"I’m strong and holy, I must do what I've been told."

I'm reading a book, The Dark Side of Christian History. I'm sure you can make a guess as to the subject matter, and the text isn't really any more subtle than its title. But it's made me think, nonetheless. Christianity bases itself, quite solidly, on the Bible as its foundation. Whether or not you believe in the Bible as the Word of God, it should be pretty uncontentious that this is the coherent text of what Christians accept as the truth, right? Uh-uh. No banana. Not only do Catholics disagree with other denominations about which books are canonical, but according to Ellerbe's book, a writer in 450 stated that there were about 200 different gospels circulating in his diocese alone. The Gnostic gospels, for example, place very different emphases on ways of believing and worshipping God from those of the four now-canonical gospels. They encourage a closer and more direct relationship between the individual and God - which, of course, wouldn't suit the need for power of ecclesiastical authorities. All of which leads one ot think that the Bible - or at least the Christian scripture - is, in fact, no more than an arbitrary selection of texts based on the desires of a power-hungry, anti-Semitic, male-dominated Church.

Food for thought, especially at Lent.

After all, if the Church is nothing but an artificial edifice, whose laws and doctrines were created as a matter of political expediency, what on earth am I doing as a member of it? I've long been worried by aspects of modern Christianity which I would have hoped had died out at around the same time that heliocentricism became accepted. Its ingrained prejudices, for example, and its inability to recognise that discriminating against Jews, Muslims, homosexuals or women for religious reasons is still anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic and sexist. There's no Get Out of Jail Free card to be had by hiding behind religion in these matters, as far as I'm concerned. Our churches are full of infighting and squabbling, we can't hold on to members without playing guitars and promising them that gays go to hell, we won't ordain women as bishops because... erm... well, just because the man in the beard said so - and I've genuinely spoken to people who would rather children stayed in local authority care than were adopted by a gay couple, or who think AIDS is God's punishment on the "homosexual community", or that unconverted Jews go straight to hell. And I don't believe any of that.

So, who's right - them or me? I can only conclude that, considering the history of Christianity, they are right, at least in an historical sense. Because they can quote the Bible ad nauseam and show theological positions and traditions to support their arguments. And all that can be argued by the brave souls on the other side is that we have to move on from the ancient cultural context of the Bible. In other words, if Christianity is strictly Bible-based, then liberal views can't be supported in a Christian context.

I think maybe I've just convinced myself out of a religion...