Posted by Helen on: 08.15.2007 /
The other day I asked Steve S: “How can you be so sure you’re right and they’re wrong about Christianity?” Here is Steve’s response
Here is a great place to start!
I would say that we have to approach the Church as a whole. If we define Christianity by the extremely small minority of Christians who make up contemporary Western societies we are certain to understand Jesus in a very narrow way.
Jesus’ followers have had communities present on the continents of Asia and Africa for well over a thousand years before they reached the America’s. Yet we Americans think of Christianity as a peculiarity to our country. We should listen to the Christian voices in the slums of the Phillipines, the deserts of the Sahara, the steppes of Mongolia, the Desert Fathers, the Orthodox of ancient Constantinople; then we can begin to say “Christianity is…”
Comment by: Helen
1Steve, are you saying that “the Christian voices in the slums of the Phillipines, the deserts of the Sahara, the steppes of Mongolia, the Desert Fathers [and] the Orthodox of ancient Constantinople” all agree on the answer to “What is Christianity?”
I find that hard to believe.
Also, I don’t know any Christians who think Christianity is peculiar to the U.S. Christians I know all believe they are following what is handed down by Jesus and informed (partly or completely) by the Bible. They know Jesus lived in another country and the authors of the Bible did also. They know Christianity did not begin in the U.S.
Anyway, back to the question: can you elaborate on what you found out that Christianity is when you studied those communities? Could you summarize the ‘right’ Christianity for me?
Comment by: Steve S.
2Yes and no. We can’t ignore the blemished history of the church. People died over modes of baptism… and God wept…
So of course, there is disagreement. My point is only that the disagreements between major groups of Christians on issues that American Evangelicals consider essential should prompt a fuller search for Jesus.
The Eastern Church has routinely ignored what Western Christians would call the ‘Gospel’ (which is actually a specific theory on how the atonement works – penal substitutionary atonement). If there is disagreement at this level, then perhaps we must recognize that there is more to the story than we have heard.
Again, yes and no. The nature of Christianity is contextual (read Acts), Willard spells it out in what he calls the “Vessel Trap.” It should look different in different cultures, otherwise we aren’t sharing in a common Spirit, we are exporting our particular way of doing things.
The way I would understand what is central to all Christians (to paraphrase from a Catholic lady) is to say that Christians ‘look into the face of Jesus, experience the power of the Spirit, and in so doing meet God.’
That belief that in knowing Jesus we somehow, mysteriously, also know God; and that in that knowing God is ‘putting things to rights’ is what I understand Christianity to be. (At its extreme basic)
Comment by: Helen
3Steve wrote:
That seems reasonable and I think many are prompted to a fuller search.
What I don’t understand is the confidence of people who think they have found The Right Version of Christianity. How do they know? My sense is, you write as if you know. How do you know?
Again that seems reasonable to me but I still don’t understand how people decide they’ve ‘arrived’ and found The Right Christianity.
Again this seems reasonable to me. Certainly why force what is cultural on others as if they can’t follow Jesus without embracing our culture? It seems silly especially given that Christianity didn’t originate in our culture!
Jesus, if he exists, is invisible; I have no meter that can test the power of the holy Spirit; God if he exists is also invisible so how can I meet him?
This is some sort of code that Christians ascribe meaning to, I guess. Can you decode it for me, Steve? I don’t want to guess what you mean by this in case I guess it wrong. For years I assumed all Christians decoded it in the same way but I never really knew that they did.
Like the previous sentence, I assume you are referring to some sort of mystical thing here since Jesus if he exists, is invisible and not perceivable by any meter I am aware of.
Steve, I am not trying to be awkward. Can you help people outside your experience to have some idea of what these things you are saying mean? What they are like? How you know they are true? How you know you are more right than others?
Comment by: Mike O
4I just posted this over on the ebay atheist page, and it applies here as well.
Helen, I think you’re trying to parse out THE RIGHT METHOD and there isn’t one “THE RIGHT METHOD.”
The method(s) (which you seem to be trying to get to) is merely religion. Religion is man’s attempt to please/obey God. However you go about it, if you’re attempts are done with a heart that’s is towards him, and in line with the teachings of the Bible, then you’re fine.
When it all comes down to it, all christian approaches have elements that are right, and elements that are incorrect. But if the heart of the adherants is towards pleasing God, specifically Jesus (for Christians), then they’re fine.
How is me believing or not believing in any specific doctrine any righter or wronger than some other Christians’ perspective on it? All you can do is try to get it right – God will be pleased with that, even if you fail.
Comment by: Helen
5Thanks for your comment, Mike.
I wasn’t particularly thinking about method; I was thinking about any aspect of Christianity regarding which Christians seem very confident they have got it right and others have got it wrong.
I certainly think this is preferable to a belief that no, you have to get it right! I used to go to a church where the pastor often said “Being sincere doesn’t count, because you can be sincerely wrong”.
But me preferring a belief doesn’t make it more true than what I don’t prefer.
People seem to like to tell me that my problem was, I believed the wrong Christianity. But I don’t understand how they can be so sure they are believing the right one.
Comment by: Steve S.
6If I thought you were I wouldn’t be wasting my time, so don’t worry about it ;)
I hope that I haven’t communicated that to you… because that is not how I would describe myself. Of course I wouldn’t believe something I know to be false, but I have a little humility (nothing to brag about!) in thinking that I probably have some mistaken ways of seeing.
I would probably say that I am willing to entertain a wider variety of viewpoints than some. I find value in all understandings of Jesus that are rooted in the accounts writen by His contemporaries. If that means that I arrogantly assume my way is the truth, then so be it, but that is not how I would characterize myself.
I would answer your questions about knowing Jesus by asking, “Would you say that you are begining to know me?” (I think you can infer my point…)
I would adress the ‘meter’ question by saying that according to Christianity you (plural) are the meter.
I think that this stems from an undefined use of the term spirit. If our spirit is an undefined ‘something’ then of course there is no expectation that it has any real effect on our lives. If however, our spirit is the central, non-physical aspect of us that defines us (will, spirit, heart) then it is certainly going to (not only have an effect) be the overriding force that governs our lives. You are always engaged in ‘spiritual’ actions. Every desire is evidence of the thing that desires; spirit.
All this to say…
Decode it like this:
Christianity is the common experience that radically diverse people have had, namely, that when they began to understand who Jesus was through studying the accounts of His contemporaries, they began to share a sense that a greater spirit (will) was influencing them in the same way that Jesus influenced those around Him, namely that they began to understand who God was through that shared set of experiences.
Further, that common experience of God (through the person of Jesus, and the intentions of the Spirit) when they submitted their will to His, was of God working to set things right in their own lives, in their communities, and in the universe as a whole.
Did I succeed in ansering these question?
There is a short answer, trusting that what makes sense to me is actually true (no small feat!) And a long answer involving academic arguments and personal experiences.
I am not so sure I feel the need to be more right than others… let me think on it…
Comment by: Mike O
7And I guess I’m saying that I don’t think you were believing the wrong Christianity. I think thre are errors in everyone’s belief system.
When I posted on Christianity 101 a few weeks ago, that’s what I was trying to say. The thing that makes someone a Christian is:
1) Love God
2) Obey God
3) Love People
4) Believe that Jesus is Lord
All the rest is just technique.
Comment by: Helen
8Mike O wrote:
Mike, that’s just the problem. :-) If you asserted I was wrong, I would probably get indignant enough to argue back and say “But how do you know??”
But since you aren’t asserting that, I don’t really know what to say, because, if I were to argue back I’d be going against my own belief which is, it’s impossible to know who is right.
So, I don’t really have a response other than the above.
Comment by: Steve S.
9to address the ‘wrong/right’ Christianity question…
Helen, to be honest, I admit that I am suspicious of some of what you believed (although certainly not convinced!). I don’t know enough obviously, but some of the things you have said have led me to believe that you were a part of a community that emphasized things that my particular church considered peripheral. This is not to say that what you were taught was ‘wrong’ and that what I was taught was ‘right’ only that sometimes the outer trappings of culture can get confused for what is central. (This is true in any church.) This is my suspicion… (because frankly it is what I have come across in the majority of my personal interactions with American Christianity in general.)
Please read my words seeking to hear my heart, I am trying to be honest about how I see you, and that has the potential to blow up in our faces. But I am trying to further the conversation…
For example, many American Churches are politically conservative. I believe Jesus is extremely politically significant, but hardly in a Republican way. (Read the parable of the Good Samaritan, ask yourself, “Who are the bad guys in the story?” and then see how that applies to the conservative arguments about social programs for the needy.)
