 거부한다.
    "나는 처녀 탄생을 이상한 주장이라고 생각한다. 그것은 예수의 가르침과는 아무 관계가 없다. 처녀 탄생은 당신이 성을 죄라고 여기는 신학을 갖고 있을 때만 중요한 문제가 된다. 그것은 또한 순수하고, 자연 그대로인 여성의 몸이 최상의 몸이며, 그러한 생각은 오랜 세월 동안 여성을 억압해 왔다."
    사람들이 죽은 뒤에 어떤 일이 일어나는지를 묻자, 존스는 이렇게 대답했다.
    "나는 모른다. 무언가가 있을 수도 있고, 아무 것도 없을 수도 있다. 내 신앙은 사후 세계에 대한 신의 어떤 약속에 묶여 있지 않다."
    우리는 어떻게 "전지전능하신 하느님"과 악, 고난을 조화시킬 수 있는지를 묻자 존스는 이렇게 대답했다.
    "신앙의 중심에는 신비가 있다. 하느님은 우리의 지식 너머에 있는 분이지, 어떤 존재나, 본질이나 대상이 아니다. 나는 모든 능력이 있고, 모든 것을 통제할 수 있는 전지전능한 존재를 예배하지 않는다. 그것은 로마의 법 이론과 그리스 신화가 조합된 것이다."
    이에 대해 남침례회의 몰러인지 뭔지 하는 사람이 이렇게 대답했다고 하네요.
    "이것은 그리스도교가 아니다. 이것은 현대의 세속적인 감성을 해치지 않기 위해 만든 새로운 종교, 새로운 신이다. 그녀는 포스트 모던 신학으로 신을 만들었고, 그것은 오직 하나 뿐인 진정한 하느님, 성서의 하느님과 닮지 않았다."

2019/04/27

The Gospels: Jesus Christ by Terry Eagleton | Goodreads

The Gospels: Jesus Christ by Terry Eagleton | Goodreads





The Gospels: Jesus Christ

by 
 3.66  ·   Rating details ·  56 ratings  ·  11 reviews
In this newpresentation of the Gospels, Terry Eagleton makes a powerful andprovocative argument for Jesus Christ as a social, political and moralradical, a friend of anti-imperialists, outcasts and marginals, achampion of the poor, the sick and immigrants, and as an opponent ofthe rich, religious hierarchs, and hypocrites everywhere in otherwords, as a figure akin to revolutionaries like Robespierre, Marx, andChe Guevara. (less)

COMMUNITY REVIEWS

Showing 1-30
 3.66  · 
 ·  56 ratings  ·  11 reviews

 | 
Nathan Napier
Apr 28, 2014rated it really liked it
The intro essay by Eagleton is a nice materialist version of Jesus that reads the New Testament in its precarious historical detailing, noting many of the absurdities that occur when the text is read with an overly spiritual lens and from out of the incessant need to make the narrative jive with a particular theological vision. Much of what he says here is also consistent with a large apportionment of Historical Jesus studies, as he often incites the criterion of embarrassment, but he does diverge a bit on his final interpretation of Jesus. The largest shortcoming I see in this essay is the dismissal of various "sayings" of Jesus or "events" in the text with casual literary hand-waving, as if his entire audience would know why he makes a particular judgment on Jesus. These comments require some familiarity with the research of historical Jesus or the reader may wonder why Eagleton thinks this is an interpolation or that is a late redaction. I agree with much of his assessment here, but his support of these judgments is lacking in this essay...almost spoken with scholarly condescension because clearly anyone that reads the NT will come to the same conclusion. Maybe this is so, but not without a requisite paradigm to make sense of them, OTHER THAN the trendy idea to criticize Christianity and strip Jesus of any dogma...which however, appropriate, is being done by many people without qualifications to do so.

This essay is NOT a detailed exposition of his full idea of Jesus the Christ, but it does offer a nice casual engagement with the NT text and its central figure, giving readers a different perspective on a story with which many are familiar. Much of what one finds here will occur as a "how come I didn't notice that before" as Eagleton discusses things like the zealots associated with Jesus, the vernacular usage of "son of man" and "son of God", even the political axe grinding of the Gospel of Mark and even why Jesus was killed by the Romans in no mean symbolism via crucifixion.

At its end, Eagleton concludes Jesus is not a revolutionary in the type of Lenin because Lenin sees revolution in history, as directed by revolutionaries shaping history, 
whereas Jesus sees eschatological redemption from outside of history. Just because he wasn't Lenin or an imperial anarchist, however, doesn't mean he was any less revolutionary. The ever challenging of social stratification is no small means, the proclamation that leaders rides asses into the Holy Citys in the supreme act of political irony, that deliberate sinners are those of whom the kingdom of God is made, and witness of the most pivotal event in the New Testament are left with people who are unable to speak in mostly every circumstance, to just name a few...certainly makes Jesus a revolutionary, even if he isn't walking the streets with raised fists...his fists by his side probably being the biggest reason he was posterized by the Romans; his silence condemning him. 

