Just Have Faith

"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.

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.

Purpose

An odd feeling came over me this morning while I was preparing my breakfast. I couldn't quite put a name to it.

At first, I thought it was loneliness. Maybe I'm just feeling a little lonely. I just got back from a very socially-stimulating vacation, and now I'm in my house all alone with no one home. Maybe I'm just lonely. But as I thought about it more, I realized that loneliness just wasn't it. I wasn't lonely.

Then it struck me. Like a tonne of bricks it came down on me. I have no purpose. I'm running around like a lab rat trying to get through medical school applications, but I have no purpose. I have a vague direction, a general feeling, some values, goals, dreams - but I have no purpose. I know what I want to do in life (I think), I know how to go about doing that (I think), but I do not know why I am doing it. That deep down, big picture, serious "why".

Perhaps it's utterly pessimistic. You live, you die. If you want to live, you need food and house and fun. None of that comes free. So get a good job, live well, then die happy.

But will I die happy? Is it possible to live and die happily without purpose? Can I be truly satisfied in life without purpose?

Is my life for more than just me?

Evangelical Guilt

A snippet from Slacktivist:

The failure to thus pester these people is often characterized with a misappropriated quotation from St. Paul: "You ate at Denny's without asking the waitress if she knows Jesus as her own private savior? You must be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ!"

That phrase is often used to argue that Christians ought to feel really, really guilty if they are not at all times and in all places making themselves into off-putting, conversation-stealing, monomaniacal, conversion-machines.

It is also used as an all-purpose dismissal of people like me. I believe that evangelism, properly understood, is an invitation -- a form of hospitality. I believe that Christians are called to be salt and light -- not to be the kinds of people that no one wants to sit next to on an airplane.

I know what he means.

Is God Merciful?

Freethinking Faith writes a great post on whether the orthodox (traditional) understanding of God is truly merciful. Read it all here.

A few snippets:

Strict orthodoxy tells us that God will cast the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived into the fire. Millions and millions and millions feeding the ravenous appetite of gehenna, from the earliest Bronze Age hunter to the modern businessman, factory worker and mother.
...
Swarms of humanity will go into the fire having lived exemplary, unselfish lives. People who walked sacrificially according to the precepts of their religions. Physicians who worked long hours to relieve the suffering of others. Old women who cradled the village children in their arms and spoke to them kindly about their ancestors. All will wake up in ghastly torment of which they will understanding little or nothing.
...
Then there will be many, many professing Christians, those who chose theologically incorrect versions of Christianity. They were Roman Catholics or Unitarians or liberal Episcopalians. They didn't understand the nuances of justification by faith alone or the Trinity. Or they put some trust -- maybe just a particle -- in their own works. So they join heathen and infidel in the furnace.
For millions of Christians, this is the good news, glad tidings. It is sound doctrine that might even garner a Sunday school ribbon. Or a high accolade from one of the faithful: "Yes, he is theologically sound -- sound in the faith. How encouraging to hear someone speak the truth in this age of infidelity. Praise God."

The Paradigm of the Cross of Jesus

Evil, hatred, anger, malice - all these things require people to propagate them. When someone hurts you, attacks you, you have two choices. First, you can lash back. You can continue the chain--whether it is a closed loop of two people, or an open chain of a whole nation--by returning hatred, anger, and harshness upon another. The second choice is to stop it. You can stop the chain dead in it's tracks.

You must take the momentum of the hatred, of the anger, and absorb it upon yourself. It is an odd metaphor, I know, but it is true. You have to take it upon yourself to let all the momentum land upon you, and choose not to reflect it onto another person.

This is how I see the paradigm of the Cross of Jesus: he let evil stop at him. He didn't retort, he didn't strike back, he didn't organize a rebellion. He let it stop at him. He gave us a paradigm, an example of how to live righteously. An example of how to stop hate, and hurt, and pain. It is a paradigm for those who follow in the way of Jesus, who seek to live in the wisdom that this teacher gave us in his life and teachings.