Most Churches (not all) are actually outspoken against mysticism. Unanswered questions are considered a sign of weak faith.
Most evangelical Churches tend to use language that marginalizes certain groups of people, those who don’t look or act the part.
These things are obviously a local phenomenon. Some I would consider sinful, others I would consider relics of a modern past, but a simple perusal of global Christianity shows that they are trivial. I am not implying that the above points apply to your past beliefs, but I am trying to get at what I believe are oft mistaken as aspects of Christianity, that are really only aspects of a particular subculture to which some Christians belong.
And to preempt the question I would imagine you asking, we know that they are not central because they are local. They are not universal manifestations of communites of Jesus worldwide.
Comment by: Mike O
10Very insightful! I’ve been considering the question of whether certain teachings are core or not, and I think this nails it. Whether or not certain teachings are central can be deduced from whether or not they are universal.
I’m going to have to chew on this concept (truth?) for a while, but it sure does taste good initially!
Comment by: Karen
11Steve S:
It’s interesting, this Christian conservative mindset. We got together with a couple from our old church last week and we were talking about the 2008 presidential election.
The guy, a lifelong conservative Republican, said, “Well, the two most important things to the people I know are abortion and illegal immigration.”
I said, “Wow, that’s interesting those are your two priorities. Because the bible never condemns abortion, Jesus never even talked about it. And the New Testament is full of references to protecting and welcoming the aliens and the strangers.”
He really just kind of sputtered for a while about “putting things in the right context.” I think he was speechless! :-)
Comment by: Elaine
12Karen – that was great. I need to write that down so the next time one of my conservative friends spouts that I can use your response.
Thanks!
Comment by: Rachel
13Three cheers for Karen!!!
Comment by: Helen
14Steve, thanks for responses in comment #6 (I just found it in the moderation queue)
I like how you do your best to separate what’s cultural out of Christianity.
Karen thanks for sharing your response with us! What did your husband think of it?
Comment by: Karen
15You’re welcome. It’s just so pitifully obvious to me – I mean, come on, these are the people who make a big deal out of every single word of the bible being inspired, inerrant, literal, to be used for correction and yadda yadda. Yet it’s right there in the bible and they ignore it! What the heck?
As for my husband, he was all, “You go, honey!” ;-) One thing we’ve always had in common is a liberal bent in politics. It wasn’t a big deal being in conservative churches in the 70s and early 80s, but as the churches we attended started identifying more and more with conservative politics as well as conservative theology, we increasingly became odd ducks.
We even were called on to take part in panel discussions in Sunday school classes as sort of “token Democrats”! It was like people couldn’t believe we existed sometimes. ;-)
Comment by: Helen
16I’m glad your husband was on your side :)
There definitely were those in the churches I attended for whom Christian=Republican – my response to was avoid saying what I really thought about that issue. I knew I wouldn’t change their minds so there seemed no point.
Comment by: benjamin ady
17Helen
you are wiser than me. I tried to change their minds. But you were right, they wouldn’t.
It seems to me that George Macdonald and Jesus would both tell you not to stress too much about how “christians” define “christianity”. If you want to know if what Jesus was *saying* was “true”, the way to find out is to *do* the things he said. George says you have to take it one further and do things that he said *on purpose*. That is, it doesn’t count if what you are doing *happens* to coincide with what he said. I mean if you want to know if he was right, and/or be his “follower”.
Comment by: Steve S.
18If someone is claiming to be a follower of Jesus, their intellectual posture simply cannot be this way. To be a disciple (of anyone!) is to seek to have your mind changed; that is the whole point!
This is part of what I was trying to get at earlier …one of the central aspects of Christianity is having a posture of deference to Jesus. If we have lost this we are moving away from Christianity, no matter if (as benjamin ady wisely notes) “what we are doing ‘happens’ to coincide with what he said.”
This has strange connotations for our politics…
I have found myself moving around the political spectrum quite a bit in my desire to live ‘on earth as it is in heaven’ and I am wary of people who ‘toe the party line’ of any stripe. There are issues that I have become adamant about and others that I have become ambiguous about, precisely because I want to understand the deeper realities involved and how God is working in them, and then come to my own conclusions.
In spite of the personal cost involved in the pursuit of truth, and the pursuit of goodness, I don’t ever want to pay the even higher cost of avoiding truth and goodness. Being ‘crucified with Christ’ is a steep cost of being one of His disciples, yet I think the cost of a life that avoids this is higher still (you must lose your life to gain it, and those who gain their life will lose it).
Comment by: Helen
19Benjamin, the funny/scary thing is, I was listening to Shirley Phelps-Roper on a podcast yesterday and she referred to the same teaching – where Jesus said, you’ll know you’re my followers if you do what I asked you to do (or something like that).
Could you explain the part about George MacDonald saying you have to do things *on purpose*? Was he saying you have to be intentional about them rather than accidently doing them, or was he saying you have to know you are doing them *for Jesus* for them to count? I really like George MacDonald’s emphasis on what people do, btw.
Steve, Jesus said ‘repent’ (which means, change your mind) and people who have come to faith have done that already. So they’re finished changing their minds, right? :-)
Comment by: Steve S.
20You aren’t punning at me now, are you?
Comment by: Helen
21Now why would I do something like that, Steve? :-)
Comment by: Laura M.
22This is a quote from Helen from the Bringing Emerging Churches Back to the Bible thread.
Comment by: Laura M.
23How does one determine what is in line with the teachings of the Bible when the Bible teaches contradictory things? The contradictory teaching in the Bible is another reason, besides cultural differences, that there are so many different ‘methods’ or religions.
Comment by: Steve S.
24You know I can’t let you get away with that one ;-)
You are gonna have to give some specific examples…
Comment by: Helen
25Steve, you could start with these:
388 Contradictions in the Bible
A few moments with Google will quickly retrieve lots and lots of websites listing contradictions in the Bible. Of course they are contradictions only according to some people; by definition if the Bible is the Word of God it doesn’t contradict itself; so they all must be resolvable somehow.
Comment by: Helen
26By the way, Steve, when you read lists of contradictions, bear this in mind: this is how the Bible comes across to people who have not been taught theological systems which focus on resolving contradictions. Yes, maybe these people are trying to discredit the Bible – but they are also showing you what it can look like to someone outside Christian insider groups; what it might look like if you’d never read it before and never been taught anything about it before.
Comment by: Steve S.
27I am aware of things in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile. (I haven’t yet read the link, but I will) My point in asking is not whether or not some people think there are discrepancies, but rather what the specific discrepancies are that Laura believes she has come across.
Most of the ‘discrepancies’ boil down to people failing to consider the context of the text at issue (ie reading a lyric from a love song like a statement of scientific theory), which, I will grant, happens just as often by Christians as non-Christians.
I always ask when people mention ‘contradictions,’ I have never had anyone yet actually mention a discrepancy that they came accross on their own…
Comment by: Laura M.
28Steve, the fact that so much literature is devoted to the need to ‘reconcile’ difficult things in the Bible is an implicit admission that there are contradictions in the Bible, otherwise there’d be nothing to reconcile.
The word reconcile means to bring back together disparate parts, to restore, make compatible or consistent, to bring into agreement, or: to correct or accept that which is not desired.
The concept is similar to the idea of compromise. The goal in reconciliation is to reduce conflict by focusing on similarities and agreement, rather than on differences. There would have to be differences in the first place in order for reconciliation to apply.
These differences are contradictions, by definition.
Differences are things which are not the same, not in agreement.
Contradictions are statements/behaviors which are different, not in agreement, or in oppostion to previous statements/behaviors.
The Bible is full of contradictons. The fact that intelligent people can find a way to reconcile contradictions doesn’t negate the existance of contradictions in the first place, actually just the opposite, reconciliation implies an awareness of contradiction.
If you’re not following what I’m saying, look up the phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’. Social psychologists have written quite a bit about the ability of humans to reconcile contradictions in their behavior and thought processes.
I understand what Helen is addressing , but my own experience with contradictions in the Bible is very different. My awareness of Biblical contradiction developed from many different sources:
*I first became aware of contradiction when ministers in my family preached that God was omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and used biblical verses to support this ‘theology’, then over time mentioned behavior of God described in biblical teachings and supported by specific verses in scripture which was not consistent with an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God. I noticed this when I was fairly young.
Probably about the time I noticed Santa Claus couldn’t get into the homes of children who didn’t have fireplaces.