Eagleton's essay is a nice read, and his end notes on the chapters shows his engagement with limited NT studies...for these the book is worth the read, especially since the rest of the text is just the Gospels printed in the NRSV translation. There's quite a bit here if one will take the time to follow Eagleton and read the Gospels through the hermeneutic he is offering. 
(less)
Jesse
Mar 22, 2011rated it it was amazing
Human emancipation was, apparently, a popular concept in the ancient world. The Greeks desired it so much that they invented democracy, but a democracy untempered by the thoughts of women, slaves, and races other than Greek, such that imperialism became inevitable. 
Meanwhile, the Romans invented the republic, which gave rise to all forms of romanticization of representatives, such that imperialism became inevitable. If Socrates, then, is the real spirit of human emancipation, then Jesus Christ is its romanticization. But Socrates was on the side of aristocrats, while Christ was on the side of the poor. Socrates wanted to cure mental illness (despite suffering from it himself); Christ wanted to cure all forms of physical suffering. Hence, the romanticization of human emancipation in Christ brought forth a more concrete (economic) result than the pure spirit of Socrates. 
Anyway, Eagleton examines how the text of the Gospels reveals Jesus to have been an activist who despised the literal faith of the Jews; funny how, then, every Christian takes the Bible so literally, since Jesus is at pains to convince everyone not to do so
Many Christian leaders think that Jesus wanted people to take whatever power dishes out to them (hence, the vocal anti-union Christians of late), but does not Jesus actively resist power when he turns over the tables of the money changers in the temple? Or when he answers the questions of power with questions? Or when he refuses to identify himself as state power wishes he would? Or when he flees from town to town to escape persecution by the authorities? I could go on. 
An addendum: the key fable that Jesus throws around seems to be the one where the lesson is that the lost but found sheep are better than the ones that were never lost. That is basically a guarantee for power worship and a call for extremism. Add in some Enlightenment rhetoric and, voila, you have Hegel! (less)
mao
Oct 21, 2007rated it it was ok
Befriend sinners, prostitutes and tax collectors. Love what is hated by doxa; question orthodoxy. Have faith in the decision to follow certain things. Betray your father (and your family). "The dead bury the dead." And, last, but not least, do not bring peace, but the sword.

What I like about Eagleton's introduction is his little tidbit, which must be affirmed, on the name, given to Jesus, of the "Son of God". Christ never refers to himself as the Son of God, but the Son of Man (another way of saying, what we might say today, a human being), and it is always others who refer to him (and denounce him) as such. Jesus' response to the questioning of his being the Son of God is always lacking (in the form of silence) or "if you say so"! In other words, it is only for those who accuse (and it is originally an accusation!) Jesus of being the Son of God that Jesus becomes, for them, whether blasphemous or divine, the/a name of the Son of God.

What, I think, should be dismissed, for a non-Christian reading the gospels, are the eschatological anxieties, evangelical injunctions, and fabulous miracles included in the gospels. The question that should be asked is, precisely, and I think Eagleton makes this point clear, what did Jesus say and do? 
(less)
Brent Wilson
Feb 23, 2009rated it liked it
Not much here really. An introductory essay by Eagleton about Jesus and the Gospels; then the four gospels in New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I had read and enjoyed Eagleton's After Theory, and thought his take on Jesus could be stimulating.

I guess I'm too much into the historical side of Jesus research to really appreciate Eagleton's literary criticism. Not enough new in the intro to really spur my interest.

Still, a handy small volume of the Gospels.
Joel
Oct 04, 2011marked it as read-some
this is just an NRSV version of the Gospels with an introductory essay by Terry Eagleton and some footnotes by him as well. I guess I just picked it up for the essay, but it wouldn't hurt to read the Gospels again either. The essay itself was alright, though I think he has done better writing about Christianity elsewhere.
Steven
Apr 09, 2015rated it liked it
Shelves: non-fiction
I needed to read the Gospels and this was a great way to do it. Eagleton's intro is interesting and engagins, seeing Jesus just as another man. The Gospels themselves are direct and don't waste time telling Jesus's story. A lot of stuff that was not clear to me before about Christianity and Jesus's message now makes a bit more sense.
Alex Lee
May 28, 2016rated it it was ok
I would have liked more from Eagleton. As it was, the critical analysis appeared too lackadaisical because even with these four gospels (which are not that long) there is much ambiguity here. If anything Eagleton attempts to open the spread of interpretation on Christ and he does so, without really saying anything that is particularly definite.
Miquixote
Dec 16, 2010rated it it was ok
Would have liked to have seen more material here.

Eagleton's notes could be important reading to accompany the New Testament. He brings Jesus down to earth, lets us know what the sholars really know about crucial passages minus ideological strings attached and without diminishing Jesus' revolution in the process. (don't doubt it, Jesus was certainly a revolutionary).