This is the second guest post by Judy Siker, who last week explained about her upbringing as a Christian in the south and then her move into the academic study of the Bible from a critical perspective. If you recall, Judy was my student in the (very secular!) graduate program in New Testament/Early Christianity here at UNC, where she did both a Masters and PhD in the field, focusing, in her dissertation, on the socio-historical background to the Gospel of Matthew, in particular as that involved the relations of Jews and Christians in the author’s community. She had a rich and varied teaching career in a range of schools — private liberal arts, Catholic university, and Baptist seminary, among them!
In this follow up post Judy lays out her understanding of what the Bible is (among other things, a book that asks compelling questions about matters of faith) and is not (a book that gives us all the incontrovertible answers), partly in response to comments and questions she received. She is willing once more to address any others that come her way.
I’d like to thank her for putting in the time and effort for these interesting and insightful posts!
Judy Siker is author of Who is Jesus? What a Difference a Lens Makes.
*********************************************************************************
… and you still believe? Part Two
In last week’s post I offered an overview of my journey from growing up a small town southern girl raised in a moderate Protestant church to having a career in both the academy (in the field of New Testament and Christian Origins) and the church. It was an initial response to the invitation to write a couple of posts about how I can both acknowledge that there are serious problems with the Bible and continue to live in my faith tradition. As such, it was a simple reflection on people and events in my life that have contributed to my ongoing self-identification as a woman of faith. It is clearly my own personal story and not meant to serve as a mirror of or template for anyone else.
Responses to this post ran the expected gamut from those of you who could relate on some level, to those who could relate in part, to those who questioned the intelligence of anyone (me, in particular) who identifies both as a biblical scholar and a believer. As I indicated in the closing of that post, today I continue my reflections, this time moving from the what (that I continue to be a believer) to the how (specifically, how I can continue to stand firmly in my faith and continue to explore the intricacies, nuances and, yes, inconsistencies within the Bible).
Let me begin by saying what this post is NOT. This post is NOT a refutation of readers who hold very different views from mine, be they fundamentalist, atheist, or agnostic. It is NOT a doctrinal statement of beliefs as a Christian; that would certainly take more than a post and, more to the point, that was not the question. It is simply a reflection on how, in my experience, the scholarly world of the New Testament and my Christian beliefs are mutually enriching rather than mutually exclusive.
As I explained in the earlier post I had lots of questions about the Bible growing up, some of which got answered and many more of which did not. And, as I mentioned, it was delightful to find myself in a college class on the Bible and realize that I was not alone in my questioning! It was those questions that lead me ultimately to pursue advanced degrees in biblical studies and, surprisingly to some, to deepen my understanding of the biblical text as my sacred text, that which holds a place of honor in the Christian tradition.
I have to admit that it still surprises me a bit when people decide so adamantly that one cannot have both a scholarly understanding of the Bible and a belief in the Bible as sacred text. I can only say that in my life and in my work it comes down to a strong conviction that life is about living the questions. (I have always been suspicious of folks with all the answers, be they politics or sports or religion. The tracts I used to find under my windshield wiper outlining the “Six Steps to Salvation” or some such information gave me the shivers. If salvation (whatever that means) is as easy as six steps then what’s the point really?) In matters of faith the desire to have answers or, perhaps more accurately, to eliminate questions seems to be a driving force for some. Here is where I differ. I live in the questions—and for me it is the most honest way to live.
It comes as no surprise that in the academy it is questions that drive the gstudy, the research, the writing. It is asking the next question that moves fields forward. I used to tell my students that not only did I give them grades at the end of a semester (the dean insisted), but I also graded myself. The criterion for my self-evaluation was this: Did the students leave the semester’s class with more questions than they brought in? And I meant it. I firmly believe that when we stop asking questions we stop learning and growing. People are usually happy to grant that—at least in terms of the academic study of the Bible.
Many people are not, however, as willing to grant this philosophy in regard to our faith. Why can it not be the same? For me, it is. This, I believe, has much to do with the reason I see the scholarly world of New Testament studies and my Christian beliefs mutually enriching. Through all the years of study, every exegetical move, every dissection of the text, I became more and more intrigued with this body of writings that not only has survived all the centuries but has also survived all our pushing and probing, our analysis and dissections. The more I studied the more I wanted to study and the more I learned the more I was aware of how much I did not know. Whereas the new ideas and the open-endedness of the explorations were a death knell to some of my friends and fellow students, I found it invigorating and felt pushed to raise even more questions. And so I did…and it hasn’t destroyed my faith. Indeed it has enriched it.
A scholarly approach to the Bible will without doubt demonstrate the inconsistencies in the Bible, will introduce the student to issues of authorship and dating and word use and definition. This is all intriguing, well to me, it is. If, however, one comes to the Bible with the idea that it can only be considered sacred text if it is historically accurate, factual, without error or inconsistency, then by all means the scholarly approach is anathema. If one comes to the Bible believing that it contains the answers to all of today’s social, cultural, even scientific questions, then by all means the scholarly approach is anathema. If one comes to the Bible believing that the words in the text came straight from God’s mouth to the writer’s ear, then, once again, and by all means the scholarly approach is anathema.
