"Not all the Bible may be fact, but it is all TRUTH"Several people in his comments section mentioned they didn't want to touch this quote with the proverbial ten-foot pole and I don't see what the big deal is with this statement. Maybe I'm clueless and don't understand the ramifications.
Personally, I think the statement is 100% accurate and that does not change my faith in anyway. I do not see any impact in my faith if the world was not created in 6 literal days or if it took millions of years. Either way, I believe God directed it. It is irrelevant to me if Job was a real man or if that is complete work of fiction. The truth of who God is through His interactions with Job do not change.
While on the subject of Job, personally, I believe that it is a play based on a true story. In other words, there was a very wealthy man who lost everything and did not curse God. But, just like our Hollywood writers will take literary licensee when dramatizing a true-life story, the author of Job did the same thing. Even though it is fiction, does not keep it from being truth.
That is actually why some books are classics. Because they tell the truth of humanity in a fictional way. The ones that do that, endure the ages. Shakespearean plays are fiction, but the endure because they contain truths. The Bible uses many different forms of literature to tell the story of God and His relationship with His people. Some forms of literature lend themselves to metaphorical and exaggerated language (apocalyptic, legends, and poetry). Some lend themselves to hard facts (narratives and chronicles of history). Some lend themselves to generalizations (proverbs and poetry).
Then, when you add on to that, that many of the stories of the Bible were passed down by oral tradition, you understand immediately that they may be inaccurate from what actually happened. Everyone of us has played the "telephone" game as children and found it hilarious how a simple phrase, whispered from participant to participant gets mangled. How much faith can you have in complex stories passed down over hundreds and thousands of years when a simple phrase can't maintain its integrity for 10 minutes?
Then, the scriptures have been hand-copied over many generations with not one piece of any original surviving. Once again, opening up the avenue of human error in transcribing. Next, scriptures have been translated and retranslated many, many times. Translation is an inaccurate science where interpretation takes place. Once again, giving a little crack for human error to enter into the picture. Finally, men have to interpret what scripture means and history has shown us that we have interpreted incorrectly in the past (anyone remember that Christians used to make a biblical case for slavery and segregation). All of these things show the fallibility of scripture.
Now, this does not mean I don't think the Bible is important. Quite the contrary. One of the things that I am so proud of about my religious heritage (Church of Christ) is its dependence and reliance on scripture. It has bothered me for years that our current practice has moved us away from this tradition (our teens at my church know squat about scripture). I am proud that my home church is seeking to recapture this dependence through programs like the "66 Club," where children are encouraged to memorize not only the books of the Bible, but the 23rd Psalm and the Lord's Prayer. However, my faith is not in scripture. My faith is the Author. My faith is not in a set of interpretations of scripture. My faith is the Person of scripture. I realized long ago that scripture was not perfect (despite what I had been taught I Corinthians 13:10)*. Scripture is a tool to help us understand God, but it is not a replacement for God.
So, if your faith is in the Bible, then I could see how Rob Bell's statement could make you uncomfortable and I could see how disproving a "fact" of the Bible could indeed shake your faith. But, if your faith is in God, then a "fact" about the Bible that may not be accurate does not change your view of God. Now, like I said earlier, Bell's statement does not seem to be a big deal to me...but, then I just may be clueless.
*Note: My church heritage does not believe that spiritual gifts exist today and use this scripture as the crux of their argument. Basically, they believe that since we have scripture, then we don't need the gifts anymore. "The perfect" that came and removed the need for gifts was the New Testament. This interpretation was actually the "turning point" in my own faith exploration. I remember reading this scripture and saying to myself that if scripture were indeed perfect, then there would not be so many divisions over the interpretation of scripture. Therefore, the scriptures can't be perfect. Maybe they mean perfect as in "complete" instead of "without flaw." However, it is clear that the scriptures are not complete. There are lots of holes (also causing divisions). So, scripture is neither flawless nor complete, then my heritage misinterpreted this passage and spiritual gifts do indeed exist. I then had to start re-reading and question everything I had been taught. This is something I continually do. I am no longer afraid of not having the answer. I am comfortable questioning, seeking, striving to understand more.
3 comments:
One thing to consider... This post concludes any future employment you may have ever desired back in the church. I don;t know if you ever desire to work in a church again....
I will not touch it, because the ideas will haunt you and be used gainst you!
I respect you courage. I am actually working on a response that will be fair and present plausible defense.
The quote presents an interesting notion, one that certainly has a strong bearing on the emphasis of the Holy Spirit as a vital guide for all Christians. Pascal discusses a similar concept (I think—it’s been a while), but he suggests that many Christians fully devoted to Christ and His Father’s will can act according to His will without the benefit of Scripture; of course, having once read the Scriptures, they then have an “ah ha” moment: “Yes, of course! That makes perfect sense.” Yet I wish to pose a question that draws directly on the problem of God’s actions within finite human existence time—how much of what occurs is a result of God’s direct interference? (I don’t really like “interference,” but you get my meaning … hopefully.) If one suggests that God is active within human affairs (and still is active), then how much of current, traditional Scripture is a result of his intervention? … A hop, skip, and a jump away: has “Scripture” ended?
An.
If I ever work in a church again I pray it will be when I am financially independent and am able to go minister where I am sent. Our whole "methodology" of getting ministers to churches is (I believe) an anathema to the way God designed it (an interview process...please...it is not a job and it is not for man to decide who ministers where...also, that kind of process makes it seem as if the minister works for the members of the congregation instead of for the Lord). Also, I would have a hard time working with someone who thinks they can judge my theology based on a 500 word blog entry. I would like to think that my theology is a little bit more nuanced than that. For instance, I did not (nor will I here) speak to how I think the Holy Spirit works in this entire conversation because I haven't the time to properly put into words those thoughts.
I did indeed think about the future consequences of writing it, though. Not in terms of being employed at a church, but in terms of teaching Bible classes, leading Small Group, and (prayerfully) one day being a shepherd.
However, I have to rely on the fact that anybody who knows me personally understands the deep respect I have for Scripture and knows my personal dependence on its truths. I reiterate that it is vital to know and study Scripture. It is our sword and we must be trained to use it effectively. We, as Christians, must hone that skill and be biblically literate. Bible literacy is far more important than secular literacy, mathematical literacy, and other secular skills and knowledge we profess as important.
My point is that, if we have a faith in God and not in our understandings or scripture, I just don't see what the big faith-crisis would be if we suddenly discovered that Noah's flood was only a regional event instead of a global one. The facts of that oral legend are irrelevant compared the truth of God's grace and God's promise. I don't see what the big deal is if we somehow discover that there were not ten plagues in Egypt. The truth of God's deliverance is still a miracle and still relevant.
Truth and true are not synonyms. Something can be fictitious and still be Truth ("Give a Mouse a Cookie" is totally fictitious, but still contains Truth). Something can be factually true and still not contain Truth. That is why we have to place our faith in God, not in a book written by men (although inspired by God), translated by men, and interpreted by men. I will even go on record saying that I believe there are inspired writings outside of the canon, such as C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." (They are few and far in-between...but they exist).
BTW...you think my presentation is not fair? I thought it was very balanced. And what are you going to plausibly defend? I eagerly await your thoughts.
Post a Comment