I have already fielded this question somewhat on my blog with the post called Divine Inspiration which you can all read if you like. Since most of my thoughts are already there, I will be brief here and add only a couple of things.
In a nutshell, I believe that the Bible is God revealing himself to us through the writings of the authors. I also believe that since the Bible was written by humans, it is inevitably fallible and susceptible to each particular author's point of view and bias. I believe that one must be careful to interpret the text within the cultural context that it was written in, including the religio-cultural context. I believe that God did reveal himself to the people of the time of the writing of each particular book of the Bible and that he may have even used the particular religious ritual preferences of the culture to reveal himself. Thus, I don't think that all of the rites and rituals laid out in the Bible (including NT stuff) are prescriptive for how we should practice Christianity today.
Not to say that we can't use those things, but I would not say they are truly necessary. For example, I see the rite of baptism being analagous to the near death experience initiation rite of the mystery cults of the time. However, I believe God used this common ritual that was well understood by the masses to speak to and relate to humanity. Another example would be the sacrificial system of the Israelites. This again seems to be God using a common ritual that was already in place to speak to his people.
As for what I do think the Bible is useful for, please see the aforementioned post on Divine Inspiration. Although, perhaps my view has changed since then, as it seems to morph daily.
As an aside, I am currently reading (or rather very quickly perusing) a book by Roger Oakland called 'Faith Undone'. This book is basically his attempt at convincing Christians that the emerging church movement is an "end-times deception." One point of his that fits in with this discussion was regarding yoga. He said Christians should not practice yoga at all, as it has its roots in Hindu religion. He views the idea of using yoga for Christian purposes (ie: thinking about the Holy Spirit entering you while you breathe in, and exhaling all those things which are impure) as having no part in Christianity. To this I would respond that the history of Christianity, even in the Bible, is fraught with borrowed religious practices. If a certain thing, such as yoga, brings a Christian closer to God, I see no problem with it. This is only one example, but throughout Oakland's book he uses scripture again and again to prove points about specific examples in our current culture (like yoga), using verses that really have no bearing on the subject. That's my rant about Roger Oakland.
Having said all that, I do believe that the Bible is important for our faith and can speak to us and help to shape our lives. However, I would not call it ultimate truth by which all things in life can be measured. It is subject to interpretation and I would never presume to be the one with the rights to the mind of God by which my interpretation is the interpretation.
Disclaimer: I am currently battling some sort of illness, thereby I would imagine that some of my thoughts here are not entirely coherent or possibly entirely wacked out...niner... double pumper turbo the other....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
i'm not sure i agree with the conclusion that because there are similar initiation rites and sacrificial systems in other cultures that that makes the bible a mere borrower of ideas in order to communicate some essential truth. doesn't this basically lead us to the point where the context actually does not matter? all that matters is stripping away all the metaphors and symbols and rites and what-not until we have whatever we deem to be absolutely unique and basic behind the actual words God got the writers to write?
I have not gone back to read your Divine Inspiration thing yet, so maybe this is spelled out more there, but I am basically responding to this implied premise that because the Bible shares rites and sacrificial themes with other religions and cultures that this somehow makes the Bible the borrower. Is it not possible that these themes are common to the human experience because they are ingrained within us as humans, and the Bible employs them not simply as communication devices borrowed from the culture but because the Bible is telling us the gospel that ties those common human themes together in a unique and very special way?
Humanity in general feels the value of sacrifice, but Christianity roots that impulse in the self-giving nature of the Triune and incarnate God Himself. So other cultures and religions may have sacrifices, but do they even come close to meaning what these sacrifices mean?
Humanity in general may feel the value of initiatory rites, even water-cleansings, but do they sybolize death and rebirth in a way that is so very grounded in the life and death and life of Christ as the second Adam, the bringer of a new creation out of a creation gone awry?
Understanding similarities between the Bible's culture and those around is significant, don't get me wrong, because it shows that God was speakign to humans through humans. But understanding the contrasts shows the Bible's uniqueness too, and I think gives compelling reason (all things considered) to believe that it is a human communication, but a divine one as well.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and forgive me if I am, but that's my reaction to the points you've made. I'd be happy to hear where I've got you wrong or where you want to disagree with me.