I understand why these approaches are held by some. If one works hard enough there is little room for questions (often equated with doubts). But as I stated earlier, I live in the questions. Not only do I live in the questions, but I believe we are meant to live in the questions. If there is one thing I’ve learned across the span of my lifetime it is that I will always have more questions than answers. Inevitably as I discover answers in my searching, it leads to yet more questions. But I have come to believe strongly that living the questions is really living.
So throughout my studies I continued to believe that there exists some greater force than you or I. In my tradition we call this force God. I believe that across the ages other humans have experienced this notion of a greater force and they have struggled with how to describe, define, and relate to this force. In the Christian tradition, we have written expression of these struggles in what we now call the Old and New Testaments.
As a biblical scholar and as a woman of faith, I find it fascinating to explore the writings of folks like you and me as they struggled to live life fully. I find it fascinating to explore how they reasoned with and reckoned with one another and life, and I find it hopeful and amazing that we have the record of their journeys in the biblical text.
But if you need to prove that the Bible is factual, historically accurate, then stay away from scholarly pursuits. If you need all the answers to today’s questions from a book that contains materials thousands of years old and is not consistent from beginning to end, then there is no point raising the questions of the academy. If what you believe is because of what someone else told you the Bible means and how that should define precisely how you are to live your life here and now, then stay far, far away from a scholarly approach.
Perhaps it goes without saying these are not my needs; this is not my approach. Over the course of my studies both in the academy and the church, I have developed a tolerance for ambiguity and I have tried to never place boundaries on my listening. As a result of these efforts I have come to understand the Bible as an imperfect collection of reflections people of faith over time who have struggled to understand that which is greater than themselves, that which is impossible to capture in words. Yet, try they did. And all they had were words.
Before you dismiss that last statement as simple or foolish, consider this. For those of you old enough to remember when we sent actual greeting cards, do you recall ever standing in a Hallmark Shop and poring over cards until you found just the right one, the one that best captured what you were thinking or feeling? You may never have found one exactly right, but you often found one that was close. Why? Because we have a great number of experiences as human beings, yet when we set out to express or explain them, all we have are words.
And I have clearly used up all the words allowed for this post and I am confident that they have neither captured all that I am thinking, feeling, or believing but I trust that perhaps they have come close.
Thanks so much for putting your thoughts and experiences out there. I’m curious if you have read any of Karen Armstrong’s books and what you think of her work. I really enjoy her books. She uses the word ineffable in relation to God often.
I am not a Christian but do believe in God and to me the word God simply means a connection between things in the universe. As Carl Sagan said we are made of Star Stuff !
Thanks again.
Thank you. I regret that I have not read widely in Armstrong but I can say that I appreciate very much her emphasis on the need for compassion and her idea that religion is not so much about what you believe as what you do.
Thanks Judy for the posts.
Another question though… Doesn’t there come a point when unanswered questions are so numerous and troubling (why is God so capricious and cruel, and, dare I say, evidently man-made?) that to give the benefit of the doubt to Bronze Age scribes (that there’s some higher purpose driving their contradictory and implausible musings) is a bit of a stretch?
You mentioned your church upbringing, which reminded be of Bertrand Russell’s assessment of philosopher Kant: “He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was sceptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother’s knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasise—the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.”
Would you agree that to have ‘faith’ you really must take leave of your senses, or at least compartmentalize your brain between the rational (non-faith) and willing suspension of disbelief (faith). It seems an awkward path to follow — to maintain faith when you’re as informed as you are — and I’m still not sure how you do it!
Thanks anyway for your thoughts.
Thank you for you response and questions. Regarding your first query, I can only say that for me there has not come a time when my unanswered questions have become so numerous as to make me think that continuing to believe in God is a stretch. Perhaps it is the nature of my unanswered questions. I do not wrestle with your example “why is God so capricious and cruel,” for example.I do, however, wrestle with the presence of evil in the world. For me they are two different questions. Secondly, I agree that our early associations have a great hold on us, but as adults I think we grow (with any luck) into our own thinking beings and are able to weigh the relevance of those lessons “imbibed at [our] mother’s knee” and make our own determinations. While I am grateful for the home and atmosphere in which I was raised, I do not believe that my own religious stance today is merely the product of my youth. Finally, no, I respectfully do not agree that one has to take leave of one’s senses to maintain a faith once one has encountered scholarly analysis of the biblical text. As I had hoped to indicate in my post, it is quite possible to live as a rational, thinking human being and continue to experience and acknowledge an ineffable force (God) that impacts how one lives in this world.
