I think most Christians, but perhaps especially Protestants, have experienced doubts about the role of The Bible in their faith.
On the one hand, it seems to be the core evidence concerning Jesus Christ's life, work and his teachings. On the other hand; it also seems intrinsically unsatisfactory for so much to hinge upon A Book.
There are just So many problems with this! So many questions that need to be answered, if we are to pin everything that is most important upon A Book. .
Which particular question strikes each person as most significant varies. Since modern Man developed greater self-awareness and a compulsively questioning consciousness, matters which previous generations simply "took for granted" becomes doubtful.
Modern Man exists (as a fact of his existence) in a mind-space outside his own culture, and indeed alienated from himself. This reality can only be avoided by not-thinking about it, by not-taking-responsibility - and - here-and-now, in a secular and materialist culture - not-thinking leads away from Christianity. As has been the clear trend for more than two centuries.
There are, of course, matters of the constraints of communication, and relating to language, translation textual accuracy; and the problem of understanding meaning, when what is written is in the context a different culture with different expectations, knowledge and assumptions.
For me, the most personally significant doubts are more fundamental; and begin with the questions of who compiled the Bible, on what principles, and with what authority to decide both the content and arrangement?
Even more fundamentally, how and why was the role of the Bible in Christian faith decided, and on what grounds?
My point is neither to assert that doubts about the Bible need to be fatal, nor to provide pseudo-objective answers to the multiplicity of problems; but instead to emphasize that the whole question of "The Bible" inevitably and unavoidably leads back to each individual person (you and me) making assumptions.
We can choose to take our assumptions from external sources, but which external source, and which grounds for choice we find compelling, will itself entail assumptions.
Personal assumptions are inescapable in both the aspects of being personal and being an assumption hence a choice - although this reality can be, and often is, denied!
The Bible does not make a Christian; rather the Christian makes The Bible, or rather A Bible.
His Bible is another Mans Bible to very widely variable degrees, and in many various ways.
Indeed, The Bible is optional to Christian faith*. A Man might follow Christ to resurrected eternal life without knowing The Bible; or this might be a choice.
For me, all of this means that there is no objective basis for The Bible; and its usage and value are ultimately rooted in personal faith.
And what doubts apply to The Bible, and the necessity for personal assumptions, applies (mutatis mutandis) to each and all of the sources of Christian knowledge, including the self-identified Christian churches, theology and philosophy, and such academic disciplines as history.
In the end, I think we reach the conclusion that The Bible cannot be the basis of Christian faith; unless, and only in such ways as, we have personally assumed - and thereby made it such.
*It seems obvious to me that God the Creator and our loving Father would not have made a world for His children that depended upon each and every one of them having access to a particular book, and reaching a true understanding of that book. (Neither would God have made a world in which salvation depended upon the intermediary of a particular church.) The implication I find inescapable; is that the bottom-line of Christian faith cannot be any-thing external, but can and must be something that is some combination of that which is innate to every Man, and that which happens directly and unmediated between Man and God. Of course, this conviction renders the socio-political aspects of traditional Christianity untenable - which is the reason why so few will accept the obvious... I mean, most Christians are primarily and essentially interested and motivated by the socio-political possibilities of the religion.
4 comments:
I think the Bible first and foremost is a record — not a manual, a constitution, a code or canon, a textbook, an essay, a treatise, a mission statement, or even a revelation — but a record of the people of God's familiar dealings and conversations with their Saviour.
(I do think these texts were largely guided by angels in their composition, and passed down to subsequent generations under their protection.)
The principal utility of the Holy Bible then is memorial or mnemonic (anamnestic) — to preserve the sacred memory of the congregation of believers. Perhaps the most common admonition in the scriptures is along the lines of, "Remember what the LORD worked among your people in the days of old, and the promises he has made to you and your descendants."
Therefore the Bible is primarily a social ('ecclesial') document, and belongs not first to the academics, scholastics, teachers, dogmaticians, mystics, pastors, preachers, or even the privately devout — but to the 'saints' as a whole, to keep their memory and personality (as a people) in tact.
It might be the Jews have a greater appreciation of this fact than Christians. A sorry consequence of the privatisation (and the academicisation, sectarianisation, pietisation, mysticisation, etc.) of the Bible — is that it stifles the Voice of the text in holding us all collectively to account. The Bible does indeed speak quietly and intimately to the conscience of each of us to guide, illumine, teach, inspire, grace, console us — but it also speaks with a very loud voice to God's always ailing, always erring people. Then it's not so much who has the authority to interpret, or the wisdom to discern, or the intelligence to explicate, or the devotion to follow, or the insight to reveal — but who simply has the "ears to hear." Then it comes to look like we've overcomplicated the whole "controversy" surrounding the Bible to avoid the responsibility of hearing it.
@IB - What you say seems valid; but I think you are talking orthogonally to the argument of the post. The deep questions still remain, and they still have a corrosive effect, as they have for more than two centuries.
If God only speaks to us individually and that is all that matters, why are you expressing your opinions and reacting to posts others make (including the Bible).
Sorry if this sounds blunt. I don't mean to antagonize or debate. I've just been reading your posts, find them interesting.
@bmiller - Why? How can that be answered? Why does anybody do anything?
Is there supposed to be one big reason that explains every individual or repeated action of every person?
If I was a solipsist, or believed this world was illusion (Maya), or that everything was meaningless cause and effect leading to personal annihilation - then maybe your question would make sense. Because then my beliefs would negate communication, it would be futile.
But if you know what I believe, then you have your answer.
I have gone to great lengths over about fifteen years to understand for myself why there is a mortal life on this earth and how this relates to the eternal resurrected Heavenly life.
Why do I talk about this process of seeking and learning? Short answer: Because divine creation is about relationships between Beings.
Post a Comment