Dr. Crow's Articles

Earl Crow formerly taught religion and philosophy at High Point University and Wake Forest University. He has pastored churches and still performs weddings, preaches and offers seminars. He majored in religion at Duke University and attended the Duke Divinity School and has studied at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and received his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester, England. His column is published Saturdays in the Winston-Salem Journal. If you have questions about religion or faith, email Earl Crow at ecrow1@triad.rr.com.

Before getting questions from Journal readers, I will start the discussion with a look at a fundamental Christian belief. As the 20th century dawned, Christians reacting against what they perceived as a prevailing Protestant trend, affirmed five basic beliefs they regarded to be essential in the Christian faith: the virgin birth of Jesus, Jesus ’ sacrificial death for human sin, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the second coming of Christ to establish His Kingdom, and the inerrancy of the word of God in the Bible. We begin with a look at Jesus’ virgin birth. Virgin birth stories were common in ancient lore. Such claims were made about Zarathustra, the founder of Zoroastrianism and Siddhartha, the Buddha. It was likely a way of asserting the specialness of their religious founder. An interesting point is that of the 27 books of the New Testament, only two, Matthew and Luke, mention the virgin birth of Jesus. Paul, the earliest and most prolific New Testament author, does not mention the event. One explanation could be that it was not regarded as a significant belief by the very earliest Christians. Matthew, attempting to prove the messiahship of Jesus quotes from the Hebrew prophet, Isaiah: “A virgin will conceive. ” (Isaiah 7:12-14) His wording is taken from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the older Hebrew manuscript, which simply says, “A young girl will conceive.” It is also important to note that Isaiah’s prophecy was made to provide a sign to the 9th century BC King Ahaz that God would be with Judah in their struggles. It seems that a child born 850 years later would not serve as proof to King Ahaz of God’s presence. Be assured that there are several translations and many interpretations. Many Christians today use more modern translations of the words to mean young virgin. The doctrine of Jesus’ Virgin Birth did become fundamental to the faith. I believe there were two reasons. First, the early Christian Church, especially following the Council of Nicea 325 A.D. and Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D., insisted on the dual nature of Jesus, human and divine. The virgin birth was the perfect symbol for His dual nature. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, therefore, divine and born of a woman, therefore, human. Second, Jesus is preserved from the taint of original sin, so that he could serve as the sinless sacrifice for sin. Bishop Augustine taught that God created Adam and Eve and that they were able to sin and able not to sin or free and innocent. Yet, he reasoned that following their original sin, they were alienated from their creator, lost the divine image in which they had been created, and were not able not to sin. For these reasons, they were bound to sin. He went on to declare that all their descendants born in a natural way inherited this sinful nature from their forebearers which exempted Jesus. According to Augustine, this sinful nature was passed on through the sin of lust in procreation. Jesus, being conceived of the Holy Spirit had no human father from which to inherit original sin. But what about His mother, Mary? Although the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Churches rejected it, in 1854 A.D. the Roman Catholic Pope Pius IX declared as dogma that Mary was immaculately conceived in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne and, therefore, was without original sin. The church went no further back than Saint Anne, but clearly the doctrine of the Virgin Birth became important to preserve Jesus as the sinless sacrifice for sin and to attest to His dual nature as human and divine. Contemporary Christians affirm it as fundamental to the faith. I offer these words as a path to discussions and to the understanding of the faith.