But is it reasonable to assume that this ineffable force is all-good, or is it more as it says in the Iliad: “For two urns are set upon the floor of Zeus of gifts that he giveth, the one of ills, the other of blessings.” That certainly seems more in line with what we see. Even if we acknowledge that a lot of these ills are of human making, many aren’t – children with bone cancer and tsunamis that wash away loved ones… (Isaiah 45:7)
Granted we cannot attribute all of the ills of the world to human making (such as the examples you cite), but that does not mean we must attribute them to God.
Many thanks Judy for taking the trouble to answer all these posts. Much appreciated.
Just a quick (and often made) point about God’s culpability with regard evil. God, if He exists, clearly created deeply flawed humans capable of making mistakes and doing ‘evil’. He is then arguably the root cause of evil. And if He is all-powerful then is He complicit in some way when He allows monstrous things to happen (rape, murder and so on)?
Worse still, there are many instances in the OT when He commands and condones slaughter. And if you take the view of eternal punishment for those not accepting Jesus as their saviour, perhaps because their God-given powers of reasoning led them down another path, then God has got a lot to answer for.
God and evil, in my view, are not that far apart.
Interesting. I can see why “God and evil, in [your] view, are not that far apart. I don’t share this view. In part it is because I don’t share some of the basic assumptions in your previous statements. Granted, human beings are flawed creatures but I don’t see that as leading straight back to God’s culpability as “the root cause of evil.” Humans, I believe, have free will–and it is used to the detriment of themselves and others far too often. I also do not hold the view you posit in your third paragraph regarding “eternal punishment for those not accepting Jesus as their saviour.”
If he could end those evils and chooses not to, how is he a good God? If we were told of a world ruled by an omnipotent, benevolent deity – would our first instinct be that children die in unspeakable agony in that world? It may not be a logical *necessity* that such a God is not all-good, but it certainly seems more likely. A Bayesian argument, if you will.
And thank you very much for answering our questions.
Rev Dr Siker –
Thank you for your posts – they are thought provoking and serve as dialectic for those who both do and do not share your same views. Your framing of things in these posts reminds me somewhat of Tillich.
Three questions, if I might:
– Is there a solution to the problem of evil that you prefer, put forward by a another theologian or philosopher? I (and others) would love to know your view, but asking for an articulation of such a fraught and complex topic in a blog comment response isn’t exactly feasible…
– Relatedly, is your view of God the traditional 4-Omni version, or another variant?
– Not to ask the analog of “who’s your favorite child”, but if someone (me…) wanted to get their hands dirty in your favorite scholarship/research interests, are there pieces/products you would point one to pick up?
Thanks a ton!
Thank you for reading and engaging in some dialogue. In response to these last questions let me say briefly: 1) You are correct. Answers to such a complex topic in a blog comment is not feasible. Maybe the subject for another day, another post. 2) My view of God certainly includes the “four `omnis'” AND I would hasten to say that one’s understanding of the definition of those four would result in considerable variation among those who include them. Finally, right now I am fascinated by and appreciative of the work of a number of female biblical scholars who bring new lenses to the reading of the text. I am grateful for their work because my reading of the text is in part limited by my own life experience (as is the case for all of us) and to see through another’s eyes is always helpful. See, for example, some of the work of Musa Dube or Leticia Guardiola-Saenz.
Thanks for sharing with us, Judy!
If I may, I’ll ask for your pastoral perspective on a question of mine that goes beyond “academic study of the Bible from a critical perspective.” I’ve never had a problem with academic study of the Bible from a critical perspective. To the contrary really. That sort of study has enabled me to make sense of the Bible.
Instead, my own struggle, such as it is, has been with what I take to be the cosmological underpinnings of the faith. My impression is that Christianity ordinarily posits that in addition to our normal physical universe of matter and energy and time, there exists also a non-physical realm, a spiritual realm, beyond matter and time. And further, this supernatural realm is assumed to be peopled with supernatural, spiritual beings of various sorts, analogous in many ways to the natural, physical creatures we encounter every day here in our droplet of the natural, physical universe.
Now I go to church and all, Judy. And, whenever the congregation rises to recite the apostles’ creed, I rise and recite right along with everyone else. But, I can’t really say that I see any reason to believe in the actual existence of this supernatural realm so regularly and so glibly discussed from the pulpit. Do you?
Many thanks! 🙂
You have touched on one of the issues of organized religion that raises concerns for many, such concern in some cases that folks just cannot remain within the church. I will say that I am not sure the “actual existence of [a] spiritual realm so regularly and so glibly discussed from the pulpit” is true for all churches. I think perhaps it is fairer to say (though perhaps no more complimentary) that some of our declarations have become such an intrinsic part of the services that we do not take the proper amount of time to discuss these within the Christian community. That is not to say that we would not continue to include them in our services because they are important markers of our history as a church but I do think we should not expect congregants to recite creeds that we have not discussed. If we did, and in my experience when we do, we are able to see what lies behind the wording and we are able to think together about what it means to each of us today. It is in these kinds of discussions that we grow as a community of faith.
Excellent. Thank you! Perhaps you would consider blogging here on a weekly or monthly basis to give dear old Bart a break from his wearisome duties. After all, it’s for a good cause, you know.
