…has become a favorite
go-to introductory phrase for many who are not initiated into the complexities of
intense, in-depth study of Scripture. And they could be right. There are more
than 450 English translations of the Bible, and none of them are identical.
Search long enough and one probably can find a version that says what one wants
it to say.
American Christian lay
persons, especially in some more conservative groups, have been led to believe that
Bible study is simple: just draw your chairs in a circle and each one read a
verse and say what it means to me. And a growing attitude in conservative
Christianity—parallel with an increasingly prevalent attitude among American
conservatives in general—is that education is a detriment to faith. Theological
seminaries, says the attitude, are “theological cemeteries.”
Biochemist and “Sci-Fi”
author, Isaac Asimov, wrote, “There is a cult of ignorance in the
United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism
has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural
life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is
just as good as your knowledge.”
In a recent interview,
FOX host, Tucker Carlson, said college education “diminishes us,” and “everyone
should opt out.” He indicated the only real value in college education is “discrete
knowledge” applicable to specific professions and careers. Medicine and engineering
are two that he mentioned.
Always a dangerous idea, disregard
for knowledge is never more dangerous than when applied to the study of ancient
Holy Writ. Such a warped genre of faith expression is a spin-off: Calvinism
gone amok. Faith is replaced with knowledge (Oral Roberts used to say, “I know
that I know that I know…”), and questions are no allowed. Trust is replaced
with certitude, and “being right” is the goal of all spiritual endeavors (because,
while grace is preached, the actuality of that strain of Christianity is a “works
righteousness” that says our relationship with God and our eternal destinies
are determined by the correctness of our doctrine. ). And intelligence and
integrity are measured largely by whether one “agrees with me.”
But here’s the thing: there
are multiple doctrines claiming to be “right,” although virtually none of them
are identical. Somebody has to be wrong! (Which is precisely why we need
grace!)
What we must realize at
the very beginning is that when we open any version of the Bible, we are
reading a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy… ad infinitum.
Did somebody just play
the “divinely inspired” card? With more than 450 English versions, and
thousands of older (even ancient) manuscripts, scrolls, and fragments of
various parts of the Bible written in multiple languages and dialects over
several hundred years, none of which are identical, which is the divinely inspired
one? And just because it’s “easy to read” doesn’t mean it’s true to the divinely
inspired original documents, none of which exist today.
I don’t introduce all
these issues and challenges just to stir the pot or to raise doubts. There is a
valid, dependable way to arrive at a trustworthy understanding of Scripture that
sustains the intent of the One who inspired it. But note: the understanding
will be “trustworthy,” not certain. “The Word” is true—absolutely. But, limited
as we are by the clay of which we humans are made, we do not possess the
ability to know anything absolutely. At best—AT BEST—we will read and
understand by faith, the opposite of which is not doubt, but knowledge.
I am not a medical professional.
I don’t understand the mechanics of genetics or infectious diseases or
immunology; therefore, I have to trust those who have devoted their lives to
the healing arts. Of course, there are a few proverbial bad apples in every
barrel, and while some medical professionals are seduced by the siren music of
questionable applications and practices, and while others succumb to the
temptations of profiteering, and while non-medical sources may politicize certain
aspects of health care (e.g., immunizations), the overall consensus of reputable
professionals almost always is the best path to follow.
I seriously doubt that
any of those who comprise the overall consensus have dedicated their lives to the
study and practice of healing just so they can mislead the public. I trust the
consensus of mainstream medical science, and I accept its recommendations by
faith.
The same holds true in
any profession. I have a friend who is a petroleum engineer. He tells the oil
companies where to drill. He studies multiple factors, such as the history of an
area and its geological structure. He uses seismic technology. He reads samples
collected from trial drillings. Then based upon “the preponderance of the
evidence” (his words), he says, “Drill here.” Evidence produces faith, not
certitude. Some holes will be dry.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1 NRSV) Speaking of God’s future time, Paul wrote, “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will
see face to face. Now I know only in part;
then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (I Corinthians 13:12 NRSV, emphases mine)
Most people are not professional
theologians or biblical scholars. I have some training in both fields, and am
conversant with the terminology; however, I have not engaged in the depth of investigation
necessary to find “the preponderance of the evidence” within Holy Writ. I am
dependent upon the work of those who have been thus engaged. In that regard, the
primary difference between the general public and me is that (1) I am trained
to use the resources produced by a consensus of mainstream theologians and
biblical scholars, and (2) (maybe more importantly) I trust them.
I know the levels of
study and research in which those professionals engage. I know the intensity of
their dedication, and I don’t believe they have devoted their lives to their
profession just to mess with people’s faith or to make us all liberals or communists.
There are two basic
approaches to the study of Scripture. The first is to dig out what the Scriptures
are saying. This is a clean slate discipline that endeavors to set aside all
previously held ideas. It examines the available ancient texts in their original
languages, and places them in their original cultural, historical, and religious
contexts. They consider the placement of particular passage within the context
of the broader reading. The general question is, “What was God saying to a
particular people in a particular historical and cultural setting?” The task then
becomes one of applying the ancient truths in our language, in our historical
and cultural setting.
That approach is called “exegesis:”
reading meaning “out of” the text; letting the text speak for itself.
The second approach is to
assume the Bible’s message applies as is, de facto and en toto,
to our time and to our culture, and to use the Bible as a tool for confirming
ideas, creeds, and practices already in place. This approach is called “eisegesis,”
reading meaning “into” the text. It sometimes is called “proof texting.”
It likely is evident that
I advocate the former. I say, trust the mainstream theologians and biblical
scholars. There is consensus among them, and the resources they produce are
plentiful and useful.
If I may exercise a bit
of self-indulgence, I suspect the most common reason the laity has difficulty
with Scripture is not that it is so difficult to understand (although it is not
easy!), but that the laity is not sufficiently motivated to dig into the study
resources that readily are available. Devotional and inspirational sources sell;
but in-depth study resources gather dust on book store shelves. Many also are
reluctant to participate in studies led by those with competence in those resources.
I’m not concerned with
what “your Bible” or “my Bible” says. My concern is with what “The” Bible says.
And within the community of faith are those with the skills and resources I
trust to guide me to the Bible’s truth.
That’s the way it looks
through the Flawed glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment