Honest to God: ...Heresy. Definitely Heresy.
Initial thoughts after finishing Honest to God: this guy really needs to take a note from C.S. Lewis and simplify things a bit. When writing a book that you think can change the hearts of man towards God, it's probably a good idea to make it understandable enough that people don't have to read it twice through to be able to take in the full meaning. Some people are smart enough to get it immediately, I know, but not all. As a representative of the people who have a hard time focusing on readings that demand incredibly close attention, I hereby issue a formal complaint against Bishop Robinson. If the message is so important, make sure everyone will actually read it without falling asleep.
While I try to figure out whether that complaint was one of legitimate concern or childish imbecility, I will say that I still have a difficult time determining between the revelation and the heresy (this either justifies my complaints or digs me a deeper grave, and I'm not sure on that either). I'm grumbling more than I was last week about Robinson's portrayal of Jesus as "the essence of God in the form of the Son" rather than "the same as God Himself." Now He's claiming that Jesus "disclosed" the true Love that God is. Jesus revealed it? Only revealed it? When he was suffering Hell on the cross in place of all mankind, He was only revealing love? Jesus was embodying love itself. God is Love, yes. But all the same, God the Father wasn't the one on the cross. God the Son volunteered Himself to make that sacrifice. Is God the Son then not Love just as much as God the Father? "No greater love is there than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jesus did that and suffered Hell for His friends, to boot. He was the perfect embodiment of Love. Robinson's exact words earlier were that Jesus was never "'of the same substance' as the Father." Well, Jesus was that true and ultimate Love. God is also Love. If A equals B and B equals C... You get the idea.
Go figure that while typing this I flipped back to the chapter where Jesus' technical status was first brought up, and only just now I realized that Robinson's interpretation of John 1:1 to mean "What the Word was, God was," also contradicts his statement that Jesus and God aren't "of the same substance." At least his lofty, philosophical writing style is decent at covering up the inconsistencies like that.
But at the same time he makes compelling points about the purpose of the Church (though if that's also heretical, I'll finally notice in a week or two), so I'm really just not sure how much this book is worth.
P.S. Okay, so Sophia, Zelda, and I have been collaborating to all comment on each others’ posts for a while now.
While I try to figure out whether that complaint was one of legitimate concern or childish imbecility, I will say that I still have a difficult time determining between the revelation and the heresy (this either justifies my complaints or digs me a deeper grave, and I'm not sure on that either). I'm grumbling more than I was last week about Robinson's portrayal of Jesus as "the essence of God in the form of the Son" rather than "the same as God Himself." Now He's claiming that Jesus "disclosed" the true Love that God is. Jesus revealed it? Only revealed it? When he was suffering Hell on the cross in place of all mankind, He was only revealing love? Jesus was embodying love itself. God is Love, yes. But all the same, God the Father wasn't the one on the cross. God the Son volunteered Himself to make that sacrifice. Is God the Son then not Love just as much as God the Father? "No greater love is there than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Jesus did that and suffered Hell for His friends, to boot. He was the perfect embodiment of Love. Robinson's exact words earlier were that Jesus was never "'of the same substance' as the Father." Well, Jesus was that true and ultimate Love. God is also Love. If A equals B and B equals C... You get the idea.
Go figure that while typing this I flipped back to the chapter where Jesus' technical status was first brought up, and only just now I realized that Robinson's interpretation of John 1:1 to mean "What the Word was, God was," also contradicts his statement that Jesus and God aren't "of the same substance." At least his lofty, philosophical writing style is decent at covering up the inconsistencies like that.
But at the same time he makes compelling points about the purpose of the Church (though if that's also heretical, I'll finally notice in a week or two), so I'm really just not sure how much this book is worth.
P.S. Okay, so Sophia, Zelda, and I have been collaborating to all comment on each others’ posts for a while now.
Yeah, Robinson's claims about Jesus are heretical. I seem to recall somewhere that Jesus said "I and the Father are one." What's that? Oh it's found in the Bible you say? Who knew! Probably those who actually read it. Also, about the church, there's that whole thing where it's supposed to be a place to worship and bring glory to God. It's sole purpose is not serve others, but to serve God. By loving God and obeying Him, these works will flow out of the church. Does the modern church do a good job of this? Not really, which is why Robinson can make the claims he does about the church. But if he keeps throwing this junk out about how Christians are supposed to care about other people FIRST AND FOREMOST, ABOVE ALL, INCLUDING GOD, I'm going to escort him to Heaven and introduce him to Paul. Loving others is important, but it only comes from loving God first. Loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength will give you the ability to love your neighbor as yourself.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the arguments and theories of Christianity around this time period have very similar heretical groundings. I do understand however, their attempts to put Christianity in a different light, a way that maybe the human mind can comprehend it. This is not okay though, since we shouldn't rely on our own reason alone, because it leads to a doing away of the myth and puts in only what our minds can comprehend, which is too small and simple.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI agree Will, this book is weird, lofty, and hard to understand. He makes odd points constantly and then contradicts himself all of the time! I really wish that he would just say what it is he is trying to say and not write in such a way that is hard to follow. I like the way you did your A, B and C example though, it just goes to show how Robinson contradicts himself profusely. If only he could make as much sense as your blog post....
As far as the language is concerned, perhaps he felt that since he was using the writings of philosophers and important theologians maybe; he should try to match their language.
ReplyDeleteOn the note of heresy: when you try to change the way Christianity is being run, it often leads to very heretical statements. The fact that he is denying some of the most important parts of Christianity in his book goes to show that he is not taking the Word as he should have. As a bishop, he should be teaching the Word as it is. Human nature is bent on making things more complex than they really are. Shame. Because the Gospel is very simple. As are most of the doctrines that True Christians hold.