Thank you. You are most kind. I have enjoyed the opportunity to share some of my musings AND I am even more impressed than I was before with the amount of time and energy Bart puts into this blog. Kudos to him (and to all of you who support this good cause)!
Thank you Dr. Siker for taking the time to write these posts and to be vulnerable in front of us. As a consumer of Bart’s books, blog, and several other authors as well, I lost my Christian faith and stepped away from church but like you I believe “there exists some greater force than you or I”. I still love the wisdom literature of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. But I see Jesus as only a man, much like the Buddha, Mohammad, Confucius, and others but certainly not the Christ/Savior. I miss the church community but could no longer stomach the way they twist the Bible’s words to support their beliefs and expect us to swallow it whole as I did my whole life. I might call myself a Jesus follower as I continue to try to live by the way he taught but I cannot call myself Christian. It seems you do still call yourself a Christian though. I realize you said this post is not a doctrinal statement and that you live in the questions, but could you give us some of your doctrinal beliefs? Do you believe in the resurrection for example? Do you attend church regularly and if so do you find the teachings difficult since you know more than those teaching? Since you live in the questions I suspect you are open to the truths from other faiths as well which typically aren’t held by most Christians. Perhaps you could tell us how your beliefs align with the Apostle’s/Nicene creed? I’m guessing there would be a lot of differences. I know it is a lot to ask and makes you even more vulnerable to the critics but I am hoping for a third post that delves slightly deeper on your doctrinal beliefs. Thanks again! Loved these posts.
Thank you for your comments. I do self-identify as Christian and I am aware that there are nearly as many understandings of that word as there are folks who call themselves Christians. I do not, however, think that means there is a once and for all time checklist that one must be able to tick off in order to qualify as Christian. Yes, I attend church regularly and I preach and I teach regularly and I find the interaction with that community to be enriching. I am indeed open to truths from other faith traditions; I wouldn’t presume that God only makes God’s self known through mine. (And, yes, I know there are a number of Christians who would disagree with me there.) Thanks for reading and responding. Hope this rather brief answer to your questions helps.
This seems very reasonable to me, On this basis though we might regard other writings as sacred, in other traditions both religious and secular. Great novels? Why not? Shakespeare? I’d give a yes to that. The people who wrote what are now Biblical texts were grappling with the big questions and the issues of life and death and meaning we all face.
I mentioned a creative approach: I’m playing with a variant of Gnostic ideas. The world we live in was created by no God. It is purely what the scientists take it to be– a place of forces and energies with no moral dimension. Hence what we take to be “evil”. It might be due to some fluctuation in a generic quantum field. It is ancient, complex, without cause or purpose. But it spawns sentience. There is the great mystery! And there is a spiritual realm existing in parallel, where sentience properly belongs, and in that realm there is God, and a multitude of beings. God is aware of us, God understands how the Physical Universe works, loves us in our primitive state, as newly spawned sentient beings (and I include every form of animal life) and that God will welcome us to the OTHER WORLD when we die. And then another life begins, advancing in a chain of being beyond our present understanding. God might well have entered this world in the only manner possible, which would be to incarnate as a human being and be subject to all the limitations and faults of any human, and if He did this He did it out of love for us, to give hope and encouragement. Of course, when God becomes man, perfection is stripped away. He did the best He could under the circumstances and died a shameful death on the cross. The crucifixion was not the sacrifice– entering this sad world was the sacrifice. And atonement had nothing to do with it. Love had everything to do with it. And so on. An attempt to solve the problem of evil in this world (it has nothing to do with God– God didn’t make it and God doesn’t run it. It runs itself according to inexorable physical law). But this world is not the only world. And at present we are in the painful position of being here and belonging elsewhere. But when we die we really do “pass on”. It works for me. Heretical, I know…
I agree that our Christian Bible is not the only sacred text. Indeed we have long been grappling with these big questions.
Thank you for this!
My pleasure.
Hi so would you say that your faith is anchored by your actual experiences and not so much the Bible ? Knowing all the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Bible from your scholarly work is this still a faith that you would be willing to die for as the Bible would require of you if it called for it ?
No, I would not make such a stark contrast between actual experience and the Bible. Knowing the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the text we have received does not diminish for me the power of the efforts of those who wrote it. To answer the question about whether or not, given the inconsistencies in the Bible, I would be willing to die for such a faith requires a completely different conversation.
“I live in the questions”
I find this to be a profound statement. I will think about it a lot.
Thank you.
If you resonate with my statement then you will no doubt resonate with a favorite quote of mine by Rainer Maria Rilke from his 1903 Letters to a Young Poet, “Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves… . Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”
Thank you! I love that quote. I will look up Rilke!
You’re a Liberal. That makes as little sense to me as Fundamentalism. And I rejected it for the same reason a Fundamentalist would. It is so vague as to mean almost anything. They embrace mystery, but claim to have some kind of handle on this mystery. I say that’s still intellectually delusional, though I understand it emotionally. But the positive is that Liberals are more willing to change with the times.