I would like to acknowledge that there are things about Christianity and the ancient biblical culture that are difficult to prove, which leads to the possibilities of interpretation; therefore, I believe that all discussions are valuable. I will share my ideas and my studies with the understanding that others will have different views. I look forward to many good discussions. Q: From 1999 to 2012 I did extensive biblical, historical, and medical research into the possibility that Jesus was drugged while on the cross to appear dead (Remember that mysterious sponge?) The research led me to write “The Mandrake Connection.” You can download a reference atwww.mandrakeconnection.com or just Google Mandrake Connection. As you seem to be more scientific than dogmatic in your consideration of the life of Jesus, I would like to know your opinion of this hypothesis. Dr. Jim Campbell Answer: “The Mandrake Connection” argues that Jesus did not die on the cross. Rather, there was an elaborate conspiracy to drug Him and make it appear as if He died on the cross. The theory states that Jesus lived another forty days and probably died of complications from the drug and infection from the Roman soldier’s spear. Readers may want to read “The Mandrake Connection” for themselves for more information. The Mandrake plant is considered sacred by some and is mentioned in historical accounts, legends, and in Genesis 30:14-16. I would like to make several points that readers can consider: • In response to the Jim’s comment about my having a scientific approach, I respect the scientific method, but I could not be described as “scientific.” I search for the available biblical and historical information for my lecturing, preaching, and writing. Faith-based beliefs will be a topic for another column. • The doctor’s credentials as a physician are excellent, but I do question some of his assumptions about this topic. • To a degree, his hypothesis is similar to a work published in 1965 by a Jewish scholar named Hugh Schofield titled, “The Passion Plot.” Schofield believed Jesus did die on the cross because of the spear wound and that Jesus’ reported resurrection appearances were cases of mistaken identity. An interesting approach, but it does challenge credibility. • The Biblical passages that the doctor cites as evidence of his hypothesis do not seem to me to be supportive of his claims. I do not have the space to deal with each one, but he points to John 11:1 as proof that Lazarus tested the drug before it was given to Jesus. There is no claim or even suggestion in the text that this is true. The use of Acts 1:9 to support the idea that Jesus’ body was probably cremated does not ring true since the ancient Jews and Christians did not approve of cremation. To suggest that the Romans mistakenly thought Jesus had died on the cross would impugn the Romans’ efficiency as killers. This idea is highly unlikely; it discounts the fact that Roman soldiers stabbed Jesus with a spear to be certain He was dead. • My most serious disagreement with the hypothesis is that it undercuts one of the basic tenets of Christianity. Rather than Jesus’ sacrificing His life, it proposes that He propagated a gigantic hoax. If this were true, Christians should not venerate the cross; they should wear necklaces with dangling sponges. History has given Christians the cross as a symbol of his sacrifice as can be witnessed in many churches. In my opinion, the hypothesis is based on speculation, not unlike theories embodied in “The DaVinci Code.” It is interesting, but hardly creditable. D. H. Lawrence wrote a novella about a man assumed to be Christ who survives the crucifixion and finds the beauty of the earth and human life. The novella “The Man Who Died” creates an interesting and moving supposition; it is food for thought, but it is fiction.

In the first column, the five basic tenets of fundamentalism were presented and the virgin birth was discussed. The four other fundamentals were the sacrificial death of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, his second coming, and the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Since the other four are based on the Bible, it is important to understand the term “word of God.” People read, enjoy and interpret the Bible in different ways. Some study the history and culture of the time period or enjoy the literary expressions. Others value the symbolic messages that bring truth to the modern-day occurrences. For this column, I will present three important approaches for Christians: Biblical inerrancy, liberal theology and demythologizing. First, Biblical inerrancy maintains that every word of every verse was inspired by God; there are no errors, contradictions or discrepancies in the Bible. The idea supposes that God literally took over the writers so that there is no human element in the text. They were used by God in the same way a writer may use a pen. Many of those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible also prefer the King James translation of the Bible, which is beautifully written. It was not produced until the early 17th century. The translators had limited access to ancient Hebrew and Greek texts, and they primarily translated from the Roman Catholic Latin version commonly called the Vulgate. Also, some Christians seem unaware of or not bothered by the fact that the early Christian Church had no New Testament. There were suggested lists of books that were believed to be inspired, but not until the Council of Hippo A.D. 393 was the New Testament officially canonized. To hold to the fundamental of inerrancy, one would have to believe that not only the writings were infallibly inspired by God but that the Bishops who selected the 27 New Testament books were also infallibly inspired. The second approach could be labeled Christian liberal theology. This type of liberalism tends to be naturalistic and rational. It seeks rational explanations for miraculous events. For example, when Jesus was at sea in a storm and is said to calm the sea, liberalism might suggest that when Jesus said, “Peace be still,” he was speaking to his disciples rather than to the sea. Faith can inspire people to be calm in adversity. Supernatural events