*I attended many different churches when I was a very young child and noticed inconsistancies between the teachings of different denominations and particularly incongruent with the teachings of the Pentecostal ministry/church run by my family, yet supported by specific verses of scripture, just as my family’s teachings were supported by scripture.
*When I asked questions about my concerns as to how we are to truly know what God wants of us, I was told to pray and read the Bible and that if my heart was truly open to God I would be ‘led’ by the Holy Spirit to an understanding of God’s will. So I did this.
In the process of reading the Bible, straight through ‘like a book’, contradictions between what I would read in one book of the Bible and what I would read in another book mere days later were apparent again and again and again….
I never came to an understanding of God’s will from my innocent, childhood faith, prayer and reading of the Bible. Just one more contradiction.
Comment by: Laura M.
29Steve, if you would like me to be more specific about my experience and understnding of contradictions in the Bible, I can. I just thought the post was long enough and I was tired of typing.
I just want to point out that I don’t believe there are contradictions in the Bible because someone told me there are, just the opposite, I grew up consistantly hearing there are no contradicitons in the Bible. I discovered on my own- from my own initiative, that the Bible is in fact full of it, so to speak. I have an extreme amount of personal experience with Biblical contradiction.
Also, my favorite subjects are literature, history, and culture. Another thing, I found at the age of nine, from testing, that my reading comprehension scored higher than 95% of adults.
Taking what I read out of context is not known to be a problem for me.
Comment by: Laura M.
30Mike O, I joined with you in that discussion a few weeks ago, and I obviously still do not understand what I asked you then: How do you obey God when you’re not sure what God wants?
This leads right into the questions Helen has been asking Steve. You and Steve have made a claim to know what the basics of being a Christian are about, or in other words, what makes one a true Christian. My question is: How do you know that ?
You were more clear in your response than Steve, whose answer I didn’t really understand at all (sorry Steve). He seems to believe certain things “because it feels right, it often works, lot’s of other people do it, and it must be the best way since these ideas have been around a long time”, but I don’t want to put words in his mouth.
This would explain how you feel, but not how you know.
Mike, how do you know your 4 basics of Chrisitanity 101 are correct in the first place? How do you know this is what God wants? I’ve read the Bible so, I have a good idea of what your answer is, and yes, if you’ve read my previous posts here on this thread then you’ve probably guessed by now that this question is a setup 8-)
In my first post I inserted a quote from Helen on the circular reasoning of Bible based Christianity, that and my post on contradictions leads you to what my response to what you have to say on the subject might be, if you answer in the way I expect that you likely will.
Keep that in mind when trying to help me understand your perspective on ‘true’ Christianity.
Comment by: Helen
31Steve wrote:
Wow, really? I’ve found lots on my own. Like, Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke not saying people are saved by grace alone through faith alone and not by works, so no-one should boast…
Comment by: Steve S.
32I guess I should clarify (although I hope this is assumed whenever anyone says anything)…
IMO the discrepancies boil down to a failure to consider the genre/context of scripture.
Case in point: Jesus and Paul in your comment above.
I have found them to be a very cohesive whole. The problems lie in the history of interpretation that colors our understanding.
When you hear ‘faith alone’ I assume you hear ‘therefore there is no action; ie passivity’ (if this is not what you mean then correct me, because I wouldn’t understand the contradiction if you weren’t alluding to this understanding). There is a centuries long history to that interpretation that plays into what you are viewing as a contradiction.
I don’t think this is what Paul means (in light of his other statements including the one that immediately follows the one you quote). I think what Paul is ultimately saying is ‘trusting God is what brings you under His good authority.’ When Jesus says things like Matthew 7:21 I think he is making the point ‘if you trust me you will put my words into effect in action.’
Paul is saying trust is what gets you in, Jesus is saying if you are in this is what your life will look like.
I recognize (in light of Laura’s posts) that some people will find my interpretation strained. Understand that I don’t see it that way.
Point well taken, yet, have you never had to ‘reconcile’ two statements you made that people misunderstood as contradictory? I think you reach too much when you make that point. I am perfectly okay with you saying “I choose to interpret these passages in ways that make them contradict each other.” That is your perogative.
I think, however, it is only fair to give a little bit more than a cursory read to a document that is separated from us by 2,000 years of cultural change and several languages.
It is for this reason that I want to talk specifics. Your contradictions have a lot more to do with the definitions you give to the words you read than with what the text actually says. (Of course this cuts both ways, as you have pointed out already!!)
I think (to make one last point) that a lot of damage is done (on both sides) to this topic by approaching the Bible as a collection of truisms. If we approach each verse as a spiritual/moral ‘syllogism’ then we are handling it innapropriately IMO. There are several orders of interpretation needed to understand how the legal constitution of an ancient nomadic people is to be understood in relation to a written account of a mystical hallucination some 1500 years later. Even in the issue raised by Helen (Paul and Jesus) we must recognize that there are two very diffferent types of communication going on before we try to understand what is being communicated.
…and shouldn’t that be the goal? Trying to understand what the author was trying to say?
Comment by: Steve S.
33I hope this didn’t come across as combative…
…I can do that some times and I am not trying to hurt or even push. Let me know if I do…
I value your constructive criticism!
Comment by: Laura M.
34I’ve had to reconcile statements I’ve made which people understood perfectly well to be contradictory because they were contradictory. This often happens when I do not take enough care to be very clear about what I am saying.
Why do you assume that I am choosing to interpret the passages in ways which make them contradictory? How do you not know that your interpretations are incorrect, and mine in fact are correct? Perhaps you are choosing to interpret them incorrectly? That is your perogative as well, I suppose.
Really? Which contradictions and which text are you referring to?
Are you assuming I do this? If so , on what basis do you make these assumptions?
This implies that I did not/do not try to understand what the author(s) says. Why, exactly would I read something and not try to understand what the author has to say?
This assumption would also seem to belie my high reading comprehension scores, wouldn’t it?
I would like to have an evenhanded discussion of apparent contradictions in the Bible, but this would seem difficult to do when one of the parties comes to the discussion with so many negative asumptions about the other’s ability to do something as simple as ‘read in context’.
It would also seem that you’ve already decided that my ability to understand and recognize contradictions in text is virtually non-existant.
Apparantly, your recognition (and definition) of contradictions as well as your skills in understanding context are more accurate or valid than mine? Have I understood you correctly?
Comment by: David H
35I’m not sure it is a contradiction, but I have had problems for some time with some of God’s orders to the nascent Israelite nation on how to deal with their enemies. It is difficult for me to resolve how a “loving” God could order genocide. I say I’m not sure it is a contradiction because the Bible makes almost no effort to convey God’s thought process or rationale for those orders. I don’t discard them as some do, I simply say I don’t understand them.
Likewise, Jesus is quoted at times with things that don’t seem completely in agreement. But if I can let God slide for the moment on his efforts to wipe out entire peoples, then I can wait for resolution on those issues with things Christ said. I don’t even like discussing Paul with most Christians because many don’t seem to be able to grasp that they wouldn’t want letters they write to different family members about problems those people are having being passed down to later generations as what they should do to deal with every issue for all time. I sometimes have imagined Paul walking into a church I was attending during the sermon and saying: “But that wasn’t what I meant at all.”
I don’t mean to say that I challenge biblical inerrancy, but I certainly do challenge human understanding. In many instances the problem doesn’t seem to be what the Bible says as much as what people say it says (or doesn’t say).
But returning to the original question, it has long seemed to me that wrong Christianity tends to focus excessively on things to which Jesus paid little or no attention. In other words, it is about a lot of things in addition to or other than Christ. Jesus himself boiled it down to love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself. There is a balance of psychology, philosophy and action in that statement. Pursuing that balance is following Jesus; it is right Christianity. Those religious practices or personal preferences that distort on aspect over another are not Christianity. That is not to say that their practitioners are not Christians (that isn’t up to me to say), but what they are doing isn’t Christian.
The conservative version of “Christianity” in America seems to often pursue God above all things at the expense of neighbors and self. That doesn’t help to explain why God would order the killing of men, women and children. But it may help to explain why certain segments of American Christianity overly focus on such passages as justification for how they deal with others.
Comment by: David H
36Just read through some of the 388 contradictions. The number should be revised much lower. There are quite a few that aren’t contradictions — such as from which of David’s son’s was Jesus descended. Some may be factual or translation errors, which are only a problem for those who insist there is no possibility for errors in the Bible.
Yet there are issues about faith verses works in the words of Jesus and clear contradictions from the old testament about how God deals with the “righteous” vs. the “wicked.” Some of those may be resolvable, but others will always sound like stretching to try and give them an explanation.