Jon and Trev,
There is a degree to which I agree with Jon here, though not entirely. A lot of what Trev is saying is completely true. The longer you spend reading other writings from the Ancient Near East the more it seems that some of the things in the Bible are not merely borrowing, but straight up cribbing from those other cultures and stories. The flood accounts, Marduk, some aspects of Zoroastrian dualism and Persian ideas that show up in the later OT books...you really can't explain a lot of this without talking at least about some kind of cultural overlap.
Having said this I'll level the critique that I've leveled against Trev's reading a couple of times, including in personal conversations we've had. The all but undeniable truth that there are significant similarities between the OT and other ANE religions and writings does not necessarily mean that the OT is merely a patchwork of borrowed material.
As Jon notes, what is different is at least (and I would say much, much more) important that what's the same. The fact that you don't see much about an afterlife in pre-exilic OT material indicates that yes, some of those ideas about an afterlife are probably things that occurred to the biblical authors as a result of their experiences in Persia. But, it has to be noted that the overall structure of the Persian theology and biblical theology don't really match. YHWH is not Ahura Mazda. They are decidedly different. YHWH is not El, he is not Marduk, he is not Ba'al. Though some of the elements are the same (and this absolutely must be admitted), the differences are incredibly significant.
Trev is right that we do ourselves no favors by pretending that the theology of the OT was not interacting with the theology of other ANE cultures and religions. There was a time when it was all the rage for biblical scholars to study everything in the OT in light of Ugarit or the Enuma Elish. But those times are essentially past. What we realize now is that something kind of like what Jon is talking about is more likely. These are ideas that floated around all of the cultures of the ANE, including ancient Israel. What the OT is, is the unique way that the people of Israel addressed these common ideas throughout their history.
It's really no different from theology today. Theologians today have to talk about post-modernism. That doesn't mean that Christianity is post-modern, or that post-modernism even has anything of value for Christianity. It just means that this is the cultural climate. This is what people know and are talking about. Naturally, that's where our conversations about God must, therefore, live.
In the end I think that Jon is right and that the God represented in the OT (and the NT as well) differs notably and meaningfully from other ANE religions. The ANE stories and the OT are not different but equal records of stories about a universal God. The OT tells a unique story about a unique God, and that's the God we pick when we pick Christianity.
yeah i don't know, i am not as up on my Ancient Near Eastern info as you guys are, but it doesn't shock me that there are plenty of similarities in worship practices any more than it shocks me that God revealed himself in human language (or human form) at all.
Its the history and continuity and uniqueness and credibility of this whole particular revelation that gives it a quality that sets it apart. whether it co-opts or shares some themes or generally similar practices doesn't change much, for me. i'm not even sure how it is being accurately decided which culture is borrowing from which.
As for yoga, I'm not against it, but I'm not sure what is meant by saying it "brings a Christian closer to God". How does one measure "closeness" to God? How does one know what God one is close to? And if that God is God and the person in question is not God, how does that person propose to bring him or herself without some divine initiative of some kind. I'm not saying I'm against yoga or anything, but that illustration raises certain questions which I think ultimately bring us back to our need for some divine revelation of a unique and special quality from which to propose to answer such questions.
it might be argued that the Bible isn't that, but I think the Bible itself claims to be, so it either is or it isn't. HOW it operates as such is another question of course.
Jon and Colin.
Although I often come across as seeing the Bible as only a patchwork of rituals and rites from other Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, that is just merely my own emphasis. I agree that the religion of the Israelites had many dissimilarities to the other religions of the ANE and that these are very important to emphasize as well (which I should perhaps do more of).
If you read my post on sacrifice, you can see why I try to reconcile this. Sacrificial systems do seem to be some sort of ingrained human thing as they were not only practiced in the ANE, but oceans away in Mesoamerican cultures as well, which seem to have developed this independently.