Maybe it's the whole 'turn the other cheek' bit?

I don't know. But I do know that it is a nugget of pure gold - a godsend of wisdom upon my life. When I try to win, or try to get the upper hand, everything fucks up. When I stop trying to win, and stop the heated momentum, everything calms down.

Curiously, I see this paradigm elsewhere:

In the Matrix movies, Neo tries to fight Agent Smith over and over again. It never works, Smith only keeps getting stronger and stronger (as does Neo). But when Neo finally allows Smith to 'kill' him, only then does he finally attain victory over Smith. He absorbs it upon himself, stops it in its tracks, and is truly victorious.

I close with a U2 Lyric:

You don't have to put up a fight,
You don't have to always be right,
Let me take some of the punches
for you tonight.
(Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own)

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.

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 (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!

Slippery Slope

Another great post by Real Live Preacher.

Here's a snippet of a part I really enjoyed:

Once I told someone that I did not think the events described in the book of Jonah had actually occurred. The story has great spiritual value, which is why it was included in the Bible, but I felt there was no real history behind it.

An alarmed Christian person said, “Yes, but once you say that Jonah didn’t really happen, what’s to stop you from saying any or all of the Bible didn't happen?”

I’ve heard this same argument with regard to scripture a thousand times over the years. Here is the appropriate response:

“Well, let’s see. I believe that Jonah was not swallowed by a great fish and vomited up on the beach. But I believe Abraham was a real person. Further, I believe that David was a real king of a real Israel. And I believe that Jesus was also a real person, one who worked miracles and died on the cross for our sins. See now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?”

Read it all here.

Biblical Inerrancy: What is it? How does it work?

I have decided to write out my understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This isn't from a theological textbook, or a history textbook, but from my mind - a layman's understanding. This is partially to clarify my thoughts, but also to aid others to reflect upon their own beliefs.

Biblical inerrancy is the idea that the Bible is inerrant. Okay, great, good definition. What this really means is that the Bible is free from error. Different people consider different issues as under the category 'error-free'. I think a majority of Evangelicals that believe in inerrancy, the ones I know at least, hold on to a pretty strong version of the doctrine. That is, the Bible is free from error in issues of theology (who is God, what is God like, who is Jesus), morality (what is right, is lust bad), history (was there an exodus, did Jesus walk on water), and science (did God create the universe in 7 days, is the earth the center of the universe). However, others hold to weaker versions of this doctrine. Often, the first thing to go is scientific inerrancy, after that goes historical inerrancy, then typically moral inerrancy, and the last to go is theological inerrancy. My feeling is that many evangelicals have let go of scientific inerrancy, and some have at least softened a bit on historical inerrancy, but most do not part with moral and theological inerrancy.

Why do some believers think that the Bible is inerrant? Well, they would argue, it is divinely revealed by God. God spoke, or moved, the biblical authors to write; therefore, what they wrote is error free. Because it is divinely revealed, it has access to divine perspective, and thus would see all things truly. Moses wasn't around for creation, no problem - God told him everything. John wasn't in the room when Pilate was talking to Jesus, no worries - God revealed the conversation to him. So on, so forth.

Thus, believers who hold onto inerrancy stand defiantly with their 'biblical truth' over against the tools of scientific or historical inquiry. Hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research and discussion has built up the modern theory of evolution. Yet biblical inerrantists still think the world was made in 7 days. This is based on a ~2500 year old text, the product of an ancient civilization. Biblical inerrantists think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are real, and all the stories in the Bible about them are real; this is based on a text written at least a thousand years after they lived. But to one who believes in biblical inerrancy, this is no problem. God revealed all truth to the biblical authors, and they wrote this down.

