I switched my second major from psychology to religious studies about six months ago for a few different reasons.
First, RELI classes are easier to get into than PSYC classes. And second, I felt like I needed a better understanding of religion in order to really understand violence and conflict, the focus of my first major — peace, war and defense. I’m a semester in, and already my new major has been so much more.
Bart Ehrman, a renowned New Testament scholar and historian, believes that religion is the perfect subject to study in college because it forces you to challenge your own world view. “They take a class like this and they realize ‘Oh my God, I had no idea,’” he says.
He was right — my first few RELI classes nudged me into a minor existential crisis.
The department of religious studies isn’t a divinity school. We study religion as a cultural, historical and very much human phenomenon in order to better understand the world. Like it or not, religion has shaped the way we live since the beginning of humanity.
The department’s faculty, which includes historians, anthropologists, philologists and other specialists, is not in the business of proving or disproving any particular belief. Ehrman says it best in his RELI 208 syllabus — his class “will not be taught from the perspective of faith, but also not from a perspective of disbelief.”
Ehrman says he presents historical facts to his students, who can decide for themselves — “I can talk about historical factors but somebody can still say ‘well, God was behind it all,’ and other people will say ‘no, He wasn’t.’”
I fall into the ever-growing group of Americans that consider themselves spiritual but not religious. My family doesn’t go to church, but as a little girl, every night I asked God, in a sing-song voice, to bless my family, friends and stuffed animals. I believe in God, because I’ve always needed to believe that someone is looking out for me and the people I love.
During the darkest times in my life, I’d imagine myself as a little bird cupped in God’s hands.
In my three RELI classes this semester, I’ve learned just how arbitrary some aspects of organized religion can seem. The New Testament, which Christians everywhere take, as well as gospel, could have included completely different books with different ideas, some of which challenge or contradict what is in the New Testament today.
For a while — and this is the existential crisis I’m talking about — I wondered how something so seemingly random can possibly be correct. If it was just by circumstance that orthodox Christianity ended up believing that Jesus died for humanity’s sins, instead of being here to teach us the secret knowledge for salvation like the Christian Gnostics — what if orthodox Christianity was wrong? And if modern Western civilization developed based on the wrong version of Christianity, is it such a stretch to conclude that maybe everyone is wrong about God, that God doesn’t exist? How do we know?
As one of my friends told me over waffles at Carolina Coffee Shop, we don’t know. That’s why it’s called faith.
I started to think that religion, all types of religion, is humanity’s attempt to keep the faith. So many of us need to believe that life isn’t random, and religion provides us with rituals and stories to help us keep believing that. Religion helps us keep the faith.
Studying religion, including both broad institutions like Islam, Hinduism and Christianity, as well as how individual people interact or don’t interact with these institutions, provides us a window into that society’s hopes and dreams and fears. It allows us to see how people who lived before us or live lives different from our own keep the faith, and that tells us so much about who they were or who they are.
Until now, I believed my own faith to be separate from the institution of religion, but I realized that I have my own religion — my own version of Christianity, my own rituals and stories that help me keep my faith.
It began when I started asking God to bless my Winnie the Pooh.
Thank you for this!
Dr Bart,
What do you think is the Christology of the Author of Hebrews and why do you say so?
I think it’s a little hard to be definitive; he definitely understands him to be a divine being, the greatest being in the universe apart from God the Father, who sustains the entire universe and came to redeem sins. But he also seems to think that the resurrection exalted him even higher than he was before. That sounds a lot like Paul’s Christology in Phil. 2:6-10 to me…
I wonder. Did he consider Christ to be the Son of God before his incarnation?
Yes, that’s what I was trying to say.
Martin Wagner referred to the Bible as “the big book of multiple choice”. Depending on which passages you stress and which you ignore you can get wildly different religions.
There’s a whole lot packed into her last sentence!
It’s wonderful that we have students like her.
Nice, thoughtful article.
Yes, an excellent article which expressed eloquently how I feel much of the time. I’m sure Charlsie has a great future ahead of her.
Thanks very much for sharing!
Thanks very much for sharing!
First time I ever ended up in tears from reading one of these blogposts.
enjoyed your article, you will be amazed as you progress farther into your studies. i personally always enjoyed history and never realized how religions totally determined the course of our world until i got into ancient history
I enjoyed Ms. Doan’s article. However, I am skeptical that studying religion from the perspective taught there, or anywhere for that matter, will help her much on her stated desire to: ” I felt like I needed a better understanding of religion in order to really understand violence and conflict, the focus of my first major — peace, war and defense.” Humans can be and often are terrible to each other and can be rationalized in many ways, even using religion. Certainly, there is lots of violence and conflict in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. And religion has been used to justify violence and wars and all sorts of terrible behaviors between humans despite the Laws of Moses and despite Matthew 22:36-40. I think the Old and New Testaments have tried to mitigate these aspects of human nature with varying degrees of success; However, truly understanding human nature might lead to a better understanding of “…violence and conflict…”
I don’t think she’s saying that she is learning that religoin is non-violent! She’s saying that to understand a lot of the violent conflict in our world today you hvae to know something about its religiuos basis. E.g., people who do not understand Islam really have no clue about important aspects of Islamic terrorism.
