A Liberal Testament
In response to the very honest post of okaywhatsnext yesterday, I thought I would set out here some the reasons I believe that our faith is not dependent on an inerrant bible but actually benefits from viewing the bible as a human and fallible document. I am a 'liberal' christian in the sense that my approach to the bible is one where I'm prepared to discriminate between the profound encounters people had with Godde, and the human limits of those people's understanding, writing as they did from within their own traditions and social assumptions and knowledge. So, in a spontaneous response to yesterday's post, I've tried to explain why far from being unfaithful to Godde in questioning parts of the bible, we're maybe being honest with Godde and wanting to challenge portrayals of Godde that seem to be limiting and sometimes even morally repugnant and demeaning. Instead of idealising the original authors, we should maybe humanise them more, and realise that like all of us they were "trying to make sense" of extraordinary encounters. But we have to as well, and I believe a more 'liberal' approach to the bible offers more opportunity for each of us to open out and explore this Godde we meet and really think for ourselves about morality, instead of just perpetuating the assumptions and sometimes prejudices of the past. So here's what I wrote:
"This was a really intelligent post, and I like your logical clarity and intellectual honesty.
I'll tell you what I think (though what I think has limits too, beyond which there is just 'trust').
Through personal experience, I believe in Godde and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. I cannot 'not' believe, because that would be to deny my own first-hand encounters.
Like everyone else in history who's thought about Godde, I've tried to make sense of these encounters. That's what it sounds like you are doing too.
Initially, when I first experienced the personal nature of Godde through encounter with Jesus Christ, I supposed that the whole of the bible was this word-for-word document sent by Godde, almost dictated, and all of it true.
However, we each have moral conscience and our own spiritual awareness and intellectual integrity - given to us by Godde.
And experience in life, and change in myself, and growth, and growing awareness of issues of justice and decency... and, indeed... the consequence of living with Godde and walking with Godde for many years... led me to feel dismay (of the kind I think you're expressing) about some of the statements and assumptions I read in the bible.
In short, I came to see that while the bible was the most profound book I'd ever read and contained deep deep truths about Godde, it was also fallible and written by fallible people like you and like me.
And somehow, that's just being honest and realistic.
The fear in facing up to this lay in the fact that the bible itself asserts that it is absolutely true.
But I came to see that as self-validation, and what might be expected from a religious leadership fighting to protect its own beliefs from rival religions.
Key sticking points for me were both intellectual and moral.
The account of human origins - that there was a first Adam who had no ancestors - conflicts with what we now recognise as the prevailing evidence that our species evolved from others.
The story of Noah's Ark is likewise at odds with the realities and honesty of the world as we know it, and how species have evolved and survived, and there is no evidence of a worldwide flood, and all present animals surviving from a boat a few thousand years ago.
Some people will try to 'defend' faith in those things by saying that the resurrection itself is anti-scientific so why not believe the whole bible? However I completely distinguish between what I'd call specific breaking through into our world of the supra-natural of Godde in specific events (because, yes, I believe in a deeper reality) and mythical stories (folk tales) that require us to abandon the actual evidence of the world we see around us. Nothing about the resurrection of Jesus directly makes belief in the actual world we see incredible. But biblical denials of evolution would render the actual world we live in, and its visible evidence, incredible. We are then forced to live with a kind of unreality. The Jesus thing, by contrast, can be sustained by faith without rejecting the whole tangible world around us.
Then there are the moral problems with the bible.
The way Godde is attributed with ordering the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites, for example - the murder/killing of babies and children and everyone.
And the similar slaughter of the Amelekites too.
Or the killing of the firstborn of all the people of Egypt.
What we actually read here is a nationalistic story of a nation's religion and origins, claiming sanction and identity from Godde.
And you begin to realise, hey, wait on a minute...
It's clear that these religious communities were recording some amazing encounters with the living Godde. There's so much in the Old Testament that is indeed profound, and it clearly points to the fact that they too encountered Godde. So I do believe the bible is in many ways deeply profound.
But, like us, the biblical authors were "trying to make sense"... trying to write about Godde from within their own experience, within their own traditions and folk tales, from within their own religious society, from within their own prejudices and assumptions, and from within the limits of their socirty's scientific knowledge or understanding of social values or psychology.
And you then - if you're brave enough - start to realise that the bible is beautiful, actually, because it's so human and so fallible... and identifying the meetings with Godde does not mean we have to embrace the fallibilities of the authors at all, and can indeed suppose that sometimes their prejudices made Godde weep!
And then suddenly, instead of a beleaguered and bunkered mentality where we "block out" the truth if it doesn't conform with the bible, we find instead an opening out mentality where suddenly Godde is dealing with us and challenging us here and now on moral and social issues, not just handing down the assumptions and prejudices of other people. And that opening out doesn't mean abandoning the real and profound insights and encounters people had and wrote about. But it means actually having to think for ourselves as well, and being willing to recognise the fallibility of the biblical authors, and their humanity and limits, as well as their encounters with Godde.