Liberal just means you accept people aren’t perfect, probably never will be, so let’s have some basic rules of conduct, but give everyone a lot of room to find their own way.
It also assumes that the person you’ve just met may know things you don’t, so sometimes you might want to listen a while.
As the Koran is central to Islam, have you ever encounterd Muslim scholars who have a similar attitude as yours toward the Koran?
Yes I have.
Many thanks! Truly inspirational….
As a researcher in a completely different field (impact evaluation) I completely agree that the questions are much more crucial than the answers.
My pleasure.
I still don’t see how believing in something beyond ourselves, a force or energy or whatever we call God has to do with Christianity or religion in general? How is Jesus relevant? How is resurrection relevant except metaphorically? Are you a believer on a metaphorical level? That I could understand, but there are better “words” out there to describe our thoughts and feelings other than the Bible. There is literature, poetry, science, all of which are mind expanding and thought provoking on a level much more rewarding then an old book of unreliable myths and fables. Aesop’s Fables have more going for them than the Bible IMO. I can see studying the Bible on an intellectual level but to believe!!! You really didn’t explain how that is possible. You said that you believe in a greater power but what has that to do with the Bible? I still don’t understand.
I agree with you that there is much (in addition to the Bible) available to us that is mind expanding and thought provoking. I do, however, think the Bible has value beyond that of an intellectual pursuit. I believe that it contains the reflections of people of faith in their attempt to comprehend that which is beyond us as humans and as such it serves, at the very least, as a springboard for our own musings. Having grown up in and chosen to remain in the Christian tradition the relevance of Jesus seems obvious to me. His life and ministry were and continue to be exemplary. Whether one’s Christology is high or low, the story of the life of Jesus is a powerful example of how to live in the world.
JYS, not to be argumentative, but most of what we really know about the life of Jesus is so scant that it is next to negligible. All the miracle stories are just myth including the resurrection and a real human Jesus (if there even was one) is probably only 5% based in reality and 95% myth and the 5% is being generous. It just seems to me that the relevance of Jesus is nebulous. Christians are worshiping a myth or a concept or a tall tale based on nothing more than wishful thinking. I guess with the New Testament we did get a more gentle, kinder God and dumped the nasty smiting one but it’s still not much of a springboard to understanding since it’s still based on fantasy and speculation and doesn’t really further that “which is beyond us.” Believing something doesn’t make it so but wars are fought over these beliefs anyway. Religion has become a pox all too often and that is the danger of having faith and trying to defend ideas that are indefensible.
Thanks for your responses. I don’t consider them argumentative. I agree that too much is done in the name of religion (pick one!) that is harmful, but I don’t find that reason enough to dismiss it. I think it is a part of human nature to seek and in my Christian tradition I find the Bible to be a great resource for the seeking. Do I think it has all the answers? Definitely not. But neither do I agree with your assessment that it is a “tall tale based on nothing more than wishful thinking.”
JYS, we need new religious paradigms, ones that are not religious and ones that are not based on myth and guess work. Personally, I have dumped the cross and adopted the Mars rover as my symbol of enlightened seeking for humanity! The Jesus story just seems unsatisfactory to me as it tries to make one believe the impossible. It’s really no different than the Santa Claus story. After awhile it just doesn’t work, IMO.
Would you really argue that nothing harmful has ever been done in the name of atheism? After the events of the 20th century alone? Hitler wanted to destroy Christianity, because it polluted The Pure Aryan Spirit, whatever that is. Stalin and Mao were atheists, as was Pol Pot. Just a few examples out of many, and to those who say “I’m not that kind of atheist”–well, is Prof. Siker that kind of theist? You get to judge religion as a whole by the behavior of its very worst adherents (ignoring the Gandhis, the Martin Luther Kings, the Saint Francis’, the Dorothy Days), but atheism is to be judged only by the best? Nice system you have there.
There are plenty of secular myths as well, that people of no religion believe in avidly–such as the myth that Jesus didn’t exist, or that we can’t know anything about him–and yet those same people don’t exercise the same skepticism when it comes to figures from ancient history not associated with modern religious beliefs.
It’s not religion that’s the problem. It’s people believing they and they alone have The Truth. And people like that can be found in any system of belief. Or unbelief. As Bart said recently, the problem is people. Or as Jesus said, The Sheep and the Goats. And you don’t have to believe he was God to know he hit that nail right on the head. The Sheep and the Goats are with us to this very day.
I’m not sure if you are asking this of me or JYS but first I don’t think that the statement that Jesus didn’t exist is a myth. It is an observation. No one is asked to believe one way or another unlike religion which says you must believe or burn in hell or some such nonsense. The sheep and goats is a metaphor which I don’t particularly agree with. The human brain is complex and not easily divided into good and bad. Sheep and goats, good and bad are really too simplistic to describe what human behavior consists of and what motivates us. Anyway, the late, great Christopher Hitchens had an entire response to the Pol Pot/Hitler argument which you should read. He said that God, as described by religion, is a celestial dictator not much different than the dictators we have right here on planet Earth. He has a point as we grovel and worship and pray to the celestial god to keep him from smiting us and pay homage to the dictator to keep him from doing the same. Of course he said it much more eloquently than I ever could.
