"Just have faith that it's true."
I've heard this quite a bit lately. People often try to meet my skepticism about the truth of the Bible or the truth of Christian doctrine with the response "just have faith". When I have difficulty accepting something in the Bible or in Christian doctrine, or if I find that I have insufficient reason to accept something, people say I should "just have faith".
I translate this as them telling me to believe a certain doctrine or statement to be true even though the rest of my mind is against it (or agnostic). As if we don't actually need to use our minds anymore, as if we should just blindly accept everything our tradition and culture teaches us.
It's funny, I'm told to "just have faith that the Bible is completely true" even though every ounce of my reason says otherwise. I'm being told to believe in Biblical inerrancy even when I can't stand it!
Somehow, I think my comforters are missing the point of "faith". The word "faith" has numerous meanings in modern English. It can mean something along the lines of assent. In this usage, to have faith is to assent that the object of faith is true or correct. What kind of objects fit this usage of "faith"? Statements. "True" applies to statements.
But there is another usage of the word "faith". Faith can also mean trust. What type of objects fit this usage of "faith"? When I use "faith" like this, I normally use it in reference to a person. I have faith--trust--in people. I have faith in my parents, of their love for me. This is a very strong faith - unlikely to ever break. I have faith in my girlfriend, that she will be there for me and be faithful towards me. Faith is personal, it's relational. Faith is trust in someone; faith is also faithful - a reciprocal trustworthiness.
Those who tell me to "just have faith" are mistaking assent for trust. They went me to assent to a statement, rather than trust in God. This is why I think they are mislead. I can't see how assenting to a statement as true has anything to do with my spirit. I don't think our beliefs are first and foremost in God's mind. I'm no prophet, but that's something I believe: that beliefs aren't primary for God's purposes.
But trust. Trust is a different animal all together. Faith which trusts in God even in the face of doubt and uncertainty - now that is real faith. A faith that stays faithful even when staring into the unknown. That's real faith. That is the kind of faith that I sorely lack - and earnestly long for.
"Just have faith."
It's not what you believe, but who.
*The writings of Marcus Borg have helped me during my struggles over the word "faith". His book The Heart of Christianity, which I previewed here, was especially useful.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Monday, November 06, 2006
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Bible Says, Church Says, I Say
The Bible says many things. It is, after all, a collection of books and letters compiled over hundreds of years. The authors, yes plural, were a varied bunch: temporally, culturally, linguistically, and theologically. So each book of the Bible, each author, says its own thing. And it's not an easy task to pick this apart. Much of the Bible has gone through redaction - modification and editing. We don't even know if we have the words of the original author! In some cases, we can be certain that we don't. So we're left with a rather complex collection of texts whose unity is a debated issue. Does it even make sense to say that 'the Bible' says such-and-such. Honest historical-critical study of the biblical texts would convince one to the contrary. There is tension in the Bible. Some books say things that make us uncomfortable. Some books ignore a theme we think is important - a theme we think should have been given more prominence! It is not an easy task to try and harmonize everything together into one, single, united viewpoint.
But on another level, each passage of each book in the Bible says something. By this I mean that Paul is saying one thing and not another in Chapter 1 of Romans. The range of meaning which one can attribute to that passage is limited. I understand the complexity of literary theory, and the thorny issue of who decides the meaning of a text. But reading a text in its historical and literary context circumscribes the range of possible meanings. Sometimes, we can be quite certain what the argument or logic of a passage is; other times, we may only try and guess. At this level, we can have a pretty good idea what 'the Bible' says when the book or passage is read in its context - when it's read on its turf.
The Church has its own doctrines and dogmas. The evangelical, "bible-believing" branch of Christians always wants to claim their beliefs to rest on the Bible. Actually, several things are going on here. Individuals have beliefs. The institution they are part of--their particular Bible-believing Church--has its own set of beliefs. Organizational beliefs, you could call them. In many branches of the evangelical Church, the beliefs of the individual members of the organization are for the most part in line with the organization itself. Moreover, both the individual and the organization think that their beliefs rest on the Bible. We can differentiate three layers of belief: (1) the Bible (what a passage says), (2) the Church (what the Church officially teaches), and (3) the individual (what the individual believes). Unfortunately, many in the Church fail to realize that those three layers are distinct. Often, the layers are blurred together as if they were the same.
Remember how I mentioned the tension present in the Bible? Well, why do you think so many Churches say so many different things about the Bible. The Bible itself is a diverse book! Different Churches have different interpretations, that is because they emphasize certain themes at the expense of other themes. But Churches are only recapitulating what is already present in the Bible.