But the real dagger of biblical inerrancy is that those who champion it do so on basis of "faith": "I have faith in the Bible that it is true". I don't get this. Why do you have faith in an ancient collection of diverse texts? Inerrantists make it seem that if I have a "real faith" in God, I would also have faith in the Bible. This, of course, plays into the related idea that faith in God is mainly intellectual assent (believe in your mind something to be true), not fidelity, trust, or loyalty (the way we use "faith" in daily human relationships). So faith in the Bible becomes equally important as faith in God, and both are equated with intellectual belief. The result - if I don't believe the Bible is true, I'm only quasi-Christian. If the Bible isn't free from error - my oh my, how could it be relevant to our religion!?

I don't bite. Most of my life isn't based on mathematically certain truths. None of my interpersonal relationships are based on certainties. Why should the transcendent relationship be any different?

It is possible to be a Christian yet not believe the Bible to be inerrant.

A Prayer of St. Francis

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, pardon.
Where there is discord, vision.
Where there is doubt, faith.
Where there is despair, hope.
Where there is darkness, light.
Where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Amen.

Mosaic

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you." -Matthew's Jesus

"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." - John's Jesus

"If I have all the faith, so as to move a mountain, but have not love, then I am nothing. And if I should dole out all my possessions, and if I should give over my body so that I might boast, but hold not love, then I profit nothing." - Paul

"Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil." - A disciple of Paul

"You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " - James, the brother of Jesus

Telos

What is the purpose of it all:

What is the purpose of religion, faith, salvation - whatever?
What is all this stuff aiming towards?

What does God want for humans?

Building Castles - Part Two

In my last post, "Building Castles - Part One", I wrote about how my beliefs, and my faith itself, were challenged repeatedly. Over time, these challenges wore away my coherent package of 'Christianity' to the point where it could no longer stand, and my faith collapsed.

But what kind of challenges? Well, here's a brief, but representative, list.


Experience of God

- My experiences of God seemed complete out of the domesticated picture of God that I had in my head. The God that I experienced in life was mysterious: sometimes there and sometimes not; never doing as expected; full of love, and yet terrifying. He is the type of God that sits and watches millions of Jews be massacred in Europe, hundreds of thousands of Africans in Rwanda, and millions of others in countless acts of brutal genocide throughout human history. Yet he does nothing - he did nothing; yes they all came to an end, but not before scores of people lost their lives. He is the type of God that sometimes heals the sick and dying, but most of the time lets them die no matter how passionately people pray otherwise. He is the type of God that blesses some people with great life, and doesn't bless others - seemingly arbitrarily. God, I realized, is mysterious and unpredictable. Can a God like this really be trusted? And trusted for what? A good life - obviously not, no guarantees for that; health - nope, no certainty there; afterlife - well, maybe, probably; a constant companion - getting warmer.
- Moreover, in my own life, I went through a phase in life that really, directly, made me rethink what God was. Whatever God was, I had to reconcile his character and nature with what I myself was experiencing spiritually (or not experiencing). So the things I experienced in life, and that I read, heard, and saw others experience in their lives - I had to put God in the picture and try to make sense of everything.


