Wednesday, 23 April 2025

How should Christians respond to uncertainties over Bible meaning, translation, historical context etc?

Over the past more than two centuries; Christians have been assailed by doubts induced by various forms of scholarship, legalism, logic, etc. applied to the evidences of Christianity, and the guidance of Christian churches. 

For instance; there may be real or apparent contradictions in what the Bible teaches on a subject; what it means; or disputes over correct scriptural translation, and about historical context. 

These disputes tend to induce doubts and threaten faith. Yet, in a pluralist and net-secular society - such challenges cannot really be ignored: they have their effect willy-nilly; and that effect has been overwhelmingly corrosive


It is, I think, by-now clear that engaging in disputes over detailed issues concerning texts, goes nowhere good. 

Such disputes do not reach stable resolutions; and one question answered leads to several more that need addressing. Bible scholarship becomes a job, not a vocation. Bible translations proliferate without end - meanings multiply. Authorities differ, and keep on differing.

So, I would say that when confronted by a challenge over detail, do not respond by arguing over that detail; but instead rise above the dispute towards first principles


Do not get drawn into technical disputes over scriptural detail, history, language etc; but rise to the level of what you know - what you are sure about - and argue from this higher level.


For instance, if you know and are sure that God is good and loves us each as his children - then that will tell you much about what He would do - and not do; regardless of wrangles over sources. 

If you know and are sure that Jesus brought the chance of choosing eternal resurrected life to those who would "follow" him, then you need not be confused by apparent contradictions between Gospels, or parts of Gospel, or with the Epistles...

We need not be confused because we can rise above such uncertainties and ambiguities to where we are sure and clear about the nature and work of Jesus.   


Rather than discussing what Jesus did, or did not, actually say and mean in a particular passage or specific situation... Rather than attending to the reliability of witnesses, translators, corruptions of text, mistakes of interpretation etc...

Instead we may know Jesus, and know what he did for us; so then we can rise above all this detail, and instead discuss what Jesus wants from us. 

We can regard scripture as illustrative, or not - because our faith has a higher, simpler, and wholly comprehensible basis. 


And we can do the same (mutatis mutandis) for theology, church authority, tradition and any other potential source of Christian knowledge - we can and should rise above disputes, debates, wranglings...

Christians must, somehow, deal with endless and probing challenges from multiple sources. 

But we need not fight these battles on ground of the enemies choosing - such as scholarship and technical expertise...

We can instead choose to fight in the lucid upper airs of first principles. 


5 comments:

Derek Ramsey said...

It has *not* been my experience that technical "disputes" are especially doubt-inducing or threatening to faith . IMO, most disagreements center around unspoken assumptions. I don't get the most conflict in disagreeing with people on theology, but with trying to get them to think about *why* they believe what they believe.

I've had many productive and cordial conversations with people over "scriptural detail, history, language, etc" without it being a true dispute. I've found these to be helpful in narrowing in on what I can be sure about.

It's the meta-level, not object-level, disputes that I find especially troublesome.

Stephen Macdonald said...

This post concisely establishes the sane and healthy way to be Christian. I was nodding along with each phrase, almost word by word.

This post strikes me as inspired, so important a lesson does it teach.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Derek - Thanks for that perspective.

As someone who spent most of his life not being Christian, this is how I think non-Christians see the problem.

And, as a matter of observable fact, I think that the close reading and study of scripture demonstrably fails either to resolve sincere disagreements, or to achieve stable consensus.

As a personal behaviour in a life of faith - such activity may, nonetheless, be very valuable and even vital, for some people.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Stephen - I'm very glad to hear your response. It was not an enjoyable post to write, but I felt rather "driven" to do it. Perhaps I can now see why this happened.

Derek Ramsey said...

Bruce, that's a good point. Most of my interaction is with Christians. But my interactions with atheists bears out your observation. I conclude, therefore, that theology *must* be downstream of an existing foundation of faith, not its cause.