I consider the teachings of Jesus Christ to be my “GPS” for navigating life in this world. For me, there is such great wisdom as well as simplicity in those teachings, which I learned from reading the Bible. I don’t doubt that others have gotten the same messages from different sources. I too, “live in the questions” and have many more questions than answers. Really, in this world, hardly anything is ever quite what it seems when we first encounter it–particularly when it involves human beings. However, the principles of humility, compassion, love, forgiveness, greater good above self interest, and TRUTH, have been constants and continue to resonate with me. If we all embraced these things the world would be a much better place. I do not struggle with God but rather with organized religions, invented by human beings, flawed as they are. Those who truly walk the walk continue to inspire me to do better.
Dr. Siker, I can’t thank you enough for your willingness to post your thoughts. I always enjoy reading something from someone who has a similar belief system. Who doesn’t like to find out that your beliefs are supported by an expert!! I too have found out that the more I learn about the Bible the more questions I have about it. The Bible tells me all that I feel I need to know to be a decent Christian. Whether it is historically accurate is not a big problem to me. It is the theology that is the message. Thanks again.
It has been my pleasure to share these few thoughts with all of you. Whether folks agree or disagree, I believe it is good to keep the conversation going.
Dr. Siker,
You describe yourself as a woman of faith …. a believer. What, exactly, do you still believe? Can you assign a “strength of belief” index separately to each tenet of the Apostles’ Creed?
Questioning something is not the same thing as believing that thing. I was hoping for a useful, tangible answer to the issue you were to have addressed: How can one be a believing Christian with your particular education and experience?
I agree that questioning something is not the same thing as believing that thing. I am sorry you found these posts unsatisfactory because you did not get a list of specific answers to specific criteria. I did not see that as the aim of these posts. Everyone who identifies as Christian has his/her own particular beliefs regarding ancient creeds and modern “requirements.” With any luck, these beliefs continue to develop over time. Mine certainly have. I am not interested in, nor is there time or space for, laying out piece-by-piece outline of commonly held tenets of the Christian faith. As I mentioned to a member in an earlier comment my understanding of God through the life and ministry of Jesus places me firmly in the Christian tradition. Whether or not my specific understanding of the many ways the Church has elaborated upon his life and ministry and expressed those ideas in creeds and doctrines, is not the point for this discussion. It is, however, within the Christian community that I find good conversation partners on this journey.
Seems as if Christianity has become one giant support group circling around various Christian philosophies. It reminds me of the 12 step program.
Judy, appreciate your participation on Bart’s Blog. Do you have a favorite Bart Ehrman book? Thanks!
As you might expect, I am a fan of Bart’s books. To pick a favorite is a tough task. There are so many that have pushed the conversations in our field forward in new and challenging ways. I have to say, however, that my favorite is his NT textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. I choose this one for two reasons: 1) I was his teaching assistant when he was giving the lectures that resulted in this book and it was fun to witness that process; and 2) It has been an outstanding textbook for me in my teaching, teaching which has been done in college, university, and seminary settings. To be an excellent introduction to the NT for that range of audiences says much about how and what he writes. There are many, many professors of NT who remain indebted to him for this excellent book.
In recent years I’ve transitioned from a fairly rigid and dogmatic faith, centred around and underpinned by belief in an inerrant Bible, to a broader and more inclusive (I suppose some would say liberal) but no less orthodox (small “o”) faith. A key element of this transition has been coming to see the Bible as the wonderfully diverse compendium of texts that is, rather than as the monolithic divine download I used to believe it to be. I’ve become fascinated by the Bible’s complexity, flaws and contradictions, all of which, I now see, only add to its richness and authenticity. And the funny thing is, I now have greater reverence for scripture than I ever did back in my more hardline, dogmatic days.
All of which to say, I’m enjoying these posts and finding them particularly resonant.
Your journey sounds like an interesting one. I’m glad that you resonated with these posts.
Thank you for sharing this – very thought-provoking. I am with you all the way on questions being the essence of thought, rather than the facile answers which so many crave. I am agnostic and always have been – at least I do not remember a time when I believed in something supernatural as the answer to anything in this world (I don’t discount it but would like to see the evidence). By temperament I am a sceptic – I like evidence and mere opinion, however forcefully stated, is not evidence. I also think, like the great David Hume, that temperament (or passions, as he called it) precedes and governs reason: so if one craves certainty by temperament, belief is central to one’s being and evidence will be made to either fit, be ignored or trivialised.