There are things in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile and that has nothing to do with family trees. When Christians admit that it is usually with the caveat that God is just to deep for people to understand. What I have trouble with is that those same people will then extrapolate some thing they should do based on stuff that can’t always be understood.
Jesus made it fairly simple, as I said above. And those claiming to be Christians are, in fact, claiming to follow him. So why can’t they focus on helping the needy in Jesus name, rather than advocating punishment of the unrighteous in the name of God?
Comment by: Laura M.
37Steve, I feel we are having a misunderstanding over the meaning of the word ‘contradiction’.
Do you, or do you not acknowledge that reconciliation of passages of texts cannot occur if there were never discrepancies or contradictions to begin with?
If you do not acknowledge this, there would really be no point of further discussion of contradictions, other than my desire to repeat: the fact that contradictory statements/beliefs can be reconciled does not mean they were not contradictory in the first place. I would recommend that you research the meaning of the words: discrepancy, contradiction, reconciliation as well as the meaning of cognitive dissonance.
That the Bible is written by different people, in different times and places, by people with different perspectives and different styles of communication explains why there are contradictions/discrepancies.
What I cannot ‘reconcile’ with a belief that the Bible is God’s inspired word and that we are to receive direction from it, is why it would be so easily open to interpretation (let’s leave out the word ‘contradictions’ here, since we do not agree on the meaning of that word)? Humans are fallible, but your Christian God is not. Why was he not more clear?
As I asked Mike O above:
Comment by: Laura M.
38Thanks David. I think I understand how you feel.
But didn’t Jesus believe in the God of the Old Testament who seems to be so cruel? The same God who so frequently ‘punished the unrighteous’? Yet he advocated that the first rule was to love God with all your heart.
Couldn’t one legitimately claim to be a follower of Jesus because they fervently love a God whom they believe cruelly punishes the unrighteous when they are unrepentant?
Is it un-Christian of them to remind folks that this was the God Jesus said to love and obey?
Comment by: Laura M.
39Could this concept of loving God be related to the instructions from Luke and Matthew:
Or is this too provocative a question to ask Christians?
Comment by: David H
40I don’t think it is un-Christian of them to remind folks, but I’ve frequently been a bit amazed at how intently they do that.
Jesus appeared to indicate a balance in the things he emphasized most. Loving God to the exclusion of others as a follower of Jesus would seem to disrupt that balance. I tell those who want to follow the God of the Old Testament rather than Jesus that they just need to take up the whole law and follow it completely (along with the animal sacrifices). They neither want nor, it would seem, need Jesus.
As for that cruel God of the OT, I am not going to offer an excuse for him. Jesus appeared to believe that it was possible to reconcile the apparent contradiction of what that God did with the love, forgiveness and grace which he attempted to model. As I have said to others here, I’m not sure it is rational, but I accept that reconciliation must be possible because I believe what Jesus modeled.
Perhaps God will or even does punish the unrighteous. If he is all he is said to be that might very well be his prerogative (however, I see little evidence that is occurring much in the world). However, Jesus seemed to make it pretty clear it isn’t might job to determine a) who is unrighteous or b) how they should be dealt with.
Comment by: Laura M.
41My thought is that perhaps those Christians who focus on the punitive nature of God believe they are being loving?
What if they have a true fear that God will once again flood the entire Earth or some such large disaster/punishment?
Or, at the very least, what if they have thoughts along the lines of:
God will punish all unrepentant homosexuals not so much because they engage in homsexual behavior, but rather, because they are unrepentant about their sinful behavior.
God cannot forgive those who do not ask forgiveness.
What if they believe their punitive behavior of the unrepentant here in this life will cause sinners to see the error of their ways, repent before God, and consequently not suffer eternal damnation?
Could you see how this type of behavior/thought process could be seen by some as loving behavior?
Comment by: Helen
42Steve wrote:
Hi Steve, I’m fine with what you wrote that this refers to. I’ll address a few of your specific points in a moment. To me you were being honest, not combative. I think of combative as “You’re wrong!”; whereas “I think…” is simply honest.
I respect your opinion but with all due respect, that’s all it is, right?
I’d call 17 years of Bible study more than a cursory read…anyway I would say it’s also only fair to note that across the internet, arguments between Christians who are very familiar with the Bible, over what the Bible teaches, are alive and well. And once I realized I didn’t have to believe the Bible couldn’t contradict itself, it became very clear to me that the reason these debates go on and on unresolved is that each side uses different verses to support their case and the verses contradict each other. Ironically, since both sides firmly believe the Bible can
not contradict itself (even though their debate rather demonstrates that it does), their solution is to label their own verses as ‘key’ texts; then they write off the other side’s verses as less key than theirs and/or able to be explained away by the context, or whatever.
I’ve watched this for years; it’s real; it’s happening and to me it is very strong evidence the Bible does in fact contradict itself.
Steve, if you are convinced there is one author, who spoke through many others, somehow never contradicting himself, then you have forced your goal to be “explaining away contradictions” rather than taking each piece of writing at face value.
Yes, I think we should try to understand what the author wanted to say and if two authors disagree let’s accept that they do.
Our positions are not equivalent; yours is a faith position, based on the belief that the Bible does not contradict itself. Like all people who believe this, you make every effort to resolve apparent ‘contradictions’ other people claim to have found.
My position is not based on faith. It’s based on the observation that if the Bible was clear and non-contradictory, Christians who all say they believe it would not have unresolvable debates over what it says. If all the disagreeing Christians came to agreement today, I’d change my opinion.
Like David, I find that most lists of contradictions have some trivial ones on. I’m happy to set those aside as unimportant. The ones which concern me have to do with the core beliefs of Christians.
Oh, I just thought of another one: does the Bible teach that Jesus is God? That has never been resolved. Historical orthodox Christianity is based on the conviction that the Bible teaches he is God. However, considering how vital this belief is, the Bible is amazingly vague (imo) about it. The proofs are relatively indirect, given its centrality as a doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly argue that Jesus is not God. They have their own translation but – in regard to anything related to this issue, the only difference is that they added the word ‘a’ to one verse! And besides, people who use the same Bible have argued throughout church history that it teaches Jesus is the Son of God, but not God.
Each of these arguments over fundamentals of the faith is easily explained if we are allowed to say the Bible is remarkably unclear about key doctrines of the faith and/or it contradicts itself.
All other explanations rely on one ‘side’ having superior insight to the other. I don’t see any reason to think that’s the case, since in my experience each side has smart honest people on it. It’s not like you could do an IQ or holiness test and find all the high numbers on one side and all the low ones on the other.
Comment by: Laura M.
43Helen, thanks for finding a better way to express your thoughts than I did.
Steve, I just imagined reading what I wrote from your perspective, and I know my words come across as ‘combative’.
You deserve my apologies, and you have them. Pardon, mia culpa, my bad…
If it helps, I meant them in a teasing way. Maybe I should have put in a few smiley faces?
Comment by: Karen
44Helen:
This, in a nutshell, is exactly why I never get involved in bible debates, despite the fact that I also studied the bible – formally and informally – for decades and consider myself quite well-informed on the bible, or at least the conservative evangelical interpretation of the bible.
It’s very easy for one theological group to back up their position with particular interpretations of verses, only to be contradicted by other groups who have their own – sometimes diametrically opposed – interpretations! Since so much of the scripture is open to interpretation, it becomes a moot exercise very, very quickly.
The same thing is apparently true with other ancient holy texts. Not too long ago I read about a debate between traditionalist and progressive Koranic scholars over whether Muhammad taught that husbands can justifiably beat their wives (yes, you read that correctly!).
This is why I believe ancient texts should for the most part be left where they belong – in the past. :-)
Comment by: David H
45I grew up being told — in word and deed — how coercion into righteousness is loving. It seems now just another lie meant consciously or unconsciously to serve the needs of the person spouting it.
Comment by: Steve S
46Hey guys, sorry to throw some comments out there and thentake off. THis is the thread that has most intrigued me and I wasn’t around for the discussion!
In my defense I just flew accross country with a family of 4 1/2 to visit my old home-town…
Laura, I really do have the thickest skin of anyone I know, it is a blessing and a curse, but when it comes to recieving criticism it is definately a blessing! I appreciate the apologies, but you don’t have to worry about stepping on my toes, they are already pretty caloused!
I have another few thoughts, responses coming here, give me a day…
Comment by: Steve S.