are explained in a rational manner or simply rejected. Liberalism would not necessarily reject the concept of divine inspiration, but would see it more in the manner that we say Mozart was inspired by God. We do not mean that God actually wrote Mozart’s notes, but that He moved Mozart to write. A third way of understanding the Bible is called demythologizing. The German scholar, Randolph Bultmann, is noted for his approach. He used the term myth in the classical sense, not the modern. To most today, myth means something untrue. Classically, myth is any language or story that is not necessarily historically or scientifically accurate, but which does convey truth. It is difficult for us to grasp this idea. In the age of data gathering, we have assumed that sufficient data will produce truth. The mythologist separates truth from fact and from history. A story may not be factually or historically accurate, but it may convey truth and meaning. The mythologist insists that the Biblical scholar’s task is to demythologize the Scriptures. The mythological imagery of the Biblical writers must be studied to discover the underlying truth of the passage. For the mythologist, the story of Jesus’ resurrection may or may not be a supported historical fact, but it affirms the truth that the message of Jesus cannot be killed. Some Christians are not totally committed to any one of these methods, but they employ the method of interpretation based on preconceived ideas. Remember, the Bible is not a book but a library consisting of 66 different writings from different authors over a period of about 1,200 years. It contains history, poetry, moral guidance, inspirational songs, prophecy and myth. An individual open to the different ways of exploring the Scriptures will find a rich path to faith. Using the Bible as a divider is not as rewarding as using the Bible as a guiding companion to share with others the search for truth. Karl Barth, the noted Swiss theologian, said the word of God comes to us in three forms: the Word in the Flesh (Jesus Christ), the written Word that points to Christ, and the Word of Church (proclamation of the written word.)

Before beginning this discussion, it is interesting to note that over five billion Bibles have been sold or distributed. Indeed, a best seller! Growing up, I knew family members and friends who consider the Bible to be their most valued book. The way people regard the Bible is in accord with their personal beliefs. Whatever the religious background or the approach to reading the Bible, I think that people who read and study it will be impressed with its scope and depth. For this discussion, I will include three approaches to reading the Bible. The first approach is practiced by the Fundamentalists. They have five basic tenets. The biological, virgin birth of Jesus; Jesus’ sacrificial death for the forgiveness of sins; Jesus’ bodily resurrection; Jesus’ literal and historical return; and the inerrancy of Scripture. Inerrancy means that the Bible is infallible. The Biblical student should read and believe. A Biblical student can find many passages in the Bible to support this approach. In 2 Timothy 3:16, we find “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Next is a liberal reading which regards the Bible as a piece of religious literature. As a result of being written by fallible men, it may have contradictions, discrepancies, and errors. It is acceptable for some people to acknowledge that these writers were influenced by their culture. The Bible may be instructive, but one needs to read it in the context of its culture. Some consider that the writers were inspired by God. Others believe that it expresses their best understanding of God. An important point about this approach is that the truths of the Bible are told in a meaningful and inspiring way. The history and wisdom of the Bible are revealed. The other approach is to consider some of the contents to be mythological. The use of the term myth in its classical sense, not as untrue, but as language or narrative which may not be literally or historically true, but which reveals truth. If the fundamentalists and the liberals were debating the facticity of Jesus’ virgin birth, the mythologists would say they are asking the wrong question. The proper question is not did it occur, but what does it mean. The mythologists would insist that the inner truth of the story is not dependent on it historicity. The story is simply a bearer of truth, the uniqueness and importance of Jesus. Rudolf Bultmann, theologian and Biblical scholar, who is noted for his mythological approach to the Bible, declared that the historicity of Jesus does not matter. The message of Jesus would be true whether He actually lived or not. The affirmation of the mythologist, therefore, is that truth and fact are not mutually dependent. One may have many facts and not any truths or one may grasp truth apart from facts. To a degree, some people employ all of these methods of reading and understanding the Bible dependent on the circumstances of their discussion. When a literal approach supports our point of view, we take that route. If a literal reading seems to be culturally biased, we argue a more liberal or mythological reading. We need to study the Bible in context, understanding the historical times, the language usage, and the intent of the writer. We need to understand that when the books were written some of the content is not applicable today. For example, the Old Testament says that God made the sun stand still. We now know that the sun does not circle the earth, but the earth rotates. That passage must be understood in the light of the cosmology of the day. Karl Barth, noted theologian, struggled to understand God and came to the conclusion that in Christ man sees and knows God. After many scholarly and important volumes about theology, Barth responded to a theological question by saying, “Jesus loves me this I know.” God, his creation, and His Word hold many mysteries. Before we get ahead of ourselves, let us remember that we are not all-knowing! We must await the ultimate truth to be revealed. We can have faith and serve God by taking care of each other with kindness, helpfulness, and love.