The Bible

- I used to hold on to the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Biblical inspiration states that the Bible is inspired by God. Most people take this to mean that its composition was inspired, which amounts to saying that the Bible is a text supernaturally revealed by God. The texts of the Bible, in one way or another, were written by God. In light of all I had learned about the composition of these texts, I could no longer come to see them as revealed by God.
- We have no idea who wrote the vast majority of the Bible. The Pentateuch is a composite document of traditions and sources spanning half a millennia or more. Many of the historical books in the Hebrew Bible were also composed by anonymous authors over a period of time. The great scroll of the prophet Isaiah is most likely the result of three layers of prophetic authorship over a period of 300 years, by at least three authors of whom we know little about. We have no clue who wrote the Gospels, though we do have some good indications of the situation in which they wrote. Half of the letters traditionally ascribed to Paul are most likely pseudonymous: that is, Paul didn't write them. A disciple, a follower, someone, wrote these letters in the name of Paul in order to give them authority and weight. All of this came as a huge blow against my doctrine of biblical inspiration.
- Historically, the Bible is troubled. For example, we have little to no archaeological evidence of a swift conquest of Canaan c. 1200 BCE. The story of Joshua and the swift conquest of the land seems to have actually occurred much different. Many think that the picture painted in the Book of Judges is more accurate: a slow settling of Hebrew people in Canaan. Not the decisive military conquest of Joshua. More hammering away at inspiration.
- The Bible is not unified. When you look at the Bible, all the authors didn't have the same theology. There are a number of different theologies in the Bible - both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Sometimes, these theologies differ and disagree with each other over religion, God, Jesus, etc... Some things even flat out contradict. With so many differing viewpoints the question is, who do we listen to? This further tore down my doctrine of inspiration.
- The Bible is so obviously a human document. It is made up of stories and tales that humans told, and retold. It shows all the marks of human composition and editing: various sources and materials being put together into a continuous scroll. Not only that, but we see the political agenda of authors showing in these texts: pro-monarchy, pro-Judah, pro-Pauline Christianity, pro-Jewish Christian Christianity. Yet another shot at inspiration.


Jesus

- When I was exposed to historical Jesus studies, I just devoured the stuff. But the more I learned about what historians have to say about Jesus, the more and more difficult it became to connect the dots between Jesus-the-guy and Jesus-the-Lord-of-the-Church. Now don't get me wrong, Jesus was religious, and his agenda was religious (and political: the two were intimately bound together back in Jesus' society). But my problem was the vast chasm I saw between Jesus' message, goals, and interests, and that of the Church which proclaims Jesus. It's as if the picture of Jesus painted in the Gospel of John is the lens the Church must look through in order to understand Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This ignores the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were each their own stand alone Gospel; the Jesus-story of three different communities. Three different pictures of Jesus, three different ways of following Jesus. All of it subsequently read through - and distorted by - the lens of John.
- Over time, I became more and more puzzled over the 'divinity' of Jesus. Firstly, I wondered whether the Jesus of history ever believed such a thing about himself. Read the Synoptic Gospels, you'll be hard pressed to find any indication of it. In the Gospel of John you get a number of passages, that when read in a certain way, seem to indicate that (though, as I said, when read in a certain specific way). In Paul, again, you will be hard pressed. Two passages come to my mind, both are fiercely debated. The attribute of divinity to Jesus was a development of the Church Fathers in the first several centuries of Christianity. I see attribution of divinity to Jesus as mythological, metaphorical language - not metaphysical. It is using comparison - the language of poetry - not the language of philosophy and science.


Science

- I came to accept the evolutionary explanation of life, and human origins. Evolution just makes much better sense of all the data than creationism. The universe is some 15 billion years old, the earth around 5 billion, humans around 1-2 million. So then what does this make of the stories in Genesis. Creation? Adam and Eve? Noah? If this stuff wasn't science or history, then what was it? Partly this rubbed shoulders with inspiration, but it also made me rethink what the texts in the Bible are, and what they aren't.


World Religions

- Learning about the vast religious diversity in this world had a major impact on me. Ancient Judaism was just the local religion of an insignificant piece of land in a very, very large world. There were many other religious beliefs all over the ancient world. So what - were all those non-Israelites screwed? I couldn't accept that. Move forward through the centuries as Christianity spread. Christianity did spread and grow, but much of the world's population was never Christian. And today, a significant portion of this world's population is not Christian. So what - are all of them bound to an eternal punishment in hell? I couldn't accept that. How could a God of love and compassion do such a thing. Learning of the religious diversity in this world challenged whole portions of my Christian worldview. My shift towards inclusivism, and then pluralism, tore down a huge segment of my Christian understanding.


These are just some of the many, many, attacks vaulted at my fortress. Maybe, someday, I'll share some more, but I think I've said enough. You get my drift.

