As I am trying to think about what I want to say about scripture, I am realizing this may have to be a three or four post process. There is little in the Christian bubble of our world that causes more strife and contention than the nature of scripture, and I guess I understand, it is a pretty important topic.
I guess the place I have to start is by saying what I think scripture is not. There is a word that gets thrown around a lot today that is no where in scripture and in my opinion is supported no where in scripture and that word is "inerrant." People divide over this word and some are labeled as "heretics" because they reject this word. Well I guess I should be labeled the same.
There are several different reasons that I don't buy inerrancy, but I think its important to first discuss what people mean when they claim the bible is inerrant. The opinions on inerrancy are anything but unanimous. Some would say the bible is inerrant because the original manuscripts (the first handwritten texts by the authors) were inerrant, every word, jot and scribble was exactly as God intended and perfect in fact and message. However, over time there were copying errors and pieces lost and added etc, and so since we no longer have any of the original manuscripts, we no longer have it exactly as it was. However, the message is still innerant according to most of those.
Then there are some, albeit probably many fewer and less well-read, that would say that every word and punctuation of today's bibles are exactly as God intended. Some would even go so far as to say that the King James Bible is the only Bible, but I guess no one could read the real Bible before the 1600s...
All that to say, there is some disagreement as to what exactly "innerant" means. However, I would say the majority of Christians in the United States cling tightly to that word. I have some ideas why, but I think that is a discussion for another post. I should probably just say what I think about it and why as quickly as possible and expand on that some later.
Probably my biggest issue with inerrancy is this: God has shown a pattern of working through and with weak people. God has shown a propensity to entrust his treasure to jars of clay. The only place I see God using a perfect agent to get his message to the world, was in the person of Jesus Christ (who is called the word in John 1, and I think he should be understood primarily as "the word" rather than scripture). God shows his greatness by having relationship with flawed people in a flawed world with flawed ideas.
Do I think God could have written a perfect book filled with stories about his relationships with people? Yes. He could have. But do I think he did? Not at all. If it was important to God that scripture be inerrant, if it was so important that his words to people contained no error so much so that he verbally dictated to humans what he wanted written, where he wanted punctuation etc, that he wrote an "inerrant" scripture to begin with, then he would clearly be capable of preserving it in its inerrant state. But the scripture we have in Greek and Hebrew is full of typos and discrepancies, we have a multitude of texts, some very different. I think God is more than capable of preserving a perfect, inerrant text if he wanted to, but since he obviously didn't, then I have to conclude that God thinks people can be saved without an inerrant scripture. Am I missing something?!
Further, the other mistake I believe people make is thinking that the bible is just one big book. It is anything but. There are 66 books in our bible, but those books could have been written at countless times (and I mean countless when you think that Isaiah was probably written in three parts, the Chronicles and Kings were probably compiled over generations, Genesis has four major sources, not to mention the Psalms have 150 chapters, and Psalm 119 could have several authors on its own...) so to think that these books are all homogenous in some way is pretty shortsighted to me. That doesn't even mention all the books that were left out of the canon, but were fairly close to making it in... which I guess I should write about canon at some point...
So, sure there are places in the bible that say things like "all scripture is God breathed" but to pretend that that pertains to all of our bible is borderline dishonest. One of the most basic rules of hermenuetics (bible study) is that a verse means first and foremost what it meant to its original hearers. The early Christians would not have considered Paul's epistles, the gospels and Revelation to be "scripture" yet. They would have considered "scripture" to be the Old Testament. So while we can affirm today that the New Testament is "God breathed" that wouldn't likely have been the original intent. And even then, does that mean that scripture is inerrant? I think not. Not because of any error by God, but because God chose to use fallible humans to be his medium. God worked through people and those people make errors.
Let me say it like this. Say my boss at work says to me, "Chris, we need you to run downtown and get the skid of bananas and take it to the Crossing," and then I turn around and say "Craig, we need to go to DRML and get the bananas and take it to Holly street." I got the same message across, but didn't repeat it exactly as my boss said. That doesn't mean the message is wrong, but it does mean that I didn't convey my boss said without error. He used different words. I think the bible we have today contains God's message for humans. I think it is full of mistakes and errors and some of the historical facts may not be accurate. But I don't think God is all that worried about all that (again, if he was, he would have seen to it that it was preservered without error). I think God is concerned that his basic message gets across. Go pick up the bananas and take them somewhere else. We can get that message even if Noah was only in a boat for 39 days or something like that.
I realize this is woefully incomplete, but I am going to add on to these thoughts and keep this general topic going for awhile. I may have said something in a way I didn't intend, forgive me, correct me, whatever, but I think this is an extremely important topic to consider and mull over. Again, I am probably wrong about a lot of things I think, I just don't know which I'm wrong about and which I'm not. What do you think about inerrancy?
12.24.2008
12.18.2008
God
I've been thinking a lot about the direction I want to go with this, to begin with, and I think the most important place to start is with God. I considered the bible, but I think for me, I want to start with God. A lot of what I believe about God begins in the bible, but some of it does not come from the bible. I am having a little trouble crystallizing in my head how and why I think this is most important, but here goes.