Where I struggle with your logic is why Christianity? I can understand why someone might incline to the belief that there is something ‘Out there,’ that is greater than us: I feel that too sometimes (not an interventionist or even a creationist God – but something) but it is a feeling without any supporting evidence. To be a Christian, as I understand it, one has to believe that Jesus, who was the Son of God, died on the cross and was resurrected before ascending to Heaven. That is such an outrageously unlikely thing to have happened that the burden of proof is entirely on the believer, which is just not there. Also, had you been born in Pakistan you would (almost certainly) be a Muslim or Thailand (like my wife) a Buddhist. So, I ask again, why Christianity?
I do not underestimate the power of tribalism and I know that the pull of friends and family towards remaining inside the Christian tribe, as it were, is stronger in the USA than it is here in the UK. I also understand that, although Christianity is a doctrinal religion (unlike, say, Therevada Buddhism) people do take what they want from the pot and either discard or ignore the rest, contradictions and all, but nonetheless I remain baffled that a biblical scholar can also be a Christian, albeit a questioning one. That probably says a lot about the poverty of my imagination but at least it provides me with many more questions because your situation, I am sure, is not uncommon. I might be temperamentally incapable of ever understanding your position and perhaps acceptance is more important than understanding.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It would take far more time and space than I currently have to give you a proper answer but let me address two points you make. 1) Why Christianity? For me it is clearly and simply because it is the tradition into which I was born and in my own searching it makes sense to me. I have not gone off exploring other faiths because it did not seem necessary. To find myself in a long line of tradition that acknowledges Jesus as a manifestation of God and to resonate with that through my study of the Bible is sufficient for me. I know there are many who “shop around” searching for an answer across the many faith traditions. That is not for me to judge. 2) That said, however, you raise a good question that I have pondered more than once and that is “had you been born in Pakistan…” My answer may sound simplistic but it is my truth. Yes, if I had been born in another place (and/or time) I likely would identify as something other than Christian. And for me that is ok. It is not a competition. It is a human longing to discover that which lies beyond itself and for me I can begin to understand that force (God) through the person of Jesus.Others have begun to quench that longing through their own traditions. We have much to learn from one another. Again, thank you for you thoughtful response.
Thank you for your considered reply. I have only two rejoinders:
1. I expected a little more of a logical argument and consequently I now understand even less than I thought I did from your original posts; and
2. I would argue that the various faiths, certainly of the so-called Abrahamic religions, are in competition with each other. Islam and,say, Roman Catholicism, cannot both be true and yet they both claim to be. They cannot have equal validity. Judaism denies the divinity of Jesus, Calvinism is based on pre-destination etc, etc etc. They are all mutually exclusive and doctrinal. They all use or have used fear and/or guilt to stop their adherents from changing their minds – or even from thinking for themselves. Evangelism was a core aspect of Christianity – and still is with some denominations, so conversion matters. Major wars have been fought and are still being fought over who owns the truth, and war is the ultimate competitive strategy.
Just because, as you say, “major wars have been fought and are still being fought over who owns the truth, and war is the ultimate competitive strategy” it does not necessarily follow that this is the correct way for people in these major traditions to behave. And it does not follow that everyone in each of these traditions understands his/her tradition to be the only one to own the truth. I have been involved in enough interfaith dialogue to know that this is true. The declaration by some within a tradition denying the validity of traditions other than their own does not make it so.
Wow! I know you have spent decades working on all this so please keep going with these posts. They are more helpful than you know. It was certainly possible for me to take most of the Old Testament in a literary/legendary way without my faith being affected. There, however, has to be some history in the Gospels, such as with the Resurrection, or Christianity loses its power. My question: Why doesn’t God provide us with an updated, revised Bible? It is hard to have the whole religion depend on 2,000- year-old books which have lots of historical and textual problems as well as numerous contradictions. That doesn’t seem quite fair to me to have to guess the right theology without having adequate information. Thanks. By the way, I don’t expect an easy answer. I admire so much what you are doing and you seemed to have reached a “peace” with it all that I admire and respect. Any way, I really appreciate your posts. Several months ago, I asked Dr. Ehhman if he had to argue for deism and Christianity in a debate how would he do it? And, as he always does, he gave me a good and thoughtful answer. He might share his answer at some point. .
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the questions you raise and am happy to know that you know to answer your questions fully would take far more time and space than we have here. Do let me share briefly a couple of ideas in response to your post. 1) You say “There…has to be some history in the Gospels,…or Christianity loses its power.” I fear that we are such post-Enlightenment children here in the 21st century that we impose the need for history (read historical accuracy/ fact) on this ancient text. There are truths contained within the NT that far surpass, in my opinion, historical accuracy or facts. That is not to say that events in the NT did not occur. It is to say that we cannot go back and recreate them. Nor, in my opinion, should we try. 2) Your question about why God does not give us an updated version seems heartfelt. I would say that God does! For me this is a living text and by that I mean that although the words and stories are products of particular times and places, there are truths in this biblical text that are not bound by time. Whenever we delve into Bible and attempt to understand its relevance to us in our lives today we are in a way “updating” the text. I don’t think wrestling with this notion of God has ever been easy.
