Earlier this year, I ran a little thought experiment. The results left me wondering whether the combatants in the Bible wars are addressing the wrong question.
I've found myself on both sides of this conflict. As an extreme literalist in high school, I took every word of Holy Writ to be literally true, for all time. Today I see the Bible as the writings of people about God -- people of limited viewpoints and cultural biases and histories -- with vital strands of God's truth and wisdom contained therein.
Granted, these two approaches are more points on a spectrum than polar opposites. In the American public square, however, the opposing sides of the Bible wars -- especially some in the conservative camp -- talk as if there were only two choices. Fact or fiction? Is the Bible factual in every respect, true for all time, or is it not? The conflict has raged for many decades, and it seems irreconcilable.
So let's ask a different question. How much does it matter?
It matters to some extent. If we cannot use the Bible as a guide to truth in some way -- even, for instance, as a validation that God is love -- then it has precious little relevance for us. On the other hand, if true-or-not is the ultimate test of the Christian faith, it leaves the opposing sides with little room for dialogue -- and plenty of room for hostility. That mindset bears little resemblance to the central call of the Christian faith: to love.
Hence my thought experiment: weigh key ideas from the Bible and see what does matter. Here are just a few results.
The sayings of Jesus. The oft-debated question here is, did he actually say them? Taken as the words of Christ, these sayings describe God's unfolding way of inner transformation and conformity to the principles of the "kingdom of God." But even if Jesus never uttered any of them, they convey the same message.
"Jesus died for our sins." Taken literally, this doctrine asserts that God sent Jesus -- God's own child; indeed, God's own self -- as a blood sacrifice to forgive, once and for all, the sins and follies of people everywhere. Gruesome as this sounds to postmodern ears, it speaks compellingly of God's ardent, extravagant, unconditional love for the human race. Hearing it as metaphor, however, we get the same message: how much love must it take for someone to give up the life of her child -- very nearly her own life -- for another?
The Last Judgment. As the Apostles' Creed puts it, God "will come again to judge the living and the dead." Taken literally, it provides a powerful (though fear-based) motivator to get one's soul in order and live for God. Taken metaphorically -- for instance, as a symbol that God comes to us every day, helping us to find the best path for our lives -- it encourages us to get our souls in order and live for God.
The does-it-matter question has its limitations. It's not useful for addressing the whole Bible in one fell swoop, as though we could settle the true-or-not question once and for all. Rather, its most valuable use is at each specific point of conflict. Do our ideas about the Bible matter, for instance, when it comes to same-sex marriage? Do they matter when it comes to the Virgin Birth?
When we ask in this way, we come to see a key reason for the whole question: do my ideas about the Bible matter in the way I live out my life with God? Accordingly, my views on scripture will affect what I think of same-sex marriage because the Bible contains a few (possibly) pertinent references, same-sex marriage is a current cultural issue, I encounter LGBT people in my everyday life, and my church is wrestling with the controversy. As to the Virgin Birth, my best understanding is that I can let go of its historicity because it does not directly affect the way I live for God.
If we approach individual points of conflict in this way, perhaps we can dispense with some of the nasty conflicts of the Bible wars. Perhaps we can stop focusing so intently on what we believe and start focusing on how we live.
And maybe, just maybe, asking the does-it-matter question will allow us to reach across divides. The very act of asking can relax our grip on our preconceived notions. We may never agree, but we can at least entertain the notion that we could be wrong, or that we can set aside our conflict over x doctrine or y belief for the sake of living the life to which Christ calls us. That in itself may open us to treat our "Bible enemies" with more respect and compassion -- something of which the Jesus of the gospels would heartily approve.
Follow John Backman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/backwrite
For me too. It's also confounding and disturbing and begging to be wrestled with--in the presence of the Spirit of God. It's in the context of this wrestling that I suggest the does-it-matter question, in the hopes that it might allow "Bible adversaries" to pause, relax their grip on their own interpretations of scripture, and wrestle with the text together.