If we believe that God inspired the bible, then we must also believe that God is trustworthy. If God is not trustworthy, then it wouldn't matter if he inspired the bible or not, because he could just do something else. So, if God is trustworthy, then he is also good. If God is good, then we can know some things based merely upon his character, such as, God will not do things that go against his nature. In a manner of speaking, God has a certain code that he himself knows and he upholds. God refuses to do those things that violate that code.
In addition, God adheres to simple laws of logic. I am not sure how it works, but it must. If not then God could not be trustworthy. I am not sure if God follows those laws because he must or because he chooses to. What I do know, is if God does not follow rules of logic then God cannot be trusted. What I mean is this. (I believe this is called the law of noncontradiction) God cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. What that means, is God cannot both love and hate someone in the same time and in the same sense. God cannot make a square circle. God cannot make a black thing white at the same time and in the same sense. I realize this is a difficult concept, but it is worth grasping (not that I have really done anything to grasp it, but I did learn at the feet of Wallace Roark, who is about a billion times better at explaining this than I am).
Anyway, this may seem like common sense, and it may seem very obvious, but as I think through the rest of what I think about theology, I find this simple principle even more important and even further taken for granted by some. God is trustworthy, and God is logical. This means that our concept of God should be trustworthy and logical.
I realize the common attacks against this point of view. Why would you say that God cannot do something? I guess my response would be "Could God be evil?" or "Could God lie?" There are certain limitations within God, whether chosen by him or inherent in his nature. I believe logic is one such limitation. The other common objection is that sometimes we don't know God's point of view about things, so while it may seem like a contradiction to us, it isn't to God. While most of the time I think that is a cop-out, I guess sometimes it holds some weight. My problem with it is that it becomes a catch-all for anything that could disrupt someone's picture of God. People will say with a straight face that God has done or wants certain things done while also affirming that his character is against them. It seems at that point a person must question his view of God. But many times this is simply a way for people to affirm what they want to affirm without any logical consistency. In some rare occurences, I think its right that God works in ways and does things that we don't understand. However, I don't think it is often. God has given us incredible reasoning capabilities and has explained who he is and how he works a good deal of the time.
I realize the majority of the five of you that read this won't really like this post, but I think Grant will probably have a few things to say about it. Also, I realize this isn't riveting stuff, but I think it becomes really relevant as we move to certain other discussions.
If we believe that God inspired the bible, then we must also believe that God is trustworthy. If God is not trustworthy, then it wouldn't matter if he inspired the bible or not, because he could just do something else. So, if God is trustworthy, then he is also good. If God is good, then we can know some things based merely upon his character, such as, God will not do things that go against his nature. In a manner of speaking, God has a certain code that he himself knows and he upholds. God refuses to do those things that violate that code.
In addition, God adheres to simple laws of logic. I am not sure how it works, but it must. If not then God could not be trustworthy. I am not sure if God follows those laws because he must or because he chooses to. What I do know, is if God does not follow rules of logic then God cannot be trusted. What I mean is this. (I believe this is called the law of noncontradiction) God cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. What that means, is God cannot both love and hate someone in the same time and in the same sense. God cannot make a square circle. God cannot make a black thing white at the same time and in the same sense. I realize this is a difficult concept, but it is worth grasping (not that I have really done anything to grasp it, but I did learn at the feet of Wallace Roark, who is about a billion times better at explaining this than I am).
Anyway, this may seem like common sense, and it may seem very obvious, but as I think through the rest of what I think about theology, I find this simple principle even more important and even further taken for granted by some. God is trustworthy, and God is logical. This means that our concept of God should be trustworthy and logical.
I realize the common attacks against this point of view. Why would you say that God cannot do something? I guess my response would be "Could God be evil?" or "Could God lie?" There are certain limitations within God, whether chosen by him or inherent in his nature. I believe logic is one such limitation. The other common objection is that sometimes we don't know God's point of view about things, so while it may seem like a contradiction to us, it isn't to God. While most of the time I think that is a cop-out, I guess sometimes it holds some weight. My problem with it is that it becomes a catch-all for anything that could disrupt someone's picture of God. People will say with a straight face that God has done or wants certain things done while also affirming that his character is against them. It seems at that point a person must question his view of God. But many times this is simply a way for people to affirm what they want to affirm without any logical consistency. In some rare occurences, I think its right that God works in ways and does things that we don't understand. However, I don't think it is often. God has given us incredible reasoning capabilities and has explained who he is and how he works a good deal of the time.
I realize the majority of the five of you that read this won't really like this post, but I think Grant will probably have a few things to say about it. Also, I realize this isn't riveting stuff, but I think it becomes really relevant as we move to certain other discussions.
12.14.2008
Orthodoxy
I have been thinking for awhile that I would like to do some posts about basic theology. The main reason is because I no longer write papers for school. I think sometimes that causes my brain to get a little soft. I would like to sharpen it up a bit more. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of getting some feedback on my beliefs. I will try to write in a balanced way, but of course I will support what I believe the best I can. I also am not writing this for a grade, so it isn't going to be as polished as some would prefer. I probably won't go to the trouble of supporting everything I write with specific scripture. So, feel free to stumble through my thoughts with me, feel free to comment, I have begun to moderate comments for awhile to hopefully eliminate ridiculousness. Its ok to disagree with me, its not ok to believe that you are the final authority on what is scriptural and what is not.