The basic agenda of my blog (although this is not entirely the point) is to show that the Israelite religion is not entirely unique in it rites and rituals (although unique in some ways)and that the 'truth' of the Bible is not necessarily what I used to think it was (as a fundegelical). I do believe that the message of the Bible is true, and that is what should be focused on, rather than nitty gritty theological issues and historical things which seem to be somewhat subject to interpretation.
Of course, even though I try to 'prove' certain things in my posts on my blog, naturally, that is again my opinion on the given evidence. There seem to be as many opinions on things as there are scholars which again reinforces that we can never really no for sure what happened historically in the ANE.
As far as the yoga thing goes, I was basically throwing that out there to see what kind of reactions would come out. I was very brief on purpose. HEE HEE!
In answer to the question, how can we tell what God one is becoming close to (in relation to yoga), I would say it is the God we choose to become close to. So much of Christianity is about choice/faith. If a Christian uses yoga to become closer to God, they are making a conscious choice about becoming close to the God of Christianity, and I personally don't believe that the demons are in the wings waiting for Christians to accidentally slip into some New Age trap by which they can deviously enter their lives. But again, that is my opinion.
I also don't think there is a need to measure closeness to God. Each person's journey in Christian faith is unique, and to be able to measure a certain method of becoming closer to God versus another method I don't think is beneficial, or possible.
Those are my thoughts in response to your comments. Feel free to respond again! I would like to hear more. These are just thoughts off the top of my head
p.s.
please ignore all the typos. I didn't proof read it.
good point about yoga [and other things I'd add] taking you closer to whatever God you are after. Still, I don't think getting "close" to God is something we can just do with some method, meditative, theological or otherwise. It takes God's initiative and if He wants closeness with HIm to look a certain way then I think He is going to hold us (and HImself) to that most of the time. Thus I think it becomes pretty crucial if one is a Christian to decide what is God's revelation of Godself and from that how God basicallly wishes to be worshiped and known. In that case, the Bible is incredibly important.
As for sacrifices being common to culture and ancient religions, what does that tell us? Why does it matter that the Bible has it and so do others? Can't it just be true that the impulse to sacrifice to the transcendent speaks to the fundamental human condition? Can't it be then that the true religion is going to be the one in which that impulse is enfolded and makes the most sense? Can't it also be that the impulse to make sacrifices for a loved one speaks to something important about being human?
If all this is so, wouldn't it then be the case that we should be more surprised to see Judaism and Christianity as the ONLY religions with sacrifices? Wouldn't we expect to see the true religion (even leaving aside what it is) as the one that in some way enfolded themes in all the others and yet did not neatly fit with any of them either?
Furthermore, I don't see how you can say "I do believe that the message of the Bible is true, and that is what should be focused on, rather than nitty gritty theological issues and historical things which seem to be somewhat subject to interpretation." What good is it to say that the Bible is true, then?
I want to be clear that I'm fine with the push-back against "fundegelicalist" uses of the Bible, but I am trying to understand what we think a better perspective on it actually is.
Thoughts from the peanut gallery. First - I've really been enjoying your discussion. Second - full disclosure - I have not studied theology, but that won't stop me from throwing in my ill-informed two cents . ..
On the topic of closeness with God - if God is really the source of everything, then it seems like he's got the ability to be close to us however works best. I spent years reading the Bible as my primary source of understanding where God comes from and I can think of exactly 2 times when it made me feel close to God. If we want to talk about being out in nature or surrounded by music, I cannot count the times when I have felt the God presence. (as for yoga - it can also be a practice of bodily discipline that is not particularly meditative in any way).
Onto the actual topic you're discussing . . . it seems that you all agree that the Bible is informed by the culture in which it was written, to some extent or another - how does that affect your understanding of how it is relevant to us now, in this culture? And if God is a God for all times (and if he's not - we might as well just all go home . . .), then why is the Bible a closed canon? Why did He finish his project of what he had to tell humanity near 2000 years ago? In my, as Jon puts it, pushback against fundegelicast views of the Bible, I've been left pretty devoid of any good reason to refer to it - but then end up wondering why I carry this appelation of "Christian" at all (maybe I am a pagan who thinks Jesus is cool?) . . . those are just some of the questions that lead me to that point.
