democracy of the dead

"democracy of the dead" - that title has a good halloween ring to it. I'm reading a fantastic book by Brian McLaren entitled "A Generous Orthodoxy". I recommend it highly, and I'd love to be a part of a group study of the book. In the chapter "Why I Am catholic", McLaren quotes one of the many brilliant passages from G. K. Chesterton's classic book "Orthodoxy". The wisdom of Chesterton is something we are sorely in need of today. Savour the wisdom in this passage. Read it several times if need be. It is rich.

But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record...
It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad...
If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils.

G. K. Chesterton in "Orthodoxy", pg 52-53

subtle but huge distinction

The following is from the Introduction to the book "From Achilles to Christ" by Dr. Louis Markos. This subtle but huge distinction is often overlooked in the way we define Truth, and the way we view the Bible. The more I read and learn, the more I realize the importance of a proper view of scripture and not equating scripture with Truth. As Christians, we believe that the ultimate Truth was revealed to us in Jesus.

"Many Christians, particularly evangelicals like myself, are prone to claim that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. But that is not technically true. Christ, not the Bible, is the ultimate source of truth; the Bible is but the most perfect and reliable embodiment of that truth which resides in Christ alone. Indeed, in the Gospel of John, Christ tells his disciples that he is the truth (14:6). The distinction here is vital. If it is the living Messiah and not a single book that is the source of truth, then it is possible for that truth (albeit in a lesser, fragmented form) to appear throughout the imaginative literature of the ancient pre-Christian world.

We have all been programmed by our Creator with a desire to seek and yearn after the God who is truth. If it is true, as Paul teaches in Acts 17:26-28, that we were all made in his image, that he is not far from us, that in him we live and move and have our being, then it must also be true that those timeless works of ancient Greece and Rome that record the musings of humanity’s greatest seekers and yearners will contain traces, remnants and intimations of that wisdom which made us.

Truth is limited neither to the Scriptures nor to the sacred tradition; the Bible, though it tells us all we need to know to find salvation in and through Jesus Christ, does not attempt or purport to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge and wisdom. It can lead us to Christ and can instruct us in the rudiments of our faith, but it cannot answer all our questions nor can it satisfy all our deepest desires and yearnings for truth, beauty and understanding. God speaks to us in many other ways and through many other media. Though the Scriptures must ever act as the touchstone against which all such communications are to be measured, we must not allow puritan suspicion of the moral value and doctrinal status of humanistic pursuits to prevent us from accessing these messages from our Creator."

excellent book!

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This past week, I read UNC Professor Bart Ehrman's book entitled "Misquoting Jesus". It is an excellent book! It is not the attack on faith and scripture that I was expecting. Rather, it is a scholarly, yet accessible, work on how our scriptures came to us! I find my faith and understanding of the scriptures strengthened, not shaken! I now have a better understanding of the alternate versions of the text which appear in the footnotes of my study bibles. I have also gained a deep respect for the hundreds of people over the course of history who have dedicated their lives to finding the text of the original manuscripts, helping to bring us closer to the them, and to the authors who penned them. The investigative process that Dr. Ehrman and others use is fascinating, and I'm encouraged that this work has been and is taken very seriously. I recommend this book to anyone seeking a better understanding of the processes through which the Bible has come to us.

View all my reviews