Well, not quite. I'm saying we could ask the does-it-matter question as a way to determine what to (in your words) combat aggressively and what to let go. I hope that clarifies my meaning.
Jesus never created a thing, he fulfilled, that’s his words not mine. To understand Jesus at all you must have a good understanding of Old Testament prophecy, especially Isaiah 53. If you do not then you will likely concentrate on the Gospel of John (seeing that it is more based around the theology of Christ instead of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven) and really not understand at all the Gospel of Matthew which is the foundation of Jesus’ being. He died for our sins, he was a sacrifice for the atonement of sins, his blood covers all sin just like the blood of lambs and other animals would cover the sin of an individual Jew. http://www.yahwehyeshua.com
the only thing I care about is that you take your bible and leave me alone . do not use "biblical authority" to try to take over civil government.
Until we get past the idea that these books reveal the truth about god/s we will continue to isolate ourselves into groups. Tribalism is an evolutionary asset that has become a modern problem. Believing that god/s have dictated 'truth' to any one group is destroying us.
I sincerely hope that we can grow as a species to the point where we can take what is good for humans and discard the rest of these 'holy writings' before it's too late.
I think some philosophers might object to that. Or ask that a separate shelf be provided for the atheist philosophers. While some people -- especially theologists -- see a close connection between theology and philosophy, and while there have been many philosophers who were religious believers, and even a couple like Augustine and Aquinas who are considered to be both philosophers and Christian theologians, whenever atheist viewpoints have been allowed to be expressed, the percentage of philosophers who have been atheists, or even downright hostile to religion, has been very high. In Western civilization, for example, up until about AD 400, and then again after 1700, with a few guys in between seeming to urge the readers to read between the lines and see a skepticism to dangerous to the writer to express more openly.
"The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline."
IMO some of the hostility probably originates from the assumption of truth in the texts from their followers as well as the persecution that non-believers face when these religions have power beyond their own congregations.
If we remove the secular power from these texts and treat them just as another writing by human's trying to define our existence then they become less dangerous.
I don't think one necessarily has to follow from the other. As a Christian, I don't see why I cannot read the Qur'an or the Tao te Ching or the Bhagavad Gita for truth about God.
You are a modern Christian. 3-400 yrs ago you would have been labeled a heretic and imprisoned or executed. Ireland just re-upped their blasphemy laws. Some Islamic countries have rioted and endorsed murder over cartoons. Not very enlightened, eh?
"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics." [Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100]
Look at (google) what is happening in Israel with rabbi's refusing to go through parts of town where women are visible, the sabbath laws, removing women from pictures in newspapers, food restrictions, and women on buses. The Hindu caste system implemented as law. I won't even talk about the Islamic theocracies as they have been dissected elsewhere ad nauseum.
Tribalism is inherent. We have to work to get beyond it. Religion is a natural tribal exclusionary system when we allow it. Defanging it is the best way to move beyond the negative.
Philosophy is filled with dead religions.
So consider, say, the audience to whom the Creation Stories (plural) were intended. A tribal people, easily dominated, knowing the creation stories of Babylon and Egypt. Egypt's stories had man created as an accident, borne from the tears of a god. Babylon's stories had man created as slaves to tend God's Garden.
The Creation Stories address both of these issues. The first story, in Genesis 1, puts man at the pinnacle of a Creation God has carefully prepared and planned. No slave, man rules Creation. In the next story, God the Potter molds man, gives him life, acknowledges His creation's needs, plants a garden for man to live in, creates animals, and finally creates Eve as his mate. All things were made for the man.
The creation of demigods and demons is notably absent from the Creation Stories of Scripture. Imbued with the idea that God created the world for man and appointed him to rule over it, the Hebrews could take their place with confidence in a world others cowered in for fear.
The Creation stories were not meant to be understood literally or scientifically, but as a way to communicate worth and confidence to an otherwise weak and downtrodden people.