Though it won't admit it readily, the Church has many beliefs that have no direct link to the Bible. Or perhaps they have one, very weak, link. Or perhaps they have taken a vague idea, and built a whole skyscraper of doctrine on top of it. Divinity of Christ? The Trinity? Infallibility of Scripture? The End Times? Abortion ethics? All of these doctrines are the construct of the Church. They may draw upon the Bible - they may argue to death their continuity with what 'the Bible says' - but in the end, these doctrinal constructs are what the Church says, not what 'the Bible' says.
See, I can separate my beliefs from what the Bible authors wrote and from official Church doctrine. I am aware of the distinction between what the different parts of the Bible say, what the Church says, and what I believe. They are different things. My readers are aware of my rejection of biblical inerrancy; biblical authority is also a big question mark to me. It is not one of my working assumptions. My training in Religious Studies has given me the tools to try and grasp what the different parts of the Bible say. Having gripped the meaning or message of a passage, there are many instances where I stand to disagree with the biblical text. I have no problem with that. My involvement in a Christian Church has taught me what my particular Church has to say; but I've also been exposed to other types of Christians and what they have to say. Many times, I don't agree with Church doctrine. I have no problem with that.
So when do I get bothered?
I get bothered when individuals think that 'the Bible' says one and only one thing without realizing that it is a collection of ancient texts.
I get bothered when individuals or Churches try to make the scriptures say something they aren't saying.
Bible says, Church says, I say.
Three different things.
But on another level, each passage of each book in the Bible says something. By this I mean that Paul is saying one thing and not another in Chapter 1 of Romans. The range of meaning which one can attribute to that passage is limited. I understand the complexity of literary theory, and the thorny issue of who decides the meaning of a text. But reading a text in its historical and literary context circumscribes the range of possible meanings. Sometimes, we can be quite certain what the argument or logic of a passage is; other times, we may only try and guess. At this level, we can have a pretty good idea what 'the Bible' says when the book or passage is read in its context - when it's read on its turf.
The Church has its own doctrines and dogmas. The evangelical, "bible-believing" branch of Christians always wants to claim their beliefs to rest on the Bible. Actually, several things are going on here. Individuals have beliefs. The institution they are part of--their particular Bible-believing Church--has its own set of beliefs. Organizational beliefs, you could call them. In many branches of the evangelical Church, the beliefs of the individual members of the organization are for the most part in line with the organization itself. Moreover, both the individual and the organization think that their beliefs rest on the Bible. We can differentiate three layers of belief: (1) the Bible (what a passage says), (2) the Church (what the Church officially teaches), and (3) the individual (what the individual believes). Unfortunately, many in the Church fail to realize that those three layers are distinct. Often, the layers are blurred together as if they were the same.
Remember how I mentioned the tension present in the Bible? Well, why do you think so many Churches say so many different things about the Bible. The Bible itself is a diverse book! Different Churches have different interpretations, that is because they emphasize certain themes at the expense of other themes. But Churches are only recapitulating what is already present in the Bible.
Though it won't admit it readily, the Church has many beliefs that have no direct link to the Bible. Or perhaps they have one, very weak, link. Or perhaps they have taken a vague idea, and built a whole skyscraper of doctrine on top of it. Divinity of Christ? The Trinity? Infallibility of Scripture? The End Times? Abortion ethics? All of these doctrines are the construct of the Church. They may draw upon the Bible - they may argue to death their continuity with what 'the Bible says' - but in the end, these doctrinal constructs are what the Church says, not what 'the Bible' says.
See, I can separate my beliefs from what the Bible authors wrote and from official Church doctrine. I am aware of the distinction between what the different parts of the Bible say, what the Church says, and what I believe. They are different things. My readers are aware of my rejection of biblical inerrancy; biblical authority is also a big question mark to me. It is not one of my working assumptions. My training in Religious Studies has given me the tools to try and grasp what the different parts of the Bible say. Having gripped the meaning or message of a passage, there are many instances where I stand to disagree with the biblical text. I have no problem with that. My involvement in a Christian Church has taught me what my particular Church has to say; but I've also been exposed to other types of Christians and what they have to say. Many times, I don't agree with Church doctrine. I have no problem with that.
So when do I get bothered?
I get bothered when individuals think that 'the Bible' says one and only one thing without realizing that it is a collection of ancient texts.
I get bothered when individuals or Churches try to make the scriptures say something they aren't saying.
Bible says, Church says, I say.
Three different things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)