I hate the format of this debate, interrupting the trains of thought continually to take questions from various different audience participants. The flow broken continually.
And sadly, I think, except for the section on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Cardinal Pell let the host and Richard Dawkins set the level of the conversation.
Thus the whole debate took place within the worldview of Dawkins. I wish Pell had proclaimed the Good News, rather than letting Dawkins' hideous view of God and Christ's sacrifice frame the beginning of the debate.
UPDATE
Welcome readers from The Corner at National Review Online.
Michael Potemra wrote this about the Pell/Dawkins debate:
A couple of highlights: Cardinal Pell was asked whether atheists can go to Heaven, and responded, “Certainly, certainly!” He explained that, in his view, atheism can be an honest attempt to seek the truth, and that God’s judgment on a person will have to do with that person’s relation to truth, goodness, and beauty. On the question of Hell, he expressed the hope that nobody will actually end up there — a hope and prayer that our late friend Father Neuhaus was also eloquent in expressing — but said that Hell does nonetheless exist.
And there was an interesting exchange between the panelists on the existence of Adam and Eve. Cardinal Pell expressed the view that they were not historical individuals, but mythological figures in a story designed to communicate religious truth. To which Dawkins responded, If they didn’t really, historically, exist, where did Original Sin come from? Ironically enough, on the site on which I found the video, some conservative religious comboxers take Dawkins’s side: If no Adam and Eve, no Original Sin; if no Original Sin, no need for Christ’s Redemption; if no need for Christ’s Redemption, no Christianity; therefore there must have been an Adam and Eve. (I have actually, in the past, encountered the very same argument from e-mailers responding to my own Corner posts on Biblical interpretation: Pull that thread, of admitting that one set of verses in the Bible are not intended literally, and the whole thing will fall apart like Kleenex.)
But the fact of the existence of Original Sin does not depend on the historical existence of Adam and Eve. To say that it does seems to me the equivalent of declaring that if Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was not, in fact, responsible for the Great Chicago Fire, then the Great Chicago Fire must not have happened at all. Original Sin is a fundamental choice in which man declares his prideful rebellion against God, and we see that choice in our own hearts. (Chesterton once called original sin “the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”) As to where, specifically, it started, your guess is as good as mine; the story of Adam and Eve is a masterful account of the meaning of what happened.
Mark Steyn wrote:
Michael, here’s another view of that debate:
Sadly, I think, except for the section on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Cardinal Pell let the host and Richard Dawkins set the level of the conversation.Thus the whole debate took place within the worldview of Dawkins.
I’m inclined to agree.
Then Potemra responds:
Mark, I think the blogger you cite is rather too hard on Cardinal Pell. She chides him for “letting Dawkins’ hideous view of God and Christ’s sacrifice frame the beginning of the debate.” First of all, it’s not at all clear to me that Dawkins’s opening statement did, in fact, frame the debate from that point on. (On almost all of the issues in the rest of the hour, Pell gave as good as he got.) Second, and more important, Dawkins’s presentation of the idea of substitutionary atonement — what the blogger calls Dawkins’s “hideous view” of it — is exactly what St. Paul told us to expect: The Cross is indeed folly to the Greeks (I Cor. 1:23), and nobody can believe such things unless granted the gift of faith by God (John 6:44). Dawkins is merely expressing what seems commonsensical to what Paul called “the natural man” (I Cor. 2:14), and if you can disprove it in a 45-second on-the-spot response on a TV show, you’re a better man than I.
Most interesting. So I went back and checked the transcript and when the words are in black and white without Dawkins theatrical disgust at what he was saying, okay, maybe they are not quite so bad as they struck me. Here's what Dawkins said (my emphases):
It’s true that you can find the occasional good verse and the Sermon on the Mount would be one example, but it’s lost amid the awful things that are dotted throughout the Old Testament and actually throughout the New Testament as well because the idea - the fundamental idea of New Testament Christianity, which is that Jesus is the son of God who is redeeming humanity from original sin, the idea that we are born in sin and the only way we can be redeemed from sin is through the death of Jesus, I mean that’s a horrible idea. It’s a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our since sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself.Well, I agree the Cross is folly and a stumbling block, but I have never been comfortable with the idea of penal atonement as the only explanation for the mystery of Christ's sacrifice.
Penal atonement is the kind of stark depiction of a judgmental wrathful God that you find in Chick comics. While substitutionary atonement certainly is "Scriptural" as Protestants would say, if this legal/punishment oriented view is the only lens through which one views the Atonement, it is limited and mars the view of a loving God who comes himself to free us from the bonds of sin and death---not because the Father hates us, but because the Father loves us. Jesus does bear the punishment for our sins, but on the Cross perfect justice and perfect mercy meet. Here are some other ways of viewing the Atonement, and I am more inclined to the ransom view, though I believe we have to hold in mind all the various scriptures to appreciate the mystery:
The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in theApostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture. Without pretending to give a full history of the discussions, we may briefly indicate some of the main lines on which thedoctrine was developed, and touch on the more important theories put forward in explanation of the Atonement.
