I've been grappling with the Bible of late, and wondering about its relevance to me, and perhaps more importantly, us. My struggle is this: I want to engage with it critically, but as a Christian I feel it is crucial to be open to its transformative power. I want to use my brain and ask the questions, but I am also aware of the importance of approaching the text - and the thousands of years of tradition that surround it - with respect and humility. That is the tension in which I live.
This is kind of 'where I'm at' - at the moment - with respect to how I view the Bible:
(1) The Bible is not a book. It is an anthology, or a library - a collection of works that draw in many traditions, and many voices, that span many, many years.
(2) As such, we cannot expect the Bible to have a consistent voice. The Bible contains ideas that are in tension as well as ideas and statements that are in conflict. That's ok - after all, the Bible never purported to be consistent.
(3) God's breath can be found throughout the pages of the Bible, as it hovered in the pens of its many writers and editors, and as it dwelled within the communities that nurtured the ideas and stories that finally made their way into the Bible. We need to be continually on the lookout for God's spirit in these sacred texts.
(4) As a Christian, my 'theological centre' is in the Gospels of Jesus Christ. The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, forms a backdrop that brings meaning and clarity to Christ's teachings and story, while the rest of the New Testament provides wisdom for groups of Christians, perhaps some cautionary tales, as well as some ways to come to grips with what Christ means for us.
(5) Reading the Bible and applying it to our lives requires discernment, careful study and a good dose of love.
Is that all terribly controversial? I always feel like the controversial one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Thanks very much for your post. I suspect we've been going over the same ground recently, as you'll see in my own blog. I've been in the mood for controversy too: 'how many dead Canaanites does it take to turn God into god' was a recent reflection. Perhaps that's a way of saying I no longer subscribe to biblical inerrancy. We start from the same place as disciples of Jesus.
Speaking personally, the recognition that God isn't imprisoned in a dogmatic framework or a form of words is thoroughly liberating. That via negativa was the great theme of Christian mysticism and to my mind it frees us from substituting an idol for God.
That's not to say I've found it easy to shift away from my Evangelicalism. I feel I've brought much of the best of the tradition with me, though lost a few friends on the way. Shalom, phil
Hi Phil - I'd love to read your post on 'how many dead Canaanites does it take to turn God into god'. I looked but couldn't find it - could you send a link?
I agree completely - I find it liberating not having to squeeze God through the dogma of human religion. When we can escape dogma, we are escaping fear, so we can truly be motivated by love!
I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'm working on that post for drafting. I used the 'dead Canaanites' phrase on a recent fb discusssion. In the meantime many of the same issues are discussed in John Arthur's blog (http://creativelovetheism.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/ken-silva-attacks-contemplative-prayer-and-meditation/). Thoroughly recommended! My own recent reflection on J.H.Yoder touches covers some of the same ground: http://radref.blogspot.com/2011/02/shape-of-christian-conversation.html. Blessings, phil
Yet another great post from you Andreana. I'm keen to know why you feel scripture has the breath of God in it. I agree that it does I'm just not quite sure why. :-)
Well...to some extent I have to believe that scripture is God-breathed, because I am a Christian and I must honour the fact that generations of people from the Jewish and Christian traditions have held these texts dear and used them to help connect with and understand God in their own context.
I also trust that the people who shaped the scriptures were communities that took the search for God and righteousness seriously, and that God-inspired wisdom must come from these places.
But I don't think that everything written in the scriptures should be applied directly to our own context - it would be wrong, for example, to assume that because it is written that God commanded genocide then we should go and do the same. Communities can hold great wisdom but are not infallible, as you and I know from the communities in our lives.
Thanks Andreana,
I'm conflicted in my attitude towards scripture having come from a conservative evangelical background that I feel strayed into worshipping the bible more than Jesus. I'm trying to discern how and why I believe it is 'authoritative'/'inspired'/'has the breath of God in it'/etc.
I agree with your thoughts and would probably want to add for myself that my experience with scripture has shown it to be 'true' also.
I find the idea of the words of scripture being more important than other words written about God (and perhaps also 'inspired' or 'God breathed') problematic. I know the arguments for the bible as the canon as we read it in but I don't find them that persuasive. Isn't it possible God could also be inspiring writers now? Isn't it possible Paul had his own bias and erred at points? These questions don't keep me awake at night but I have found that since I've struggled with them I don't read the bible as much as I used to.
I also struggle with that stuff - on what basis should I privilege materials that somehow, through the politics and biases of the time, ended up as part of the Christian canon? For that reason I tend to read scriptures with a critical mind. Sometimes I wonder what's the point at all - after all, as you say, non-Biblical works can be just as 'inspired' by God, and possibly more helpful when they speak to a modern context.
I was talking to a relatively conservative Christian yesterday, who said that her favourite book of the Bible was Ecclesiasties, because she said that was a good picture of how life might look without Jesus ("Everything is meaningless"). The 'inerrancy' of that book for her obviously has some qualifications, and I liked her way of reading it. I was wondering just then - can other books in the Bible be read in the same way - like, "The letter of Timothy is an example of what happens when churches that were once based on radical equality become conservative and hierarchal," (i.e women not permitted to speak in church). Maybe there is more to be found in scriptures if we get over the fact that they are supposed to be 'the inerrant word of God' and see them instead as cherished texts of our own tradition that we can learn a lot from, but should be read with the possibility of the 'untold story' in mind??
Just some thoughts - and by the way I have tended to not read the Bible much for the same reason as you, but I'm doing a Whitley subject at the moment so I've felt more inspired to delve in!
Yeah I like to think of books of the bible as cherished texts of our tradition however I think I've over done it. I grew up in churches where the bible was everything, worked in them and then studied it at uni for 10 years. I've sort of lost enthusiasm for it, especially when I find I'm meeting God in lots of unexpected places these days (the garden, my children, the poor, etc). Hopefully I'll get inspired again soon.
As always thanks for your writing Andreana.
Thanks Tim. I think you're right - if the Bible is the only place we're looking for God, we're missing out of a LOT.
Post a Comment