Today, I will write about a Christian who was committed in word and deed. Daniel Berrigan, S.J. died on April 30, 2016, nine days short of his 95th birthday. Some will remember that he and his brother, Philip, were activists against the Viet Nam War and nuclear proliferation. I knew him as a man and priest who was not judgmental, but daily brought comfort, support, and love to a host of people in need. I first met Daniel Berrigan in the early 1970’s, after he was released from prison for burning draft files in Catonsville, MD. He spoke at High Point College. Initially, I was suspicious of him and his civil disobedience tactics. He always maintained that it was not tactics but a way of life. Upon meeting him, I was literally converted by his message of nonviolence and fell in love with him as a dear friend. His message to the students was simple: “We are not called to make war and to hate but to love and seek peace.” He was challenged by a student who asked what he would do if he, the student, aimed a gun at him. He told the student, “You will have to shoot me.” Berrigan told the student that he believed as Jesus preached, “Do no harm!” Since this talk, he has visited in Winston-Salem several times and given talks to local churches. He enjoyed trips to the Blue Ridge Mountains and to the Outer Banks. I can honestly say he was the best informed and widest read person I ever met. His superior Jesuit education grounded him in the classics; his time in France introduced him to contemporary writers and philosophers. His education helped to shape his understanding of the human dilemma and, I believe, made him a better priest and person. Writing was a part of his daily routine, and he wrote over 50 books for publication, but he was just as likely to send a beautifully written and inspiring poem as a birthday or get well card to a friend. His letters were warm and comforting for those who sought his advice. Throughout the Viet Nam War, Daniel and Philip protested war and violence. Following the war, they turned their efforts toward protesting the nuclear arms race. Failing to be heard as preachers and prophets, they often practiced non-violent civil disobedience as they had earlier with Martin Luther King, Jr. When asked how many times he had been arrested, Berrigan replied, “Apparently, not enough.” Berrigan and others demonstrated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania against the plant producing 1st Strike Nuclear Missiles. They were arrested and convicted. At their sentencing, Judge James Buckingham conceded that he understood why they had protested, but, of course, could not approve their breaking the Law. He asked Berrigan if he would stop such activities. Berrigan replied that the judge was asking the wrong question. He proposed that the judge should ask the President if he would stop making the missiles. Berrigan suggested that if the President would agree, then “I’ll stop banging on them, and you and I can go fishing.” Berrigan was a serious scholar and well-versed in theology; but in his interactions with groups and individuals, he made religion seem as natural as breathing. He considered that any gathering of people of good will had the possibility of becoming a working church. People who met him felt the soft power of his gentleness. His life was dedicated to being a peace maker, and he was willing to be disowned, despised, and imprisoned for his beliefs. He probably touched more lives in a positive way than anyone I have known. I encourage you to read “To Dwell in Peace” or his books on the prophets. “The Raft Is Not the Shore” is an inspiring conversation between Berrigan and Thich Nhat Hanh, men of different religions (Christianity and Buddhism). He often spoke of Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, and the written words of the Prince of Peace as guides for his life. Today we need more priests and pastors with the courage of their commitment and the dedication to peaceful resolutions in all aspects of life. Berrigan was once asked why he did what he did. His reply was “I did what I could not not do.” For him peace seeking was a categorical imperative. He devoted his life to nonviolence and lifting others as it should be for all of us. I join many others who are grateful for the time spent with Father Berrigan, and I will cherish the wonderful memories for the rest of my life.