47Sorry this didn’t get posted till now, and sorry this is so long…
Helen asked: “…how do you know it is ‘the correct version’of Christianity?”
It seems like this is an unintentionally misleading way of approaching the subject. If you asked a scientist if they were ‘staying true’ to Darwin’s theory of evolution, or Newton’s on gravitation, they would respond, “That is not the goal, the goal is to accurately describe reality.” I don’t really desire the correct ‘Christianity,’ but rather the correct version of reality!
For this reason I hope to use other ‘versions’ of Christianity as aids to understanding reality, but not as definitions of reality. Just as a scientist will take advantage of the work of others while simultaneously proffering her own. I don’t attempt to stay true to Luther or Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, or Benny Hinn.
Helen also stated: “I respect your opinion but with all due respect, that’s all it is, right?”
Most assuredly, that is all that it is. I don’t pretend to be anything other than what I am; a scientist will speak of things she doesn’t begin to fully comprehend, and so too humans speak of the even greater reality that is God. However, that is not to discount all attempt to understand. I would hope to dialogue about the matter in question, how else are we to do this if not first by stating our own position?
You (and others) had stated that the Bible was full of contradiction. When I asked for a particular incidence, you offered that of Paul v Jesus on the question of ‘salvation by faith.’ If my response is to be discarded as ‘mere personal opinion,’ than what is to be the point of our dialogue? I would love to hear why you find them to be contradictory on the subject, and assume you would want to understand why I find them to be complementary.
Which gets us to the point of contradiction itself:
I fully appreciate that ‘arguments between Christians who are very familiar with the Bible, over what the Bible teaches, are alive and well,’ I don’t think that this is problematic for what I am trying to say. There are certainly some things that are taught by Jesus and His followers that are difficult to reconcile, but many of these are intentional paradoxes akin to the article linked above. Most contradictions, however, are simply failures to aproach the text on its own terms.
You said, “…if the Bible was clear and non-contradictory, Christians who all say they believe it would not have unresolvable debates over what it says.” But I think that this places to much trust in human ability to set aside personal desires and perspectives. On top of this, I think this highlights the main problem with talking about ‘contradictions.’ It forces one to approach the Bible in a way that was never intended. If I read Psalms as a manual for understanding the physical construction of the universe, then I am quite simply and willfully ignorant.
I did get around to the list of contradictions, some of the 388 are outright deceptive (proverbs 26:4-5), (I only looked at maybe 30) every single verse was provided in an archaic translation, without context, and without an attempt made to understand the point within the larger context of the writing. Perhaps if I spent time sorting through I could find something a little more ‘intellectually cohesive’ but that list is precisely the reason why I ask people for personal examples…
You referenced ‘key texts,’ it is exactly this that I find problematic. What are the ‘key texts’ to Dickens’ Great Expectations? …or Handel’s Messiah? …or the U. S. Constitution? …or U2′s Helter Skelter? …or MLK Jr. Epistle to the Americans?
Also, I think I was unclear (it seems such a common problem for me!!) when I mentioned the author’s intent…
I was not refering to God, but to the author. That is what I mean by taking something in context. If I am trying to understand what the person who wrote it meant by what they said, instead of taking a phrase and using it as a ‘key text’ then I will be in a position to ask the deeper (and faith inspired) question, “What is God saying through this?” An even better example of contradiction (although on the same topic) is “justified by faith” in Galatians and “justified by works” in James; here the actual words directly contradict each other, but this ‘contradiction’ requires that we assume it is proper to approach these letters with an ‘atomistic’ dissection. My humble assertion is that this assumption is incorrect; language doesn’t work that way.
(I will be the first to admit that often American Christians approach the Bible in exactly this rigid, ‘reductionistic’ and scientific way…)
I don’t want to be seen as advocating ‘special insight’ but rather a different approach. Instead of approaching the Bible as a compilation of absolute truth statements, approach it on it’s own terms…
I assume (Helen) that you are familiar with some of the ways people like McLaren or Wright approach the Bible? What do you think of what they have to say and how it applies to this thread?
Comment by: Helen
48Steve S. wrote:
Steve, could you explain what the Bible’s own terms are?
I would really like to know what you mean by that phrase.
Comment by: Steve S.
49How do you approach a letter from your closest personal relationship?
How do you read your phone bill?
What is your approach to an introductory college textbook on physics?
How do you read the lyrics in the jacket of the latest CD you bought?
What is your mindset as you read the fine print in your mortgage?
What is your ‘goal’ as you read an old love letter from a High School sweet heart, or the owner’s manual to your microwave?
How do you approach the local newspaper editorial, sports section, classified ads, etc. (do you approach each section with the same mentality)?
Take the time to think through your mental/emotional state, your level of ‘trust,’ and your ‘desired outcome’ for the above types of literature…
What is the difference in your approach to these various types of literature? What are you hoping to gain? What are your assumptions about the text? What things are you wary of? Which ones do you implicitly trust and why?
What are the goals of the authors of these various texts? What motivated them to write what they wrote?
To ‘approach something on it’s own terms’ means to me, to understand a thing (a text in our case) the way it understands itself (in our case, the way the authors and primary readers would have understood it).
It seems that the Bible is rarely treated (by Christian and non alike) as a document with human authors. It is usually treated like a collection of a priori truths dictated from a vantage point outside of time and space. It doesn’t claim to be anything remotely like that, in fact it doesn’t make any sense to try and read it like that.
We need to ‘read over the shoulder’ as it were, of the intended audience.
Comment by: Steve S.
50I just realized that maybe you were asking “what are the Bible’s own terms?” …not, “what does it mean to approach something on it’s own terms?”
Sorry if I answered the wrong question, I’m trying to get that fixed ;-)
Comment by: Helen
51Steve, yes – I was asking what the Bible’s terms are, not what ‘on its own terms’ means :). I agree with you on what ‘on its own terms’ means.
You’re saying the Bible is a document with human authors – exactly; so, it’s a collection of human opinions and human stories which may be partly true; we don’t actually know how true they are. Is that the Bible’s own terms? Or did you have something else in mind?
Comment by: Steve S.
52I think that is a great place to start!
However, I would modify it to say, “The Bible is a collection of documents,” we would have to get specific about which particular part of the Bible we are talking about. The Bible isn’t really a cohesive whole like a book is, or even an anthology is.
So long as we hold the Bible to the same standards we would use for any other document, I am completely okay with that.
Comment by: Helen
53Steve S wrote
Agreed.
Steve, thanks for resuming this conversation – I appreciate it.
But we don’t, do we?
Well, I do, but do you? Do you have any other books you make it a part of your day to read in the expectation God will speak directly to you about your life through them? I doubt there is one other book you expect to go to for answers for the rest of your life because of its connection with your faith.
I’m guessing that your comment stems from a sense that some people are more skeptical about the Bible than other books.
My sense is, they only are to the extent it makes greater claims than other books. Or, to the extent other people make greater claims for it. That sets a high bar for it because if people are supposed to live their lives based on it it had better justify that.
And it centers around many things we’ve never seen – like a man raised from the dead, to mention just one. In fantasy-fiction then…whatever, as long as it makes a good read. But in a book that claims to be historical, well that’s a different matter. Add to that the claim people make that those who don’t believe rightly what’s in this book are going to be eternally tortured and the bar is raised yet again. Add to that the lack of clarity (imo) over things that people claim are very clear in this book and – for me, the tipping point was more than reached; my credulity just didn’t stretch that far.
How can we use ‘the same standards’ when the claims made for the Bible (and to some extent, in the Bible) are so different from other books? What IS the appropriate standard for a book with the claims made about it that are made about the Bible?
Comment by: Steve S.
54It is not whether people are skeptical or not that I am necessarily referring to…
Atheists, at least in my experience, tend to read the Bible like contemporary western fundamentalist christians. The thing that separates them is the skepticism, the thing that unites them is the thing that I am addressing…
Sorry, kids are crying, I’ll come back to you!
Comment by: Helen
55Oh no, how long will I have to wait for the rest of this post? :)
Steve I’d love to hear the rest of what you were going to say.
It seems to me that the Jews had a body of writing they regarded as sacred – in fact the very words of God – the ‘Torah’. Torah means law and it does include the Mosaic law but also stories of the beginning of the world and of the beginning of the Jewish people. The Law part is divine instructions not to be disobeyed. The narratives are read and discussed in a relatively open creative way, for learning purposes. The ‘point’ of these learning discussions is not the truth of the stories per se – we know this because Jewish teachers have always read between the lines and made up little stories not in the text for teaching purposes. They wouldn’t dare do this if it was all about ‘truth’ because their stories aren’t necessarily true. The point seems to be communal learning about how to be better human beings, by studying and discussing stories of other human beings.