Jon,
In response to your comments about sacrifices, I think one can interpret it both ways with equal evidence supporting both sides. Its kind of like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg. Eventually, you just have to choose which you think came first, and then stick with that. Your view of sacrifices being in human nature is a perfectly legitimate view, while at the same time, my view of the sacrificial system of the Israelites likely being borrowed from a neighbouring culture is also equally valid. Neither can be proved definitively
Perhaps I'm not being entirely clear on my point of view either. Even though I think that the sacrificial system was in some ways borrowed, I don't want to devalue the contribution that it makes to Christianity. Even if it was borrowed, God obviously still used it to speak to his people.
trevor: i'm not arguing that the sacrificial system idea isn't borrowed, nor am i arguing which came first. i'm just saying i don't see why it matters. if the Christian God is the Creator then i'd be surprised if sacrifices existed nowhere BUT ancient Judaism and Christianity.
el maggie: it saddens me that you haven't felt close to God reading the Bible or that its relevance today doesn't seem clear. I can't think of a book more relevant than this one and, if feelings count for anything (which i'm not sure they do), then of the times i've felt close to God probably most of them have been while reading the Bible.
but lots of things make us feel a sense of the transcendent. when it comes to feeling close to God, i'm not sure how we think we can do that unless God draws near, and how we can know its him unless there is some revelation that we point to that tells us who he is and what to expect in his presence.
Jon,
I whole heartedly agree. It doesn't matter. :) I think we were talking past each other for a while there. Or at least I wasn't understanding.
I'd just like to agree with el maggie and say that the times that I have felt closest to God have been when observing his creation or when experiencing relationships with others or when seeing evidence of answers to prayer. Reading the Bible is certainly a way to get to know more about God and Christianity, but I think there are ways that we can continue to experience him today (and to learn about him today).
I would like to echo maggie's thoughts about God being a god for all times... and the strangeness of the idea that the Bible has been a closed canon for 2000 years ... I'm sure God is still speaking to us today in relevant ways. Its an interesting thought Maggie.
Also, I feel that it isn't just God choosing to be close to us, but we also must choose to try to be close to him. I view it as any relationship - a 2 way street. We can't just do yoga thinking we're getting closer to him, if he's not there reaching back to us (which I'm sure he is - since we believe that that is his nature) and he can't just reach out to us for us to be close to him, its got to be reciprocated. Perhaps thats an obvious point, but I feel like it was a bit vague in previous comments.
I'm enjoying these conversations here. As a recovering fundamentalist, there are a lot of questions I've got to answer for myself and a lot of practical details of living my "new" faith that have to be worked out.
Thanks again for this blog.
I hate to be the guy who asks this (though to be fair, I think Jon already brought it up)... just humour me and trust that I'm not trying to be a jerk....
Why should "feeling close to God" be our criteria for judging how/where/if God has revealed himself?
Do we really mean to say that our "feelings" are naturally in tune with God and that they are trust-worthy in discerning his revelation? Doesn't this presume a fundamental likeness between us (at least in our "spirits" and affections) and God? Doesn't this imply that our ability to feel-aright is ultimately unaffected by the disordering effects of sin?
I'm not at all trying to say that the affections are not important or that they should be left out of things altogether...but...I think the above questions are kinda important.
I agree with what you're saying Dustin. I think this conversation has kind of taken a few rabbit trails.... I agree that whether we "feel" God or not does not indicate directly whether or not he exists.
i don't really think we're on a rabbit trail. this is crucial stuff! is the Bible any different than your or my feeling or awareness of God? we're not just talking about whether GOd exists or not, we're talking about whether we hear from him, and about whether we hear from him specifically in some way other than in nature or in that sense of the transcendent some get when they sing or look at art or whatever. and we're talking about whether the Bible is THAT; that special revelation.
If so, why are some not feeling God there? Does that tell us something about the Bible or does it tell us something about our feelings or does it tell us something about our expectations? And if the Bible is special revelation from God, is it still in a similar class to something like the yoga or the mountain hiking experience, or do these things interact in some way?
