This is a review of The Human Faces of God--What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong by Thom Stark. It's also a request to Christians: admit that the Bible is a mess and stop passing on its toxicity to us.
Thom Stark begins his book like this: "In the beginning was the Argument, and the Argument was with God, and the Argument was: God. God was the subject of the Argument, and the Argument was a good one. Who is God? What is God like? What does God require of us?"
Stark shows that the Bible isn't just self-contradictory on a few historical details but that within the pages of the Bible is an argument and not just an argument with the outside world: The Bible is an argument with itself.
The writers of scripture had different views about how to understand suffering, justice, and national identity. They had contending answers to the Big Questions.
If you think that all Christians are fundamentalists think again. Stark represents a growing number of Christians becoming more and more vocal in response to the fundamentalist Far Right hijacking of the Christian faith. If you want to see what an intelligent, informed, and, most importantly, self-critical Christianity looks like, read this book.
Christians who believe that the Bible is without error and internally consistent are the victims of an ancient elitist cover-up. An "inerrantist" is someone who believes that the Bible is without error in everything that it affirms. Stark exposes the circularity of such "Bible-is-without-error" fundamentalist "logic." He calls out the double standards Evangelicals employ when defending their doctrines. Stark shows how the doctrine of biblical inerrancy actually works against Evangelicals, by undermining basic theistic tenets such as free will and divine sovereignty.
Stark looks at Jesus and shows how and why the apocalyptic worldview developed that today we see full blown in the Left Behind novels. Stark then argues that if the Gospels are right, then Jesus was wrong.
Stark shows that on more than one occasion, Jesus predicted that a worldwide "judgment day" would occur within the lifetime of his contemporaries. Stark provides thorough refutations of various apologetic attempts to help Jesus save face, including twelve pages devoted to discrediting Bishop N. T. Wright's fanciful interpretations of Jesus' end-of-the-world predictions.
How does Stark achieve reimaging a Christianity that might actually do some good? He rejects the bedrock of Far Right evangelical "faith" in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy that dictates that the Bible, being "inspired by God" is without error in everything that it affirms--historically, scientifically, and theologically.
Stark's book is an argument against that doctrine, and it is an argument in favor of a different, more ancient way of reading the books that comprise the Bible.
Here's Stark's conclusion:
The scriptures are not infallible. Jesus was not infallible--or, if he was, we have no access to his infallibility. So where is our foundation? Upon what do we build our worldview, our ethics, our politics and our morality? The answer is that there is no foundation. There is no sure ground upon which to build our institutions. And that is a good thing. That is what I call grace.
An infallible Jesus, just like a set of infallible scriptures, is ultimately just a shortcut through our moral and spiritual development. To have a book or a messenger dropped from heaven, the likes of which is beyond the reach of all human criticism, is a dangerous shortcut. It is no wonder humans have always attempted to create these kinds of foundations. And it is a revelation of God's character, from my perspective, that cracks have been found in each and every one of those foundations. (P. 207)
If you want to be informed about what the Bible really says and how Christianity came into existence -- if you want to know how to respond to Evangelicals trying to convert you to their brand of fundamentalism, read this book. If you're a former Evangelical, or a former Christian, who gave up on faith because you just couldn't reconcile your moral and intellectual integrity with the mythology and immorality-touted-as-righteousness that is pervasive throughout the Bible, then read this book.
If Stark is right about the Bible's limitations then maybe God feels slandered by the Bronze Age-to-Roman era "biography" of Him that, it turns out (judging by the insanity that makes up so much of the Bible) wasn't an authorized biography -- let alone "inspired" after all.
To reject the "absolute truth" of the Bible is not necessarily to reject Christianity, let alone God. Or put it this way, the best of any religious tradition depends on the choices by its adherents on how to live despite their holy books, not because of them.
Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of PATIENCE WITH GOD: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism) now in paperback
Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer
Fr. Peter-Michael Preble: Judgment Day: An Orthodox Christian Perspective
Mark Morford: Jesus Will See You Now
So why not join the Secular Humanist movement and be done with the Bronze Age mythology?
Yahweh seems like a pretty incompetent communicator if he isn't able to tell people what he wants them to know without it devolving into a mess of contradictions and just so stories doesn't he?
If the Gospels are wrong, did Jesus really die and rise from the dead?
If you reject the "absolute truth" of the Bible, then it becomes a man made book, written by flawed men, ancient men that did not know true works of God from wonders of nature. You don't know which parts are true and not true. The stories become myths instead of truths. I think that if you are to be a Christian, fundamentalism is the only thing that makes sense. Since miracles don't happen today, and God does not show himself to us, then all we have is the Bible to tell us the story. If that story is flawed, then the God of the Bible does not exist.
If you reject the "absolute truth" of The Bible, what you reject is the idea of a Once And For All Times, Revealed Absolute Truth...and that God intended for our understanding to remain mired at the level it was at the end of the Iron Age. If you want to see what kind of mischief that kind of thinking can cause, look at what radical Islam is doing. That is what fundamentalism mixed with self-righteous aggression creates.
A healthier way of looking at the Bible, imo, is to see it as an EVOLUTION in one society's understanding of God. From the angry, mercurial tribal God who rewards His chosen people, and smites their enemies and the wicked of the Old Testament....to the loving embodiment of Unconditional Love and Redemption that Jesus puts forward in the New Testament. As the understanding of God grows from tribal protector of the Israelites, to a truly Universal Presence.
....and that this evolution in understanding continues to this very day.
Perhaps God does show himself to us...but doesn't do so by suspending the Laws of Nature....but in our determined (if inelegant) desire to treat one another better. Myths are truths spoken to the Heart....rather than the Head.
That God does exist...and the God of the Bible represents one society's (limited) ancient understanding of an Essence that is far to great to be pigeon-holed in the ways we have tried to do so in ages past.
Just consider that the ways of looking at God may be equally as valid.
Is that not the essence of Mystery?
Maybe all that comes in between is showcasing the mighty struggle to uncover that perfection by eradicating evil within, including our mistaken views of God and man (the mist that came over the earth). The Bible stories can then be seen as examples of that struggle for others which were never intended to suggest that their faults should be taken as dogma but are just examples we can relate to. Each epoch had its great light to guide it -- Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Elisah, and smaller lights (Daniel, David, etc. etc.) culminating in Jesus and his followers -- with some lights brighter (or more perfect) than others. After all, how could we ever hope to get back the original perfection if our only examples were perfection. We'd say - okay fine, that perfect person could do it, but I can't! No, when Peter denies Christ, we can relate to that.
Let the angry comments fly!
Few know the difference; this author can count himself as one of the many.
The human mind is interesting phenomenon.
Once the mind thinks it knows and its beliefs are valid, then that mind will defend those beliefs almost at all costs. Religion and politics are two examples of this; also atheism and their materialistic beliefs.
When one challenges those cherished beliefs accepted as valid beliefs beyond questioning then when questioned; the ego mind will attack with personal insults.
The journey of being a sincere seeker is over when we identify with religious beliefs, political beliefs, or materialistic beliefs; also communist, socialist, or capitalist beliefs.
Nature has created an interesting species with the human species, full of ignorance but also with great potential.
This author like most makes and evaluates a God made in the image of humans. I.e. an ego thing.
Jesus is given credit for making some profound statements I have found few that understand those teachings. Certainty most ministers don’t, they are too caught up in the sacrifice thing.
Few if any will understand this statement but the Buddha saw our human ignorance where Jesus saw innocence as the underlying reality of our very Being. The original sin teachings are as profound of ignorance as one can imagine but humans take to culpability, guilt and sin like a duck takes to water.