In the Psalms an author – King David, according to the text – says “How I love your Torah!” The sense in which the author says this is again not about ‘truth’ value per se, although the author isn’t questioning that, but rather, “this symbolizes everything that is good, to me”.
There’s an openness and creativity I see in the Jewish relationship with their sacred writings which, based on my experience, is not part of the way most conservative Christians relate to the Bible. They seem locked into it being ALL ABOUT truth value and put lots of energy into defending it being ‘true’ to themselves and others. Even passages that clearly contradict scientific evidence if interpreted in a very literal way.
I’ve never been in a book club but I imagine that a good one would have some overlap with Jewish Bible study – there is creative free-ranging discussion which results in communal learning and discovery of how members of the group can move forward with their lives.
This is basically why I continue to be interested in discussion of what the Bible says. I don’t care whether it’s true or not – I think that’s impossible to determine. What interests me is that people believe it can shape their lives and so they tend to read and discuss it with openness to “how can I be a better person?” – so, studying it can be transforming because of the attitudes and expectations they bring to Bible study/discussion. (I understand that for those who believe, it is God who brings about the tranformation)
What frustrates me is how the belief of many conservative Christians that the Bible is the Word of God disallows all sorts of consideration that I think is normal and reasonable and should be included in Bible study/discussion such as: are Paul’s guidelines for churches still relevant and appropriate? Is Paul’s approach appropriate for today (if it ever was)? Is Jesus’ behavior always appropriate today (if it ever was)? This last question is somewhere conservative Christians can never go, unfortunately, which means a number of them get to be mean and harsh and then they hold up Matthew 23 as an ‘excuse’ (Jesus did it – so can I!)
As I’ve said before it makes no sense to think God ever intended the Bible to give people excuses to behave inappropriately.
I feel much safer around people whose view of the Bible would never facilitate this.
Ok, so that’s my view…what’s yours? Please tell me in between taking care of your family, church, etc :)
Many conservative Christians today
Comment by: Steve S.
56I guess I should start by saying, I agree with your critique of ‘conservative Christians’ and don’t consider myself one. …perhaps I am post-conservative (to borrow from McLaren) but not conservative. This means I am not bound by how conservative Christians read the scriptures. I am free instead to read them in the search of truth, as opposed to searching for ‘conservative Christianity.’
When I talk about my approach to the Bible, I guess I am not differentiating between two different meanings of the term:
Initial approach v repetitive approach
Our initial approach to the Bible should be identical to any document. Asking questions like:
What is the process by which this document was produced?
What are the implicit claims of the document?
What information does it contain?
Is it trustworthy?
Is it useful?
Etc.
It is this that I mean when I talk about approaching it in the same way we approach any other text. I initially approach the Bible, the Koran, ‘Leaves of Grass,’ and the National Enquirer with the same set of questions; but this does not mean that I don’t make some tentative conclusions about the various documents and then weight them according to their potential future use. The four examples above are very different genres and very different in terms of trustworthiness and usefulness. I simply don’t give the National Enquirer the same weight that I do the others when it comes to historical accuracy (ignoring that much of the Bible, the Koran and all of Whitman aren’t really about historical accuracy).
I don’t know if this is the time for us to have the conversation about the reasons for why I believe the Bible is a beneficial source for life, including (but certainly not limited to) an understanding of reality as it actually is, and the reality of certain historical events. Suffice it to say, I have been convinced of it, and there is information to interact with on such a matter. I would imagine, however, that our conversation could be better spent in answering the other point:
How should one repeatedly approach the Bible, after one has decided that it is a document to be trusted as a source of wisdom, beauty, power, life, goodness, etc.?
It is, alas, my bedtime, and I will get to that question, perhaps, tomorrow… ;-)
(I would ask you, however, knowing that you are unsure of the accuracy of the canonical presentation of Jesus, what doubts you have and what places you have looked to for a possible resolution to those doubts, one way or the other? Also, given that at one time you didn’t have such doubts (?) what brought them about?)
Comment by: Helen
57Steve, here’s something you can read which I wrote last year:
Is the Bible the Word of God? That is part 10 of a series and has a link to the rest of the series in which I attempted to write about my change of faith; feel free to read as much as you like.
I’m fairly sure I’m familiar with all the ways Christians defend the historicity of the Bible. If you have any I’ve missed I’m open to listening to them.
As I’ve said before, Christian attempts to prove the Bible historically reliable and accurate, to me, are like someone trying to prove an old blueprint of a house is reliable and accurate when as best I can tell, the house doesn’t seem to exist. Shouldn’t we start there?? For the house to exist I would need to see consistent evidence that Christians are supernaturally different (better in character) than people who aren’t Christians. I don’t see it – i.e. no house. Either the Holy Spirit isn’t real or [the doctrine is so wrong it] doesn’t work.
Again, as I’ve said before I’m familiar with the Christian explanations i.e. “I’m better than I would have been, so it does work” or “we’re all sinners so in spite of the Holy Spirit we still continue to sin”.
To me this seems less likely than “the Holy Spirit isn’t real or the doctrine is so wrong it doesn’t ‘work’”. Just like, “the house was never built” seems more likely to me than “it was there but – some magician came along and caused it to vanish without trace”.
Why would my response to doubt be to do everything I can to ‘get rid of it’, by the way? (Although, I do believe I’ve covered all the bases in looking at Christian reasons why they believe what they believe). My doubt doesn’t trouble me. I think it’s much healthier than unquestioning acceptance or suppression of doubt for the sake of clinging onto a belief system that has an emotional payoff. Looking back I see myself as having done that for a long time. I respect that people with faith don’t perceive themselves as suppressing doubt. I’m speaking simply of what I think I was doing, in retrospect.
Comment by: Steve S.
58I wasn’t trying to urge you into anything, I was just wondering about specifics…
This gets at the heart of the issue in many ways! I would hope that every person who reads (and even more so those who teach!) the Bible have wrestled deep and long with this question! I think the only way to ‘be sure’ is to read the Bible in community with the whole Church (other social strata, other cultures, and other time periods), listening for the Spirit together.
This, however, is the very thing that I am referring to, it is the thing that fundamentalists and atheists have in common when reading the bible.
I’ll be back tomorrow! ;)
Comment by: Helen
59Steve S wrote:
Evidently this is working for you.
It didn’t work for me because there was so much disagreement about ‘what the Spirit is saying’ and I had no way of choosing ‘who is hearing the Spirit correctly’ (there was a great deal of confidence expressed that various people were even though they were hearing things that couldn’t both be correct since they contradicted each other).
If this works for you then evidently either you’re finding people agree on what they hear from the Spirit, or you have a way of knowing who is hearing correctly. I find it hard to think it’s the first because you’ve described people who sharply disagree with you. So it must be the second. What I have wanted to know since I first posted your comments that began this blog entry is, how do you know which Christians are right? I have no way. What is your way?
Well…I sort of see where you’re going and understand this ties into how the Bible was intended to be read. However I doubt you have a way of reading it which will satisfy me regarding what I see as clear contradictions, not based on faulty ways of reading, such as, why in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus evidently let all the kind atheists go to heaven (since ALL he cared about was how people treated each other; there’s not one mention of faith in that passage, PLUS the people going to heaven were evidently not Jesus followers since they didn’t know who he was) whereas Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) is pretty clear in Ephesians 2 that salvation is by faith.
The Bible authors/main spokespeople for God can’t even agree on how to get to heaven.
And if you have some way of resolving this I will be back to my question I’ve had for the last few years: “How do you know that you are reading it right?”
Comment by: Steve S.
60I think I answered that before by saying, “I can’t and don’t know.” …for me, I don’t really think that ‘reading the Bible correctly’ is the point anyway…
For me, the main point lies elsewhere…
I will come back with more thoughts, but I have been reading an article by NT Wright that may shed some light on this conversation. It is lengthy, but if you have time to check it out:
How Can the Bible be Authoritative?
Comment by: Steve S.
61In the article I linked above, Wright states, “But this is not to say that there is one, or even that there are twenty-one, ‘right’ ways of this being done.” I think this is the way I would respond the issue of having the ‘correct’ Christianity.