And if the Bible is GOd's special revelation, why is it so human? I mean, I've had the opportunity to doplenty of redactive criticism and exegesis and research and stuff so I've already come to grips with its humanness to a certain extent, so trevor's point about sacrificial systems and "borrowed" themes doesn't put me off all that much, but I do think his point would ruffle a few feathers in the evangelical church down the street where people are still clinging to the BIble in a vaccum sealed tube that they can carry with them like God in a box.
i think your point does matter trevor. i just think it matters differently than how i was taking you to mean it (and forgive me if i was reading you wrong). i felt like your statement about yoga not being bad if it brings one closer to God was implying that because the Bible is so human, then human things and practices are elevated to a near-equal plane as the Bible, as sources of revelation, etc. I feel that Colleen and el maggie are implying this as well, but i'd be happy to hear them clarify.
On the contrary, I think the humanness of the Bible coincides quite nicely with the humanness of Jesus, but this doesn't make Jesus and I equal. If Jesus is the image of God, the word made flesh, and the Bible is his directed and inspired self-testimony from ages past, then its humanness is important but doesn't nullify the crucial question: Yeah, but is it divinely inspired? If it is divinely inspired, why is it so human? If it isn't, then who cares (other than to place it on the shelf with other good resources, and to pull it out if it helps our yoga).
I think the discussion on Dustin's post is all about this. The Bible is God's special revelation, but it is still so deeply intertangled with humanity (all the way from writing to reading to interpreting) that it could only have come from the God who is himself so graciously intertangled with humanity from start to finish. In this sense it is a very special miracle, and I love it.
sorry it takes me so long to say what i'm trying to say. that's what i think is at stake here. i don't mean to be argumentative. i think a major problem in the evangelical churches i've attended is that the Bible is so manipulated and ignored and placed on the shelf underneath other worship practices that give some of the people a better "feel" for God (i.e. music, slide shows of nature, etc). But I rarely, if ever, feel God there. Maybe I do, maybe I don't, but I have very little way of knowing. I feel like most of the people around me are just copping a feel of the transcendent and could care less if it is the Christian God or not.
I can't stand it. And if we can't read our Bible's for any other reason than to quote Psalms 145-150 where it tells us to sing with instruments, then I might as well not even be in church at all.
sorry if i sound a little bitter. but that's what we're here to talk through right?
forgive if my long post causes us to forget dustin's questions. i think those questions were bang on, which explains what got me rambling. i'll try to shut up now.
I feel not at all qualified to post on here, but I think the point of it has nothing to do with qualifications...right? Anyways, I'm finding this discussion helpful. I feel like my faith has gotten a huge kick in the face over the last few months with questions/writings that Trevor has been bringing up, and now with what is being posted here. But it's being built back up again as you guys continue to talk, so that's good. I appreciate how you guys talk with each other. It's refreshing.
Hopefully more people aren't afraid to post their thoughts, even if they aren't scholors like some of you. :) I like hearing what thoughts are out there.
This is a brilliant discussion all, I'm glad it's going on. There are a lot of issues in the air but I think they are all very much connected to the idea of authority and knowledge of God, and whether the Bible works for either of those things.
Here's my question. At what point do we need to talk about submitting ourselves to the tutelage of God? And at what point can we talk about a part of that being the decision to allow the Word (I don't mean the Bible, I mean the Word as in the second person of the Trinity) to speak to us through that humanish document we call the Bible? I agree that the mechanics of this can be difficult, but at some point it is necessary to submit oneself to...well to something at any rate. In such a structure faith precedes the Bible. We believe and then we read. This is, of course, wildly backwards when compared to the modern scientific method, but as that method is almost total bunk when applied to theology I'm okay with that.
This is, in my mind, where Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism (in particular the fundies) get into trouble with the Bible. You can't begin with the Bible as the foundation for all truth and end up in a good place. Isn't it better to begin with God as the foundation for all truth, and then treat the Bible as a special piece of revelation that God has given, mediated by many, many, human beings over a very, very long time?
Post a Comment