(a) In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediatorbetween God and men. From this, we have one of the first and most profound forms of theological speculation on the Atonement, the theory which is sometimes described as Mystical Redemption. Instead of seeking a solution in legal figures, some of the great Greek Fathers were content to dwell on the fundamental fact of the Divine Incarnation. By the union of the Eternal Word with thenature of man all mankind was lifted up and, so to say, deified. "He was made man", says St. Athanasius, "that we might be made gods" (De Incarnatione Verbi, 54). "His flesh was saved, and made free the first of all, being made the body of the Word, then we, being concorporeal therewith, are saved by the same (Orat., II, Contra Arianos, lxi). And again, "For the presence of the Saviour in the flesh was the price of death and the saving of the whole creation (Ep. ad Adelphium, vi). In like manner St. Gregory of Nazianzus proves the integrity of the Sacred Humanity by the argument, "That which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved" (to gar aproslepton, atherapeuton ho de henotai to theu, touto kai sozetai). This speculation of the GreekFathers undoubtedly contains a profound truth which is sometimes forgotten by later authors who are more intent on framing juridical theories of ransom and satisfaction. But it is obvious that this account of the matter is imperfect, and leaves much to be explained. It must be remembered, moreover, that the Fathers themselves do not put this forward as a full explanation. For while many of their utterances might seem to imply that the Redemption was actually accomplished by the union of a Divine Person with the human nature, it is clear from other passages that they do not lose sight of the atoning sacrifice. The Incarnation is, indeed, the source and the foundation of the Atonement, and these profound thinkers have, so to say, grasped the cause and its effects as one vast whole. Hence they look on to the result before staying to consider the means by which it was accomplished.
(b) But something more on this matter had already been taught in the preaching of the Apostles and in the pages of the New Testament. The restoration of fallen man was the work of the Incarnate Word. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). But the peace of that reconciliation was accomplished by the death of the Divine Redeemer, "making peace through the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20). This redemption by death is another mystery, and some of the Fathers in the first ages are led to speculate on its meaning, and to construct a theory in explanation. Here the words and figures used in Holy Scripture help to guide the current of theological thought. Sin is represented as a state of bondage or servitude, and fallen man is delivered by being redeemed, or bought with a price. "For you are bought with a great price" (1 Corinthians 6:20). "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the sealsthereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed to God, in thy blood" (Revelation 5:9). Looked at in this light, the Atonement appears as the deliverance from captivity by the payment of a ransom. This view is already developed in the second century. "The mighty Word and true Man reasonably redeeming us by His blood, gave Himself a ransom for those who had been brought intobondage. And since the Apostasy unjustly ruled over us, and, whereas we belonged by nature to God Almighty, alienated us against nature and made us his own disciples, the Word of God, being mighty in all things, and failing not in His justice, dealt justly even with the Apostasy itself, buying back from it the things which were His own" (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses V, i). And St. Augustine says in well-known words: "Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?" (Enarration on Psalm 95, no. 5).
Potemra writess: "Dawkins is merely expressing what seems commonsensical to what Paul called “the natural man” (I Cor. 2:14)"
But I wish Cardinal Pell had used the opportunity to pierce what seems commonsensical to the natural man. I am reminded of what Cardinal Marc Ouellet said about bishops in his last interview with me:
A bishop has to lead the community, so he needs a deep supernatural vision as well as the capacity to assess the political, cultural, and sociological context, said the new Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops in an interview. Above all, a bishop must be “audacious in proposing the Word and in believing in the Power of the Word and the power of the Spirit.”
“We have to dare to speak to the deep heart, where the Spirit of the Lord is touching people beyond what we can calculate,” said Ouellet. “We need spiritual discernment and not just political calculation of the risk of the possibility of the message being received.”
Don't get me wrong. I am a huge fan of Cardinal Pell. He is one of the reasons I am becoming Catholic this Sunday. But I wish he had been bold in proclaiming the Good News, even if he had risked appearing silly before this audience. I wish he had made those who love Jesus Christ feel our hearts were burning within us as in the Road to Emmaus.
I also had some problems with Pell's playing down the existence of Adam and Eve, even though I agree that the story of the Fall is not a literal historical account in the way we commonly understand them. But Dawkins is right when he asks: "Well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed where did original sin come from?"
It is possible to believe that we come from original parents, a real Adam and a real Eve, but that the story in Genesis is written in a mythic style that contains layers and layers of meaning and was never meant to be literal in the flattened sense of literal that Christians are often accused of: a garden, two people and a snake, etc.
There are huge theological difficulties in trying to marry theories of evolution with the doctrine of the Fall.
And if there is no Fall, why a need for Redemption?
No comments:
Post a Comment