I don’t want to pit myself against “the Christian voices in the slums of the Phillipines, the deserts of the Sahara, the steppes of Mongolia, the Desert Fathers, the Orthodox of ancient Constantinople;” instead I see them as part of the family. Just as my uncle, my father, my grandmother, my daughter, and myself are all vastly distinct, yet directly linked by genetic code (among other things), so also are the many faces of Christianity vastly diverging, and yet converging around a young Jewish prophet who claimed to be King in a very unique way, and was tortured to death because of it, and a shared understanding of what God is like that is revealed in the historical person of this crucified prophet-King.
If you don’t have much time, at least read the section entitled The Authority of a Story it is only a few paragraphs and gets at the question of how I think the Bible should be approached.
I think the main problem I have with the approach to scripture I see in the above quote about contradiction (comment #58) is in its implicit claims about epistemology. It seems to make truth static. I don’t think it is necessarily problematic to think of truth in such ways, but it may cause problems if we attempt to engage with other epistemologies without first taking off that set of lenses…
The oriental thinking of much of the Bible is different from western thought in many ways, not least of which is epistemology. In the mindset of the ancient hebraic culture, truth is much more of a fluid thing; even prior to Jesus, the Jews were using anthropomorphic (theomorphic?) language about truth…
Wright talks in the article about how much of the western approach to scripture ends up implicitly claiming that God accidentally gave us the wrong book. If we claim that the primary use of the Bible is to elucidate ‘timeless truths’ (he used some other examples as well) then God goofed when He didn’t simply give us the timeless truths. Why did He give us an ancient narrative if this is not what we needed?
This is what I mean about the approach to the Bible that I see in both fundamentalist and atheist thought.
The way that I try to read the Bible is (with an obvious eye on the literary and historical contextual cues, and genre-specific ways of reading) simply to understand who God is and what He is up to in light of the unfolding story of His interaction with the universe. I then am in a place to make His story, my story.
I think, in order for this to get practical, we would have to approach a specific passage, or concept from the Bible and dance through a little dialogue about it. What do you think?
Comment by: Helen
62Sure – I’m willing to try it. Would you like to e-mail me your thoughts on a specific passage/concept and I’ll start a new post with them?
By the way I can’t get the NT Wright link to come up – I think the site is down at the moment.
Comment by: Steve S.
63It comes up on my browser still, but I can’t get the actually page to refresh, so here is the most relevant piece…
Comment by: Steve S.
64PS
It seems like the term ‘christian’ is just crying out to be defined here ;)
…especially in a country where some 85% of people self-identify as Christian! I don’t know the stats on conversion rates pre and post Edict of Milan (I assume there is no data available) but we would have to assume that we in the West are still dealing with the ramifications of Constantine’s (and Theodosius’) actions!
Comment by: Helen
65Ah…I forgot to anticipate the ‘that’s because they aren’t REAL Christians’ response.
Steve, I’ll make it easy for you –
you define ‘Christian’ for me. Then, based on my experience, matter how you define the term, my expectation is that I’ll find people outside the group you define who are as good as the people inside. Making me skeptical that there’s anything supernaturally different about the people inside. And making me wonder why Christianity ‘doesn’t work’. Giving me no incentive to be part of it.
Comment by: Helen
66Thanks for the NT Wright excerpt. His analogy presupposes an inherent consistency that makes it possible to stage the play and know when someone is acting out of character.
I don’t see enough consistency to stage it. I’d be throwing up my hands saying “Which Jesus am I supposed to portray? Which God are we supposed to be conveying here? How do we decide between the conflicting pictures presented by this story? If we present them all then we present a God who is so inconsistent as to be unknowable.”
When I say “Jesus this or that…” I know I’m picking and choosing a particular Jesus. Just as the Bible-believing Christians who respond to me with “Ah but…” are also picking and choosing a particular Jesus. The difference is, I admit I’m picking and choosing; they don’t.
Comment by: Steve S.
67I guess I never saw that as problematic? I’m sorry for being dense ;-) but it’s genetic…
I would think that it would be generally acknowledged that the term Christian would need more of a definition than simply ‘someone who calls themself a Christian.’ Most of the social statistics (that I am aware of) in the field of religious studies tend to assume that self-identification is not an accurate way of definition, (especially in an environment where there is strong social incentive to self-identify as such) and try to find other ways of identifying individual Christians.
I wouldn’t consider self-identification, in and of itself, an appropriate definition of any group that I can think of. (Muslim, Libertarian, McDonald’s employee, Cub-Scout, family member, friend, etc.)
I would define Christian in it’s historical context. It was a derogatory term given to disciples of The Way, by the larger Roman culture. So I would define ‘Christian’ (a term I don’t use very often precisely becasue of the imprecision of its popular usage) as an individual who had sworn allegiance to Jesus, trusting that Jesus’ way was the best way (as evidenced by the decisions they make on a daily basis), trusting that Jesus actually is the Lord of the Universe instead of ‘Caesar,’ and that by looking at Jesus we are actually getting a look at the true face of God, and enter into an experience of God breathing His life into us.
I know that this is a bit involved to expect people to claim for themselves, but I think it is the commitment that the first Christians stepped into; I will say that I don’t think people have to understand or even be able to enunciate such a position, but that they are implicitly commited to such a position is what makes them a Christian.
I think that using the definition above would definitely change our estimation of Christianity in comparison to non-Christianity, historically, even hostile observers to the Christian community have been impressed with the marked difference in morality of the Christian community in comparison with the dominant pagan/Roman culture. Even so, I know that the above quote is the case, in fact, Gandhi himself said he would have become a follower of Jesus if he had ever met someone who did follow the way of Jesus! …but, to my way of understanding, the point of Jesus life is other than moral improvement of individuals.
In defense of Wright, he really isn’t talking about the ‘canonical’ Jesus, or even a ‘canonical’ God, as such. He is talking about the historical Jesus, the one we come to understand when we approach all of the available information with the proper skepticism appropriate to historical research; and understand God in terms of Jesus.
I also think that the consistency he presupposes is not so much commensurate with the analogy; he most assuredly does not hold to a view of the Bible as being directly dictated by God! The consistency he assumes has more to do with the consistency found within history itself. I think Wright would claim that the consistency between Psalms, Isaiah, Kings, and Genesis is to be found, not in their common authoriship, but rather in their common place of authority in the people of Israel.
Perhaps, you could elaborate on the inconsistencies you see between various Biblical portrayals of God? I am even more interested in the inconsistencies you see in the Biblical portrayal of Jesus! I would love for us to begin our exegesis there! If not, I will email you with some ideas in a day or two…
Comment by: Steve S.
68Also, I realized that we are dancing back and forth between two different questions (at least in my mind I see it this way, you may be framing the conversation differently, so let me know if I am pushing my way of seeing onto our common dialogue).
Is the Bible a valid source for informing our lives? (And all of the attendant sub-questions.)
How should the Bible inform our lives?
One is a question of substance, the other of method; granting, of course, that method and substance are mutually interdependant. However, it seems like it would be helpful (at least to me!) to adress the questions one at a time, instead of simultaneously.
As I write this I realize that Wright’s essay addresses both of these questions, but focuses on the second. It seems that we, too, were attempting to adress the second question, but I tempted you down the trail of the first with a juicy carrot! (comment #56)
Sorry! I am a rabbit who constantly hops down other trails, especially when I see food!
;-)
Comment by: Helen
69Steve S. wrote:
Yes, I think I have heard that.
It’s interesting that Brian McLaren says many Christians today erroneously subscribe to a Christianity which buys into the Roman framing story of Domination/Empire.
I suppose we could write them off as not real Christians ;-)
Thanks for acknowledging that (that I could indeed find people who aren’t Christians who are at least as good as those who are).
No matter how it was 2,000 or so years ago, today is the reality in which I live and what I see is a lack of evidence that Christians (however defined) are supernaturally different from other people.
I think I heard he said “It’s not Christ I have a problem with but Christians”?
I don’t see how it’s possible to follow Jesus and not be morally improved.
Sure…how about, “God is love” and “God sends/allows most of humanity to be eternally tortured”? I’m not sure whether you buy into the latter as the Biblical portrayal but I know lots of Christians who would insist it is.
Comment by: Helen
70Steve S. wrote:
Steve, there is such wide variation in what people claim the Bible has informed them of that I highly doubt provides guidance with any degree of specificity no matter what people claim. If it were a blank book with no words in I think the results of what people claim it has guided them into would be about the same. I think people find in it what they believe they are supposed to find. If it’s guidance and inspiration they seem to find it no matter what passage they are reading…so, it’s not really about the specific content anyway…and less mystical people who are into systematic theology find support for their systematic theology in there – of course, because they have learned to explain away anything which ‘appears’ in conflict with that theology.