So would it be safe to say that the intent of your article here is to put to rest the minds and hearts of those people that choose to embrace their worldly lives instead of living a more righteous one under the guidelines of the bible? I don't mean this arrogantly...I truly don't. But there are so many people that have decided that either God or at least His Bible are no as concrete as it woul seem. All of a sudden the bible has just become this theoretical book about suggestions for good living instead of teachings on the need for Godly obedience.
You just can't soft sell God.
But to suggest that God is concrete and the Bible is concrete is either to ignore the whole of the history Scripture talks about or makes God and the Bible nothing more than an idol.
According to Scripture, God has always dealt with men where they are. He met Abraham in person as a friend. He talked to Moses, though He hid his form from him. He did not reveal the whole Bible all at once, and in each situation in Scripture only revealed a little more of Himself or His will at a time.
If the commands of God are concrete and absolute, do you only wear one kind of fiber in your clothing? Do you abstain from all shellfish (which are an abomination to the Lord!)? Do you dig a pit to "go to the bathroom" in? Do you put fringes on all your garments? There are about 600 plus commands in Scripture. Concrete? You have to obey each one.
Some people think (from Scripture), that God gives commands to some people that He does not give to others.
Who wrote the Scripture? To whom was it written when it was given? What were the needs and perspectives of the people who receive it? God is not a computer dispensing out preset judgments. Faith and obedience are not concrete acts. Men look on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.
You have answered your own questions. Every religion is based around people writing down the things they think provide answers for the world around them.
Specifically, in terms of "listening...to the Divine Spirit," it is the very definition of subjective, to be sure. In some sense it can be validated by comparing one's listening to that of others, whether that means saints, sages, mystics, or friends who are attuned to spirituality. Some of it is trusting one's own experience with God and one's internal compass. Is it empirically verifiable? No. But eliminating it, on that basis, cuts out an entire sphere of human experience, at least from what I've seen.
I wish I shared your optimism on that score. Alas, one look at the news--and its tales of leaders dithering in the presence of climate change, U.S. debt limits, genocide, and more--persuades me otherwise. And not all of those developments connect directly to the "oppression of religion."
Of course not everything bad is connected directly to religion, but it sure is a tough sell to say quite a bit isn't.
If not uttered by Jesus, the words have no value. Uttered by someone else, t hey cannot possibly convey the same message .
"Jesus died for our sins." Taken literally, this doctrine asserts that God sent Jesus -- God's own child; indeed, God's own self -- as a blood sacrifice to forgive, once and for all, the sins and follies of people everywhere.
Please! A man's body died, not his son, a deity cannot die. It was a contrived event.
The concept of the second member of the Trinity dying to appease his father for the sins of humanity is utter gobbledegook:
"....indeed, God's own self,"
This would indicate that he sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself. How silly is that?
"will come again to judge the living and the dead."
Haven't the dead been judged already? If not, there is no one in heaven or hell currently.
- or else it's a series of retrials.
If the truth of the bible doesn't matter, then on what does the basis of the three Abrahamic religions stand? It's the only source of information about God. There is nothing else.
How do you come to that conclusion?
"This would indicate that he sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself. How silly is that?"
HA! Welcome to the doctrine of the Trinity. I think there's tremendous value in this doctrine, but no one's ever said it's explainable.
"If the truth of the bible doesn't matter, then on what does the basis of the three Abrahamic religions stand?"
See my comments above. I didn't say the truth of the Bible doesn't matter; I'm suggesting that we ask the question so that, maybe, we can avoid waging controversy in relatively non-essential areas.
There is no value whatsoever in the gobbledegook invention called The Holy Trinity. It was fabricated at Nicea by a bunch of guys who had to invent a means of how there could be three persons in the one god. Please!
There will always be controversy about the contradictions, errors, inconsistencies and forgeries in the bible. Again, if it's the only source of information about your God I suggest the whole book has to be seen as essential - unless you are a cherry-picker like most Christians.