Inerrancy, so what? A career revolution

I think many of you are wondering why I've thought so long and so hard about biblical inerrancy. For many, this seems like a useless case of intellectual gymnastics, having little relevance to daily life. I'm afraid that isn't so. I think that my views of the inerrancy of the Bible have had a very direct impact on my life.

During my first and second years of university, I was aiming to go into graduate studies in Christianity and become a New Testament scholar. I had always thought that my scholarship could be of service to the Church; my little bit in helping the whole 'body' move along. "The Bible is sacred text, the word of God, so we need to understand it as best we can and live by it." Or so I thought.

Soon, I came to realize that I just can't believe in biblical inerrancy. With this, came a depreciation of the value of the Bible in my life. It was no longer the very words of God, like the Christian version of the Holy Qur'an. Now it just a mish-mash of religious literature written by Jews and Christians over about a thousand year period. It became to me, in every way possible, a human text.

As this happened, I became less and less motivated to study the Bible. Now don't get me wrong, I still love the Bible, and I think it is one of the most important books ever. Personally, the Bible plays a big role in my life and in my interests. However, it no longer was about "scholarship for the Church". Losing my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible was intertwined with the rise of critical attitude in me. No longer was the Bible off limits for me - "question everything", I said.

Could I really spend the rest of my life--my whole career--studying a collection of texts, supposedly authoritative for my faith, when I no longer saw much authority or certainty in them? My faith was shaky, I didn't even know if I was still going to be a Christian in 10 years. Could I still devote the rest of my life, with considerable financial and emotional hardship, to studying texts of Christian faith. No. I couldn't.

Then I found that several things started to change. All along during my undergraduate studies, I had been pursuing concurrent studies in Religious Studies and Biology. The Religious Studies was because of my initial desire to become a New Testament scholar. The Biology was--VERY long story short--because of background interest and family wisdom. (Family wisdom turned out to be so, SO true). For several years, I wasn't very interested in the Biology side of my degree. I invested a lot more time in my Religious Studies. After all, it was my first career choice. But then with my transition away from biblical inerrancy, away from a certain and strong faith, I found myself gravitating more and more towards Biology.

I began to live a simplified message of Christianity: love God and love your neighbour. Helping people in definite and concrete ways seemed much more valuable in life than throwing around ideas in towers made of ivory.

It was at this point that a career in medicine seemed to make so much sense. My reconstructed Christian faith placed much more value in helping people in their lives than trying to "save them for eternity". I was starting to regain interest in Biology. I could definitely see myself as a physician. I realized just how rewarding such a career would be. I talked to people, I did research, I did lots of thinking. I would really love to be a doctor.

In fact, this is nothing new. I once memorized some 30 major bones in the body - on a family vacation. In elementary school. Also, my goal in initially going into Engineering out of high school was to go into biomedical engineering - I really wanted to make prosthetics and devices to help injured and sick people. But the year or two that I was all wrapped up in Religious Studies had turned me aside from what was a lifelong passion. But it was back.

Giving up biblical inerrancy, and the certainty in faith that came along with it, led to a complete change in career aim: from New Testament scholar to physician.

I hope you all now see why inerrancy is such a big deal to me. It has truly changed my life.

Inerrancy Continued

Dan and I have recently been exploring the notion of inerrancy, with a number of posts going back and forth between us:

Dan's initial post: Life + God
My first response: Ehrman and Inerrancy
Dan's response: Biblical Inerrancy

It's a great dialogue we've got going, and I think I can fruitfully continue it - for one more post at least. =]

I agree fully with Dan in that inerrancy isn't just something for academics to squabble about, but it is something the everyday believer must wrestle with as well:

I can see several of their points for believing that the bible is not inerrant; however, I think that the topic of biblical inerrancy and where it fits into Christianity must be examined not just for the select few, or those academic scholars, but even for the average Christian. I believe that it is naiive (sic) for Christians to completely ignore the topic and just say that the bible is inerrant without questioning anything.

This is especially true for 'Bible-believing' evangelicals, of which there are a lot around. What one thinks of inerrancy directly affects how one incorporates and uses the Bible in life, as well as in the public forum. A couple examples:

1. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong--see, here are the relevant passages (blah blah and blah). The Bible is inerrant, so it tells us exactly what God's laws are. Therefore, I'm going to vote for the Conservatives because they won't legalize homosexual marriage.
2. The Bible says that God created the world in 6 days. The Bible is inerrant. Therefore, I'm going to oppose the Theory of Evolution. A real Christians should not believe in Evolution. Also, I'm going to throw big bucks into Creationist literature and research. Why? Because I know God made the world in 6 days.