And I'd say that the emergence of scientific knowledge in our times is like a sign from Godde, directly challenging us on how we view the bible. It is a challenge (because these events like all events happen at the time Godde foresees) to review the way we handle and interpret the scriptures. It doesn't mean throwing away the scriptures. It means handling them with greater intellectual and moral integrity.
Some people don't like that. They want things all watertight. They hate it being loose and open-ended. But I think that is a 'control' thing. We like to be able to box up our knowledge and say 'this' 'this' and 'this' is Godde, when actually so much of Godde is mysterious and deep and unknowable (and lovely).
But anyway, I think your questions are very honest. Of course, when once one accepts that the bible is not inerrant, then the same principles may also apply to the authors of the New Testament as well (although with christian experience we may feel they write with added insight and encounter) but the realistic view of authorship would say: these NT writers too were "trying to make sense" but were also fallible and "within" their own systems. So may have social prejudice in their thinking about homosexuals or women or even slaves. In fact we also see more openness, as a dirct result of the Holy Spirit, but it's not watertight. In Paul you sometimes see the Spirit leading him in his thoughts through old frontiers towards new openness, and at other times he seems to revert to social attitudes and assumtions (about sexual orientation, about women's roles etc... even about inherited sin from a non-existent Adam and Eve).
And we see that the bible is people like you and like me, "trying to make sense", and encountering the living Godde, but also limited because we are all limited, by the frontiers of our own minds and culture and inherited ways of looking at things.
Now - as you can't help yourself but face up to awkward questions - I'll put the hardest question to you, if you accept in some measure the quite 'liberal' approach to the bible I've been advocating, and it's this:
If the bible writers are fallible, how do we even know that their account of Jesus and the teaching and words attributed to Jesus were fully understood?
Because *that* I think is the most vulnerable point in the whole (honest) approach to the bible which I've tried to suggest.
But I don't think we are honest with ourselves or with Godde if we try to run away from awkward questions. That - I think - is what 'fundamentalists' sometimes do: run away from awkward scientific facts and simply say, well the science must be wrong because the bible says differently. And they go to great lengths to try to re-invent the whole history of the way our planet has evolved, or try to justify the slaughter of children "because Godde can do what he wants and they were sinners anyway from birth" etc.
But actually I believe awkward questions sometimes need to be admitted. We may not (and do not) know all the answers - but we can test and test again how we can apply principles of love and faith to our lives. We can seek continuing encounter with Godde. We can try to journey on towards wholeness.
And where we reach the limits of our understanding, or ability to understand, then that's where the most precious trust takes over. The point of trust where we say, Godde we can never know the whole of you, but everything we know so far tells us we can trust you. So hold us. Carry us. Help us to open our hearts to your love and grace.
Just to be clear: I respect the integrity of christians who believe the bible literally and try to live lives of faith and love on that basis. And may Godde bless each of us on our journey and in our lives. Someone who views the bible as literal or inerrant is expressing loyalty and faithfulness to Godde. I happen to have a different view on how to approach the bible. However, I am no better person. We all need the grace of Godde.
"This was a really intelligent post, and I like your logical clarity and intellectual honesty.
I'll tell you what I think (though what I think has limits too, beyond which there is just 'trust').
Through personal experience, I believe in Godde and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. I cannot 'not' believe, because that would be to deny my own first-hand encounters.
Like everyone else in history who's thought about Godde, I've tried to make sense of these encounters. That's what it sounds like you are doing too.
Initially, when I first experienced the personal nature of Godde through encounter with Jesus Christ, I supposed that the whole of the bible was this word-for-word document sent by Godde, almost dictated, and all of it true.
However, we each have moral conscience and our own spiritual awareness and intellectual integrity - given to us by Godde.
And experience in life, and change in myself, and growth, and growing awareness of issues of justice and decency... and, indeed... the consequence of living with Godde and walking with Godde for many years... led me to feel dismay (of the kind I think you're expressing) about some of the statements and assumptions I read in the bible.
In short, I came to see that while the bible was the most profound book I'd ever read and contained deep deep truths about Godde, it was also fallible and written by fallible people like you and like me.
And somehow, that's just being honest and realistic.
The fear in facing up to this lay in the fact that the bible itself asserts that it is absolutely true.
But I came to see that as self-validation, and what might be expected from a religious leadership fighting to protect its own beliefs from rival religions.
Key sticking points for me were both intellectual and moral.
The account of human origins - that there was a first Adam who had no ancestors - conflicts with what we now recognise as the prevailing evidence that our species evolved from others.
The story of Noah's Ark is likewise at odds with the realities and honesty of the world as we know it, and how species have evolved and survived, and there is no evidence of a worldwide flood, and all present animals surviving from a boat a few thousand years ago.