Thanks everyone for the grace you've shown me.

Peace,
Kev

Building Castles - Part One

My Christian faith used to be a strong castle. All the beliefs and doctrines I held onto fit tightly together. Everything was coherent; within the framework, everything made sense.

But then challenges came. My first reaction was to build up my castle walls. I added to them, fortified them, and built them taller and thicker. I turned my castle into a towering fortress.

But the challenges kept coming. Bits of my fortress were slowly chipped off. A brick here, a plank there.

More challenges kept coming. Larger and larger pieces were being chipped off; massive stones were removed. The archways, the ramparts, the walls - peppered with holes all over. I was in a fortress of swiss cheese.

Finally, the castle - my fortress - collapsed. My impenetrable fortress was weakened to the point where it could no longer keep itself standing.

My faith fell apart.

I stood atop the ruins. Everything that kept me safe - that gave me meaning, direction, and purpose in life - had crumbled into a massive heap of stone, wood, and metal.

I don't know why, but I stayed. I decided to rebuild.

For the past year or so of my life I have been rebuilding. Most of the structure is new. Oddly enough, from the outside, my new home resembles my old one. However, on the inside, it is radically different. I have utilized a different construction technique for building my foundation built my foundation. The framing of the walls is altogether different. No longer have I built with stone - which does not bend and sway under pressure - but I have built with wood. Organic, able to absorb stress and pressure by bending and swaying; able to channel and redirect the energy. Alive. Dynamic.

I am in the process of rebuilding a faith, a religiosity, a spirituality that had completely and utterly collapsed. A faith that can stand strong in full view of all the challenges.

Perhaps now you all can understand why I am the way that I am.

Stay tuned for Part Two where I present a list of some of these 'challenges'.

Peace,
Kev

*EDIT: Part Two here.

Keep Your Mouth Shut

I'm sitting in Scarfe, trying to translate a letter written by the Roman Emperor Claudius - tough shit, believe me.

Beside me two asian ladies are having a conversation.

It's about creation and evolution.

The one girl is telling the other that Darwin became a Christian later on in life, and he repented and regretted having ever made the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry lady, but that is pure bullshit.
Darwin never converted later in life.
Darwin never regretted his theory of evolution.

I bet one of the girls has had evangelism training. She's got her Bible with her. She's pumping out the Gospel of John. She's got all the lines: "can you see air? can you see radio waves? can you see an invisible God?" She even has evangelistic tracts. Yep - she's definitely had the evangelism training.

You want to tell people about Jesus? Be my guest; he's an important dude. The story of his life changes people's lives to this very day. And walking in his Way is a choice I myself have made for my own life. But, please, don't spread hearsay and false stories to try and convert people. If Jesus is worth anything, he can attract people on his own merits. He doesn't need people to lie for him.

But, alas, I keep my mouth shut.

-Kev

P.S. Why do people bother? Evolution is a damn good theory. It makes sense of a LOT of data that we have (geological, biological, etc...). It does exactly what a theory is meant to do: explain the data. And it does this much more gracefully than Creationist attempts, with much less conjecture. I smell another post?

From Gospels to the Historical Jesus

I have finally begun reading (again, but much more closely) the Gospels in the New Testament as part of my course on 'The Gospels and Jesus'. Immediately, I was struck by a seemingly insurmountable difficulty. Namely, how can I go from reading this Gospel text to saying anything about the historical Jesus. I was baffled. I was stuck on the question of 'method'

But then I remembered the approach of my course textbook (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus). First, one must understand each Gospel; then, one can begin to make the jump to the historical Jesus.

I think I'm going to follow this approach. My first goal will be to understand each of the Gospels as individual texts. Having then understood the world of each of the Gospels, I can then begin to form my picture of the historical Jesus.

In general terms: understand each of your sources first, and only then try to put all the pieces together.

Well, at least that's my approach for now. Unless I come across a better way. I always love better ways.

-Kev