So it is clear that inerrancy isn't just for the academics. It affects our politics, our science, our relationship, our morals - everything.

Dan is also right to point out the big difference between modern historiography and ancient historiography. (Historiography is just a big fancy word for the study of the way history is/was written). The way an ancient approached "history" is very different from how a modern historian approaches "history". We need to remember this when we approach the Bible, which is composed of many very ancient pieces of literature.

At this point I want to clarify something. Though I do not believe in inerrancy, I still do believe that God uses the Bible to reach humanity. I cannot overlook the vast evidence that people all over the world, in different cultures and times, have experienced God as they read the Bible. Though the Bible is full of bias, inaccuracies, exaggerations, and errors, it is also full of a message of grace, mercy, love, and encouragement. Now this isn't an argument 'proving' the existence of God or the role of the Bible, but it does show that people have had what they thought were divine encounters while reading the Bible. I believe that this is God using the words in the Bible to touch human lives. But all the same, I don't think this is any different than God using a human to touch another human's life, or a sunset, or a walk on the beach, or a piece of music. I seem to recall the saying - the wind blows where it will.

I remember reading a book (The Heart of Christianity) by New Testament scholar and Theologian Marcus Borg. I quite liked his approach to the Bible. He says that the Bible is not primary to Christianity because of what it is: the revealed word of God; but because of what it does: its function as 'metaphor' and 'sacrament'. For Borg, the Bible is a sacred text not because it is sacred itself, but because it is a channel, a vessel, a mediator, of the Sacred. Scripture is still inspired, but inspiration isn't about how God wrote the text down. Scripture is inspired because it brings life to those who read it. It is inspired because it is a channel for humankind to encounter the Spirit of God.

Now the question I have is - what is meant by inerrancy? Dan writes:

I believe that God has spoken through His Word...God, a Holy God, STILL used imperfect humans. Therefore, when you have a perfect mouth piece (GOD), and then you have an imperfect scribe (the New Testament writers), there are bound to be mistakes, it's natural.

What is it that God has spoken through 'His Word'? How far does the imperfection of the human author reach?
(a) Grammar and spelling.
(b) Minor details of history - time and date.
(c) Contextual issues no longer relevant to today.
(d) Central narratives (e.g., exodus, monarchy, exile, Jesus)
(e) Central doctrines (sinfulness of mankind, need for Jesus as saviour)
I'm not laying down a slippery slope here. I believe that there is no guarantee that something is true just because it is in the Bible. However, just because I don't think there is a guarantee that it is true, it doesn't mean I'm saying that it's all false! I'm just saying that I can't invoke the doctrine of inerrancy and say, "that's that, it's all settled."

I think I'll end this response before it turns into a full blown essay. There is a very direct relationship between inerrancy and my life, but I'll keep that for a separate post which I'll post soon.

In the words of Paul, grace and peace.

Life Sucks Sometimes

I'm sad.

31 year old woman lying on the ground: unconscious, not breathing.

6 year old daughter crying as she watches mommy die.

Mommy's partner crying as he tries to perform CPR and keep her alive.

"The patient had suffered a sudden huge and unrecoverable bleed into the brain. She would never wake up"

That's it. Life over. Thirty one years old with a six year old daughter. Completely out of the blue.

Life sucks sometimes.

I think I'm gonna cry.

Ehrman and Inerrancy

Bart Ehrman, Professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, has been buzzing about the blogosphere as of late. I refer specifically to the following posts on blogs I frequently visit:

Maggi Dawn - When God Vanishes (II)
Scott Adams (the author of 'Dilbert') - Uh-Oh
AKMA - That's "A. K. M. Adam," Not "Scott Adams"

See also this Washington Post article which gives Ehrman's biographical background.

(The current post is also an indirect response to my good buddy Dan's reflections on the Bible.)

I find a lot of similarity between myself and Professor Ehrman. Like him, I also had a 'born-again' experience and joined the evangelical Church. Like him, I was indoctrinated in a fundamentalist style Church. And like him, I came up against major challenges when I began to academically study Christianity.

However, unlike Ehrman, I have yet to completely abandon Christian faith - at least not yet. Granted, it took him quite some time to come to realize he was a full blown agnostic. But still, I don't think I'll ever completely reject Christianity. I have come to realize that there are other ways of being Christian than I had once thought. Reading the blogs of others who have also gone through these struggles and yet held onto a Christian faith--however radically reconstructed--has shown me that there isn't just "fundamentalist evangelical" and "agnostic".