Have a nice day and let the personal attacks begin. :-)
Jesus never taught the notion of Original Sin...that is a Catholic doctrine. Instead both avatars saw human nature as being a fundamental extension of Divine Nature...but that is clouded over with misunderstanding...fears that result from that misunderstanding...and harmful actions that result from compulsions brought on by that fear.
The Buddha sought to heal this by training the mind to see Reality more clearly, then using that clarity to manage the Emotions. Wisdom begets Universal Compassion. Jesus took the opposite tack. Using Universal Compassion (Unconditional Love) to encourage people to see one another more clearly, and thus change the Mind. Universal Compassion begets Wisdom.
Which is why I believe Zen master Thich Nhat Hahn said it best, "An enlightened Buddhist is a Christian, and a mature Christian is a Buddhist." Because both wind up embodying the Wisdom of the Awakened Mind, togehter with the Universal Compassion of the Awakened Heart. They just taken diffrent routes getting to the same destination.
Could this be the real problem? The separation between us and him? What's at the basis of this separation? Where does it come from? Why don't people ask these questions? And when they ask them why don't they find answers?
I would posit there is no religion until people have a clear picture of the difference between humanity and Jesus. And the problem lies within each and every individual. How can you be religious when you're only protecting your own wrongness all through life, without any awareness of the practice?
That is the deadlock that has confronted man in his effort to be religious.
Faith by its very definition does not follow any sort of rationale. So no rational argument could possibly apply whatever particular denomination you subscribe to.
You can quote whatever verse you like - in the end you must admit that your belief in some sort of divinity much less the divinity described in Judeo/Islamic/Christian has no basis in fact whatsoever. If that is true what is the merit of an argument? It is like debating exactly how many pixies appear at midnight - there are no pixies but if you subscribe to the notion that there are you might as well pick any number.
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
If humanity is supposed to be God's children, the way he fathers is far too brutal for me. I would not treate my children so carelessly.
And if only the "saved" Christians are God's children and are domed to hell, I find God worse than brutal to create sentient beings but condemn most of them to hell for something over which they had no control. Monstrous.
Voilà ! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.
And Frank Shaeffer understands the disappointments that bring a person from belief to disbelief, and the heartache that change engenders. He understands the cruelty of those who verbally consign him to the pits of hell and those who are purely dismissive and unhearing.
Coming to the conclusion that you do not believe is worse than finding out you are gay. People would sooner welcome a gay person than an atheist or an agnostic who dares to express his or her questions openly.
True Believers (TM) are often dismissive of anyone who does not think likewise, or who questions the faith. Questioning inerrancy is a heinous crime, unforgivable by many. Frank didn't simply choose to disbelieve it. He had his reasons. It took time, evidence, and the decisions were not easy ones.
Many posters dismiss what Frank has written, rather than inquiring about his motivations and understandings.
Dialog isn't threatening if your faith is substantial and solid. Knowing why a person doubts can direct study to find truth, framing good answers instead of platitudes -- possibly increasing faith. A doubter could be led to faith, but it won't happen without dialog and respect. Many believers could benefit from honest dialog without sneering, disrespect or off-hand scripture quoting. Find out why others believe what they do. That's what you want from others.
"True Believers (TM) are often dismissive of anyone who does not think likewise, or who questions the faith." I think you're confusing two issues here- that of the nonbeliever, who can still come to believe but has not yet, and people like Schaeffer, who believed at one time but no longer do so. It's our JOB as Christians to talk to those in the first group, but what do you say to people in the second, who already know that message but have specifically rejected it? And by the way, I would say that the tone of your writing is a bit dismissive, isn't it? It's hard to argue for something you're not willing to part with yourself.
Perhaps you've had bad experiences with Christians in dialog before- if so, that's unfortunate. However, any scientist would tell you that personal experience alone is insufficient for conclusion. And there are some who want to debate for its own sake. In my experience, it's enough to say, "That's what the Bible says, and you'll have to accept it or not on your own."