Some people will try to 'defend' faith in those things by saying that the resurrection itself is anti-scientific so why not believe the whole bible? However I completely distinguish between what I'd call specific breaking through into our world of the supra-natural of Godde in specific events (because, yes, I believe in a deeper reality) and mythical stories (folk tales) that require us to abandon the actual evidence of the world we see around us. Nothing about the resurrection of Jesus directly makes belief in the actual world we see incredible. But biblical denials of evolution would render the actual world we live in, and its visible evidence, incredible. We are then forced to live with a kind of unreality. The Jesus thing, by contrast, can be sustained by faith without rejecting the whole tangible world around us.
Then there are the moral problems with the bible.
The way Godde is attributed with ordering the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites, for example - the murder/killing of babies and children and everyone.
And the similar slaughter of the Amelekites too.
Or the killing of the firstborn of all the people of Egypt.
What we actually read here is a nationalistic story of a nation's religion and origins, claiming sanction and identity from Godde.
And you begin to realise, hey, wait on a minute...
It's clear that these religious communities were recording some amazing encounters with the living Godde. There's so much in the Old Testament that is indeed profound, and it clearly points to the fact that they too encountered Godde. So I do believe the bible is in many ways deeply profound.
But, like us, the biblical authors were "trying to make sense"... trying to write about Godde from within their own experience, within their own traditions and folk tales, from within their own religious society, from within their own prejudices and assumptions, and from within the limits of their socirty's scientific knowledge or understanding of social values or psychology.
And you then - if you're brave enough - start to realise that the bible is beautiful, actually, because it's so human and so fallible... and identifying the meetings with Godde does not mean we have to embrace the fallibilities of the authors at all, and can indeed suppose that sometimes their prejudices made Godde weep!
And then suddenly, instead of a beleaguered and bunkered mentality where we "block out" the truth if it doesn't conform with the bible, we find instead an opening out mentality where suddenly Godde is dealing with us and challenging us here and now on moral and social issues, not just handing down the assumptions and prejudices of other people. And that opening out doesn't mean abandoning the real and profound insights and encounters people had and wrote about. But it means actually having to think for ourselves as well, and being willing to recognise the fallibility of the biblical authors, and their humanity and limits, as well as their encounters with Godde.
And I'd say that the emergence of scientific knowledge in our times is like a sign from Godde, directly challenging us on how we view the bible. It is a challenge (because these events like all events happen at the time Godde foresees) to review the way we handle and interpret the scriptures. It doesn't mean throwing away the scriptures. It means handling them with greater intellectual and moral integrity.
Some people don't like that. They want things all watertight. They hate it being loose and open-ended. But I think that is a 'control' thing. We like to be able to box up our knowledge and say 'this' 'this' and 'this' is Godde, when actually so much of Godde is mysterious and deep and unknowable (and lovely).
But anyway, I think your questions are very honest. Of course, when once one accepts that the bible is not inerrant, then the same principles may also apply to the authors of the New Testament as well (although with christian experience we may feel they write with added insight and encounter) but the realistic view of authorship would say: these NT writers too were "trying to make sense" but were also fallible and "within" their own systems. So may have social prejudice in their thinking about homosexuals or women or even slaves. In fact we also see more openness, as a dirct result of the Holy Spirit, but it's not watertight. In Paul you sometimes see the Spirit leading him in his thoughts through old frontiers towards new openness, and at other times he seems to revert to social attitudes and assumtions (about sexual orientation, about women's roles etc... even about inherited sin from a non-existent Adam and Eve).
And we see that the bible is people like you and like me, "trying to make sense", and encountering the living Godde, but also limited because we are all limited, by the frontiers of our own minds and culture and inherited ways of looking at things.
Now - as you can't help yourself but face up to awkward questions - I'll put the hardest question to you, if you accept in some measure the quite 'liberal' approach to the bible I've been advocating, and it's this:
If the bible writers are fallible, how do we even know that their account of Jesus and the teaching and words attributed to Jesus were fully understood?
Because *that* I think is the most vulnerable point in the whole (honest) approach to the bible which I've tried to suggest.
But I don't think we are honest with ourselves or with Godde if we try to run away from awkward questions. That - I think - is what 'fundamentalists' sometimes do: run away from awkward scientific facts and simply say, well the science must be wrong because the bible says differently. And they go to great lengths to try to re-invent the whole history of the way our planet has evolved, or try to justify the slaughter of children "because Godde can do what he wants and they were sinners anyway from birth" etc.
But actually I believe awkward questions sometimes need to be admitted. We may not (and do not) know all the answers - but we can test and test again how we can apply principles of love and faith to our lives. We can seek continuing encounter with Godde. We can try to journey on towards wholeness.
And where we reach the limits of our understanding, or ability to understand, then that's where the most precious trust takes over. The point of trust where we say, Godde we can never know the whole of you, but everything we know so far tells us we can trust you. So hold us. Carry us. Help us to open our hearts to your love and grace.
Just to be clear: I respect the integrity of christians who believe the bible literally and try to live lives of faith and love on that basis. And may Godde bless each of us on our journey and in our lives. Someone who views the bible as literal or inerrant is expressing loyalty and faithfulness to Godde. I happen to have a different view on how to approach the bible. However, I am no better person. We all need the grace of Godde.