I like how Maggi Dawn puts it:

I was once a "born again" believer, and it was in part the recognition of endless intellectual dishonesty, both in biblical interpretation and in church practice, that led me to re-conceive my own faith. For me, though, the end result (so far at any rate) has not been the loss of faith, but a radical reconstruction of it. If, like Ehrman, my faith had depended on the inerrancy of the "original texts" of the Bible, I guess I would have lost my faith too.

Regulars to my blog will by now know that I do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (see Biblical Inerrancy). Yet I once was an inerrantist. In my first year of university, I tried desperately to hold on to the doctrine of inerrancy. I read all sorts of attempts to justify and support biblical inerrancy. But my scientific mind squashed those attempts. Saying that the Bible is a human text--written by regular human beings--makes much greater sense of the data (in this case, the Bible itself) than saying that it is a Divine text, revealed to the various authors by God. And so by the time second year began, I had let go of biblical inerrancy.

But I am still here. While Ehrman decided to call it quits, I decided to stick with it and see what I could do. I rebuilt my castle (see Building Castles - Part I and Part II).

I fear for those around me who hold to biblical inerrancy. I fear that someday their bubble might collapse - that reality might catch up to them. And I fear that, like Ehrman, they will give up on their faith. False dichotomies abound: it's either all completely true, or it's all completely false (see the related Slippery Slope). That's how a lot of people think, I'm afraid.

Cheers.

Good Friday Reflection

A great reflection on Good Friday by Maggi Dawn. An excerpt:

For those who enjoy a degree of certainty in their faith, maybe Good Friday and Holy Saturday don't really "bite" - they are more about anticipation than devastation. But those of us who live with a fragemented faith, a faith that has had too many holes punctured in it, too much damage ever to recover a naive certainty, there is something reassuring about the rise and fall of the Church seasons. It's a relief to be honest, to acknowledge the disappearance of God and the uncertainty of the outcome.

That's not to say that there is no hope of the resurrection. But that hope doesn't forestall the depth of blackness that can descend even upon people of faith. And the recollection that the Easter faith was born in the darkness is, perhaps, a reason to hold on and not to give up.

Have a blessed Easter-time,
Kev

A Little Health Tip, Thanks Prince Charles

The good Prince has some splendid health advice:

In an interview with Men's Health magazine, which specializes in advice on building muscle and flattening stomachs, the heir to the British throne discussed his sometimes controversial ideas about health and spirituality. Asked how men could be encouraged to pay more attention to their health, Charles said: "Via the ladies, I'd have thought. It's funny, the influence that women can have on getting us men sorted out is enormous,"

I tell you, the man is so right.

Amen, Prince Charles, Amen.

A Little (True) Humour

Sometimes humour is the best way to get a point across.

A few snippets from a recent post by Slacktivist on a major evangelical youth rally in San Francisco.

The "spiritual warfare" metaphor was once a good one. St. Paul used it well, as did John Bunyan. But overuse and misuse have long since corrupted this metaphor, devaluing its currency to cliche status.
...
From the bogus "War on Christmas" to the fetishistic devotion to Ten Commandments markers, this territory-marking has become an obsession for many of the alleged followers of Christ. "They'll know we are Christians by our love" apparently proved too difficult, so instead we've settled for "They'll know we are Christians by our bullying dominance of the public square."

Stop it. Just stop. Stop pissing on trees. Stop "reclaiming America for Christ." Christ already has a kingdom, an upside-down, mustard-seed kingdom without a flag. And while you people are so busy trying to create an alternative kingdom called "Christian America," the prostitutes and tax collectors and Samaritans are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. And so are a lot of those couples who got married there at City Hall.
...
And the bottom line here is this: $55 for two days in San Francisco is a good deal.

That $55 includes concert tickets. More importantly, it also includes two days away from home. In San Francisco. And more than likely it also includes a longish bus or van ride, possibly in the dark, with the girls from the youth group. That may amount to little more than surreptitious hand-holding, but don't knock it. For an evangelical teenager, a bit of surreptitious hand-holding on the church bus may amount to the high point of the school year.

Ahahah. Awesome!

Busted

So there we were, in the library. Chatting, studying.

All of a sudden, Ren reaches across my shoulder and picks up a long, blonde, piece of hair.

She looks at me in terror.

I tell her it was from the wild, passionate sex I had with some blonde girl last night after I dropped her off at home.

Then I start laughing - hard.

At this point I'm thinking of all the dumb movies where the girlfriend finds another girl's hair on the guy's clothes. Now, if you knew as I did how incredibly far I was from snuggling with some random blonde girl, you would also be laughing - hard.

Ren gets all upset and demands I tell her where the hair came from. Who was I seeing! What was I doing?

I don't think she was pleased.

Maybe cuz I was laughing uncontrollably. In a library.

Sorry Ren, you got me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!