I see its authority as symbolic as much as content-driven – if that makes any sense.
Comment by: Steve S.
71I agree!!
But it seems like when you are asking, ‘how do you know what the proper way to read the book is?’
…you are really saying, there is no correct way to read the book because the book is not worth reading as a source of wisdom.
I guess what I was trying to say is that it seems you are using the issue of methods (ie people approach the Bible in myriad ways and consequently produce myriad results) to invalidate the Bible as a source of wisdom.
I don’t want to appeal to ‘my’ way as the right way, I want to discuss with you what I think, you think, others think, and try to find a consensus (at least between the two of us) as to what would be an appropriate method of reading it.
Obviously this assumes an affirmative answer to the question of validity. I am okay with setting that question aside and trying to address the issue of methods with you, but if you prefer, we can try to address the question of validity first.
I did think, however, that you would find Wright’s hermeneutic compelling (granting that it comes to certain conclusions about some historical realities that you currently dispute!) if you were to set aside the question of the Bible’s validity, what do you think of Wright’s approach?
I agree wholeheartedly! I just don’t think it is the point, merely an ancillary benefit.
And I think this also gets at how to define the term Christian, if there is no fruit, it seems we ought to question whether it really is a fruit tree.
Well, this really is a long conversation! I would start by saying that I understand the term ‘God’ through the lens of the human being named Jesus, not the other way around. That seems like a rather important point to the conversation, which is why I would find your contradictory Jesuses a fascinating place to start…
However, if you want we can start with the question of God being the categorical definition of love, and the doctrine of eternal torture. Which passages were you thinking of as teaching this doctrine?
Comment by: David H
72While I haven’t jumped in I have been reading this conversation with interest.
The same thought occurred to me. But what is the fruit? Jesus seemed to indicate that love, rather than morality, was pre-eminent. Love that would forestall doing violence to others (love your enemies, do good to those who harm you); love that would lead to forgiveness (grace); love that would lead to self-sacrifice.
But here is the tricky part, Jesus seemed to say it isn’t about practicing it perfectly, it is about the striving to do any of it at all. With humility. And the other rub is that it isn’t up to me to question whether it is a fruit tree. In those two things I would find the faults that plague many self-identified Christians. If they do any of the things Jesus talked about they assume righteousness and then spend quite a bit of time comparing their perception of such righteousness against the practices of others.
I think it is fairly simple to say what it takes to be a Christ follower. There are a relatively few things Jesus said to do. “A new commandment I give to you…,” jumps immediately to mind. However, as soon as I start trying to evaluate others on that then I can quickly become a Pharisee.
That of course can become another litmus. Is the person calling them self a Christian more interested in how they are living or how others are living? Is their focus more on how they can do those things Jesus called for or how others can do the things they have called for (in Jesus name)? It isn’t up to me to condemn (it seems to be human nature to judge others), but for self-preservation I have to be able to discern.
Comment by: Helen
73Steve wrote:
That’s not quite it – I’m not saying it’s not worth reading as a source of wisdom. I’m saying I don’t have reason to evaluate the wisdom in it differently from how I evaluate the wisdom in any other book. I think it has low points and high points and like some other books with many authors, they don’t all seem to agree. And like many humans, they don’t even seem to agree with themselves 100% of the time.
This is all fine if I regard it like any other book. The problems arise if someone says I am supposed to set it apart as having unique authority. And then they, in effect, pick and choose the parts which agree with the message they are proclaiming as authoritative (while denying they are picking and choosing).
My way is to read it like any other book, with all the freedoms that confers on me…
Now I’m curious :). What do you think the point is?
Comment by: Steve S.
74Helen,
Would you say you read it like any other book?
Or would you say you read it like any other book of similar content and style? It seems like an important distinction that gets at a big point in our conversation.
I would have a hard time thinking you read the Bible with the same approach as The Eye of the World or Till We Have Faces.
What are some appropriate comparisons for you? (ie Leviticus and the City of Chicago Municipal Code; Luke/Acts and The Gallic Wars; Job and The Odyssey; Song of Songs and The Kama Sutra; the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Judas; these aren’t necessarily good comparisons, or my comparisons, just the first ones that popped into my echoing cranial cavity)
It seems that doing this would certainly confer some ‘freedoms’ that people errantly do not take with the reading of the Bible; but it would also confer certain ‘obligations’ that come with the study of any specific discipline with the goal of gaining true knowledge of reality and wisdom for living.
I fully agree that this happens, and I agree that it is problematic, but I think it would help me focus, and perhaps help our conversation move forward if we focused more on how you and I read the Bible, instead of how other people (whom we both think are ridiculously uneducated and unsophisticated anyways!) read it.
I am totally comfortable with you saying you won’t read the Bible like a collection of absolute truth-claims that must be manipulated to fit together into a coherent and complete anthology of every bit of information about reality, I say the same thing!
Man! I am tempted to leave you hanging here!!!! ;-)
I think the point is wrapped up in the much used and little defined phrase the Kingdom of God. I have read several books on the subject, all with different angles. Perhaps the best comprehensive, laymen’s read on the subject IMO is McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus. Have you read it?
I would say that the point is the final consummation of the prayer Jesus taught us; ‘bringing heaven to earth.’ Restoring the universe, setting everything right. Certainly my moral improvement is important, but still ancillary, to this universal reconciliation encompassing humanity, as well as birds, rocks, trees, rivers, etc.
I guess I see the point, even on an individual level, as reconciliation to God, which will naturally result in a change in character (even in nature!) for me.
It is like sex. It isn’t the point, but it is a part of marriage. So in a sense, I am coming back to the wedding metaphor that is replete throughout Old and New Testaments, God is ‘marrying’ His beloved creation. This will naturally result in a change in His creation, just as marriage will naturally result in sex. But, even though you would say that a marriage without sex isn’t healthy, you wouldn’t say that the point of marriage was the sex…
What do you think; did we lose our ‘G’ rating?
Comment by: Helen
75That’s pretty close actually. I’d say I read it like Jane Eyre.
There’s no ‘obligation’ in the way I read it any more than when I read Jane Eyre – why would there be?
If I like something I might incorporate it into my values/goals for my life. If I don’t I won’t. End of story.
Yes, I read it as part of educating myself about the Emergent/emerging Church Movement.
‘The Kingdom of God’ seems plausible to me as ‘the point’ of Jesus’ message. However you seem to place the emphasis on the vertical whereas I would place it on the horizontal and say the Kingdom is a place where people are transformed and therefore relate to each other in the best possible way. Which is why I think human transformation is ‘the point’.
I think it’s an evangelical distortion to put so much emphasis on the vertical and make the horizontal so secondary. I see everything about the relationship between people and God not as the end but as the means to the end, the end being people having better relationships with each other.
Comment by: Steve S.
76I guess your particular theology influences you in that direction? ;-) It must be hard to believe that the point of Jesus’ message was God reconciling the universe to Himself if you don’t believe there is any such being!! ;-)
I would make the distinction that ‘secondary’ is not the same thing as ‘dispensable’ or ‘unnecessary.’ The teachings of Jesus seem to place an emphasis on the internal reality flowing out into the external actions. This is why I don’t think the focus should be on ‘actions’ but rather on the spiritual reality that feeds and informs the actions.
Also, I was trying to emphasize something else, God’s relationship to creation as a whole not so much the individualistic thing…
Do you read all books like you read Jane Eyre?
The New York Times?
A New Kind of Christian?
The Audacity of Hope?
Gallic Wars?
The Gospel of Judas?
Because I would have a completely different approach to Jane Eyre than I would to a newspaper article or a history textbook, or even a cookbook. Don’t the genres and the authorship play any role in your approach to a piece of writing?
I guess I don’t understand what you are saying…
Could you clarify how the approach is the same?
I recognize that there is no obligation for you, I am merely arguing that there should be an obligation if one is to approach the text. Would you say that there is an obligation for someone to approach the City of Chicago Municipal Code, or the National Enquirer in a certain manner?
I can appreciate you saying you don’t believe the historical reconstruction of academics like Wright to be accurate depictions of reality, (although I would be really interested in why) but shouldn’t truth and reality take precedence over affinity for incorporating something into ones life?
thanks again for the dialogue!
Comment by: Helen
77Hi Steve, in response to your first comment, what I meant was, I think evangelicals have distorted the general emphasis I perceive in the Bible by putting so much emphasis on the vertical and so little on the horizontal.
I was comparing evangelical theology with the Bible, not comparing it with my view.
I reposted the rest of your comment as the new post How to read the Bible.