So, all that to say, this first post will be sort of introductory. Again, I don't think I am teaching a class or anything like that, but really trying to get my own thoughts together.
So, I was trying to think of where to go with all of this, where to begin and whatnot, and I think the best place to start is to consider "orthodoxy." Now, typically that word means something like "right thinking" or "correct doctrine" or something along those lines. There are a lot of different ways people define orthodoxy, and there are a lot of different doctrines that become a part of it. There is no singular set of beliefs that all of Christendom has agreed on, in fact, there is a good deal of disagreement among Christians about what is orthodox and what is not. Of course, a large contingent here in the United States (and I would guess abroad too, but can't say because I don't live there) that believes that they alone are orthodox.
This can become problematic, however, because nearly everyone disagrees on certain aspects of theology. Even if a person hasn't clearly thought through all of their own theology, they might be full of inner contradictions. So what should we do? Just continually split churches and denominations until we are all alone in our "orthodox" single person churches? I think not. So what is the answer? Where do we go when we disagree on important aspects of theology?
I think scripturally, and throughout church history, we see one prevailing thing about orthodoxy, it is less important than "orthopraxy." I think, here I should explain a little more what orthopraxy is. Orthopraxy is simply right practice, or doing the right thing. There are a few disagreements on what is permissible and what is not among Christians, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the major aspects of living a right lifestyle. Things like being generous, helping the poor, love, fidelity, faithfulness, kindness are all things that are clearly good. So, I think when we look at the Christian church, orthodoxy should take a backseat to orthopraxy.
Jesus talks a lot more about what things a person ought to do, what things they ought not to do, how they should live etc, than he talks about right belief. Of course, we should strive for both, but I think our entrance into the kingdom of God is much more contingent upon our orthopraxy than our orthodoxy. God knows himself exhaustively, and since we are very finite, we can only know him in part. He does not expect us to have a perfect and correct knowledge of him, he does expect us to live in obedience. This all relates to faith really. Faith is not so much believing the right thing, but trusting in it and doing something about it.
Of course, to those who wrote the bible and those who originally read it, there could have been no distinction. They did not acknowledge something with their minds and deny it with their lives. Theology to the early Christians was first about practice and second about belief. But they were intertwined, they were inextricable. To many today, we acknowledge God with our minds and mouths, but our hands and feet deny him.
I don't know how well I put my thoughts out here, but I don't feel like rewriting it all right now. Feel free to blog, I will publish it unless it is rude or something like that.
So, all that to say, this first post will be sort of introductory. Again, I don't think I am teaching a class or anything like that, but really trying to get my own thoughts together.
So, I was trying to think of where to go with all of this, where to begin and whatnot, and I think the best place to start is to consider "orthodoxy." Now, typically that word means something like "right thinking" or "correct doctrine" or something along those lines. There are a lot of different ways people define orthodoxy, and there are a lot of different doctrines that become a part of it. There is no singular set of beliefs that all of Christendom has agreed on, in fact, there is a good deal of disagreement among Christians about what is orthodox and what is not. Of course, a large contingent here in the United States (and I would guess abroad too, but can't say because I don't live there) that believes that they alone are orthodox.
This can become problematic, however, because nearly everyone disagrees on certain aspects of theology. Even if a person hasn't clearly thought through all of their own theology, they might be full of inner contradictions. So what should we do? Just continually split churches and denominations until we are all alone in our "orthodox" single person churches? I think not. So what is the answer? Where do we go when we disagree on important aspects of theology?
I think scripturally, and throughout church history, we see one prevailing thing about orthodoxy, it is less important than "orthopraxy." I think, here I should explain a little more what orthopraxy is. Orthopraxy is simply right practice, or doing the right thing. There are a few disagreements on what is permissible and what is not among Christians, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the major aspects of living a right lifestyle. Things like being generous, helping the poor, love, fidelity, faithfulness, kindness are all things that are clearly good. So, I think when we look at the Christian church, orthodoxy should take a backseat to orthopraxy.
Jesus talks a lot more about what things a person ought to do, what things they ought not to do, how they should live etc, than he talks about right belief. Of course, we should strive for both, but I think our entrance into the kingdom of God is much more contingent upon our orthopraxy than our orthodoxy. God knows himself exhaustively, and since we are very finite, we can only know him in part. He does not expect us to have a perfect and correct knowledge of him, he does expect us to live in obedience. This all relates to faith really. Faith is not so much believing the right thing, but trusting in it and doing something about it.
Of course, to those who wrote the bible and those who originally read it, there could have been no distinction. They did not acknowledge something with their minds and deny it with their lives. Theology to the early Christians was first about practice and second about belief. But they were intertwined, they were inextricable. To many today, we acknowledge God with our minds and mouths, but our hands and feet deny him.
I don't know how well I put my thoughts out here, but I don't feel like rewriting it all right now. Feel free to blog, I will publish it unless it is rude or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