Hi Bart I watch all your videos on YouTube and I’m a platinum member you have opened my eyes to alot of interesting views reminding you that I’m new to this I was raised catholic and Christian but my question is now that I question my faith now is there a God ? I’m afreemason which i do alot of charity work as u do not as much as u do but i try So what I’m asking is don’t we have to believe in a God or Supreme being ? Who did create this beautiful world we all live in ..? At least with Christianity and other religions this keeps us all as human beings doing for others as we do for ourselves. Meaning help people and etc. What I’m saying is I lost hope now all I beleive in and we die . I hope this is not a stupid question thanks again bart ..u r to me honest and u r give us the truth thank you happy holidays..fyi I will attend one of your seminars or speaking in the future I’m from Chicago I’ll.
Everyone has different views of course. If you’d like to see mine laid out at some length, I discuss them at the beginning and end of my book God’s Problem. WHen I lost my faith I did not lose hope or the will to live, and did not become depressed that death was the end of the story. For me that has made life even *more* valuable and important, since it’s not a dress rehearsal for something else. It has made me relish life all the more. It’s sad that I won’t be able to enjoy this life for longer, but I’m enjoying it while I can. And I realize I won’t miss it when it’s over!
We may not able to enjoy it from a posthumous heavenly perspective, but I count fortunate those with a realistic sense of their positive contributions to the lives of others – and may even enjoy some well-earned satisfaction that they’ll be discussed possibly for generations to come; that their works/visions will continue to inspire as examples of human potential, against overwhelming odds.
It pains me to think of those great souls who may never have gotten a taste of what their lives would mean for future generations; The Van Goghs or Nietzsches; perhaps even Jesus? He certainly had a vision and saw his life in terms of a greater purpose. But what he would have made of his legacy is an interesting question that keeps “resurrecting” for me. How surprised would he have been? Certainly not happy about most of it I’d imagine, as this wasn’t exactly the world he’d envisioned would be here now. But then, would he take comfort in the fact that so many have taken comfort in his persona, finding in it the strength to endure the hardest of times? That ultimately God had different, albeit still important plans for him? Or would he still believe?
Thank you Charlsie
“this is the existential crisis I’m talking about — I wondered how something so seemingly random can possibly be correct. [?].
In mathematics there seems to be almost as many definitions of randomness as …. Scholars who write about it. A key distinction I have noted in random sampling (and the use pf pseudo generators) is not just that each and every element has an equal probability of being chosen, but each and every possible combination has such a probability.
So, if the universe of events comprises every event since the big bang, one probable combination is the one we call … history.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
On page 84 of Gamble’s book on the NT Canon, he says:
“The burden of much recent Protestant thinking has been to admit that the canon is ‘factually’ or ‘historically’ closed while insisting that the limits of the canon prescribed in the ancient church are not binding and that the scope of the canon remains in principle open to revision.”
Firstly, By factually closed, does he mean that the facts cannot be argued with or that the factual nature of the content is limited?
Secondly, he goes on to say that these flexible limits of the canon aim to “assert and preserve the critical independence of scripture over-against the church”
What does he mean? I always thought that because of sola scriptura, Protestants stuck to a far more rigid usage of the text than Catholics thus would be less likely to advocate any kind of flexibility of its limits?
Thank you!
1. Yes, he means the fact is that there are no changes that are going to be made in the canon, even though strictly speaking there could be; .
2. Yes, he’s saying that the Scripture and its authority is independent of what church leaders say about it. I’m not sure, though, what he means by sayig the “flexible limits” would help guarantee that.
Thanks Dr Ehrman!
Gamble says:
“for when the outer boundaries of the canon are regarded as absolutely fixed, the theologically normative force of the canon is reduced, and correspondingly, when the critical function of the canon is emphasised, it’s precise limits are relativised.”
What does he mean here? Why would fixed limits decrease the authority of the text?
Thank you!
IF the canon isn’t fixed in stone, then other authoritative books could be added and their different views would weaken the force of the views that are now in the canon.
Thank you!
So then why does Gamble say that “when the outer boundaries of the canon are regarded as absolutely fixed, the theologically normative force of the canon is reduced” ? Surely fixing the boundaries increases the normative force? Would it reduce because that would imply the church’s power over the text rather than the text’s self-standing ability?
Good point. I”m not sure now exactly what he might have meant. You should write him to ask!
Charlise’s thoughtful article offers hope that the world might go on. Well done, ma’am.
Agree. Honest and straightforward. I wish I’d had the opportunity to take a class from a prof like Dr. Ehrman when I was in school back in the 60’s.
Great article !!! But take some philosophy classes and psychology classes too. And History.
Dr. Ehrman, Do you think any of the authors of the Christian Bible were Trinitarians?
I’d say definetly not. The doctrine of the Trinity wsa not developed until long after their day. Centuries, actually.
Charlsie Doan
If it was just by circumstance that orthodox Christianity ended up believing that Jesus died for humanity’s sins, instead of being here to teach us the secret knowledge for salvation like the Christian Gnostics — what if orthodox Christianity was wrong?
Steefen
When I searched amazon for Bart Ehrman and Gostics, the top three results were
Voices of Gnosticism: Interviews with Elaine Pagels, Marvin Meyer, Bart Ehrman, Bruce Chilton and Other Leading Scholars
by Miguel Conner
Jesus before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
by Bart Ehrman
The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament
by Ehrman and Zlatko Plese
Question: Would you prefer a different list of three, and if so, which three? (The Gospel of Judas was a Gnostic gospel.)