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.
10 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.
"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."
In practice, the belief that the Bible is the ultimate root is an axiom. But this is not to say that there is no objective basis for it.
As simply as possible, there is much objective historical evidence (and plenty of subjective evidence) to suggest that the words of Jesus and Paul of the New Testament are authentic. They described scripture (the OT and the parts of the NT from which they quoted or referenced) as the scripture and the word of God. So if the evidence is valid, then Jesus himself viewed scripture authoritatively. This is an objective, albeit potentially falsifiable, claim.
@Derek - But that just kicks the can. There must be assumptions about what parts of which books of The Bible are to be regarded as having what level of authority (if any) - and what the words of the Books are based upon. After all, it is only the Fourth Gospel that claims to be an eye witness account by a disciple - and it does not seem that any other part of the NT even knew about the IV Gospel (or else chooses to ignore it). Paul's claims are much more indirect, and he seems often to be working out stuff, logically, from what he regards as first principles. This is also related to the matter of who decided what went into the Bible, and who decides how the Bible ought to be read.
Thanks for the response.
Maybe I understood your post as a conclusion rather than an exploration. What I found confusing was your apparent acceptance of what you believe Jesus taught, yet your skepticism regarding any account (or most accounts?) of what he taught.
As you point out to Derek below, there must be some belief in some assumptions to even get started. You are apparently drawn to the Gospel according to John and I can see why. But wouldn't objections regarding the authority of other books of the NT or Bible as a whole apply John's book too?
As an aside, it has been historically held that John's gospel was written much later than the synoptics and most (all?) of the other books of the NT. So that would explain why the other authors don't seem to have known about it.
@bm "it has been historically held that John's gospel was written much later than the synoptics and most (all?) of the other books of the NT"
Yes, you should ask yourself why that should be!
Especially given that it starkly contradicts the content of the IV Gospel itself (Chapters 1-20), which the same people (usually) claim to believe is inerrantly true.
I state my own assumptions about the IV Gospel, and the reasons I have for them, at the start of "Lazarus Writes", which is linked in the sidebar.
Thanks again for responding. After I posted I searched your past discussions of the IV Gospel and I now understand your reasoning for claiming it is first.
I accept that you think there are stark contradictions between John's gospel and the other NT books and although I don't share your view I acknowledge that is your assumption.
I've seen that you think "modern" biblical critical scholarship is the wrong methodology to use, yet it seems you've rejected all but part of 1 book of the Bible using that methodology. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but why couldn't whatever method you've used to reject all but part of John also be used to reject that part of John also?
If all the other books were corrupted or lost while the Apostles were still alive (or shortly after they died) and no one knew why not this one too? If only this one was miraculously preserved, why would God hide it among the corrupt NT books rather than the Gnostic or Zoroastrian writings? Why would I believe anything at all about what Jesus taught?
My observation is that your view is conclusively skeptical of historic Christianity, but it is exactly historic Christianity that has objectively preserved and transmitted the single book that you think is true. This is what puzzles me about your position.
@bm - I'm not going to try and persuade you I am right. If you want to think it through, then do so - but I am not going to debate my views point by point.
Post a Comment