When you say the Bible is a living text , it made me recall an experience I had please let me know if this resonates at all.1day I decided to read a quick devotion and the scripture felt as if it came alive like it illuminated to me ,it felt like a reply to my previous prayer . I told my wife I think God just spoke to me , “coincidentally “ that Sunday the sermon was that specific scripture.
Thank you for sharing that experience. When I say the Bible is a living text I do indeed mean that for me it is far more than just an ancient collection of writings, “one and done.” I believe that there are truths within this text that can have tremendous impact on how we approach life today. More than simply a record of humans experience with and understanding of God in the past, the Bible has some lessons for us now.
Thank you, especially for explaining your thinking so clearly.
My pleasure.
Outstanding post! It reminds me a bit of how Canadian intellectual Northdrop Frye used to explain his Christian beliefs. He rejected the idea of the angry god in heaven with a white beard and reactionary political views. He saw the divine as a sort of inherent coding we all have, a sense of ultimate goodness we know exists — or has the potential to exist — because we can create it in our imagination. So god is found in the imagination of humans who want create a world where the divine is expressed on Earth. Rather than a universe where a perfect god is literally in heaven looking down on us lowly creatures, we are metaphorically looking up at the divine and trying to make it real, from the ground up.
Thanks for your comment and the reminder of Frye.
Firstly let me say how much I enjoyed your perspective. I hope this won’t be your final post. There is a question I would like to ask you. You refer to “the biblical text as my sacred text”. Is this concept of being “sacred’ some quality in the actual text itself that you could explain to me or is this simply a personal perspective you bring to the text?
Thanks!
Thank you for your question. When I say this is my sacred text I mean that in my tradition, the Christian tradition, the Bible serves to remind me that I stand in a long line of believers who have struggled to know how to relate to that force (God) beyond themselves and have put those struggles down in writing. I honor their struggles, their expressions of faith, and the questions that remain unanswered. To have the privilege of having a window (however opaque) into the lives of those who have come before us in this journey seems sacred to me.
Hmm, interesting approach. In some way similar to an Orthodox bishop preacher and bishop, Anthony Bloom.
From this point it seems you have developped your own interpretation of Christianity as a working hypothesis. I might be wrong here, but are you part of a confession in the wider circle known as protestantism?
The problem with what you said is, why not, one of words and definitions. How do you define faith , and how do you define Christianity? To believe in some sort of greater force is not at all what a Christian would say. Even hard line materialists believe that matter is greater than just the human species and that the physical laws that govern it are above humanity. How watered down can one s belief become and still call himself a believer?
You say you live in questions.Ok. But to define oneself as Christian, one has to have at least a few answers. It is a claim of knowledge. Otherwise, you would prefer the term agnostic.
Clearly, two reflective posts on why I still believe are not sufficient to express fully what I believe. Neither is one response to a comment sufficient. Suffice it to say that yes I am in the circle known as protestantism and yes my faith involves far more than simply believing there is some greater force beyond humankind. I actually do believe that Jesus was a powerful representative of God on earth at a particular time in a particular place (but I am not going into my Christology here) and, while I emphasized my living in the questions for these posts, I do indeed have some answers. If that were not the case I would, as you say, certainly identify as agnostic. And that is NOT how I self-identify. Thanks for your comments.
I’ve been trying to understand what your faith is, and the following paragraph seems to capture some of it:
” So throughout my studies I continued to believe that there exists some greater force than you or I. In my tradition we call this force God. I believe that across the ages other humans have experienced this notion of a greater force and they have struggled with how to describe, define, and relate to this force. In the Christian tradition, we have written expression of these struggles in what we now call the Old and New Testaments.”
Fair enough, but how does this connect with Christianity in things such as the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, salvation from eternal torture through belief in the redemptive power of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, etc.?
Good question. The Bible only goes so far, doesn’t it? It seems to me that the ideas we get most stirred up about, that we spend enormous amounts of time fighting over, that we so adamantly claim contain the essence of our faith, are ideas that developed throughout the history of the Church. I do not mean to come across as flippant, but I do think we often get lost in details that in my mind are interesting but beyond the heart of the Gospel.
Thanks for your posts.
How do you view theism, or is Christianity the only way to go from your perspective? For example, intelligent design (theoretically) only posits a superior mind/creator/unmoved mover, and is not apparently restricted to say, the Christian/biblical described God as the designer and source of all there is.
Christianity is my tradition. It is the one into which I was born and the one that continues to have meaning for me. I am not, however, so presumptuous as to think that there is only one expression of God’s self in this big, wide world of ours.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting!
But still, do you believe in a final judgement, heaven and hell? Did Jesus died(and rose) for your sins?
If not, what do you exactly believe as truth?
The most significant truth for me is that, in ways I may never fully understand, there is a force for good in this world and that it is possible to live in such a way that we embody that goodness and love. I do not know what lies beyond life as we know it here and I am confident that if I spend my life here and now trying to live into the goodness that is God, I will be living a faithful life.
Interesting. As I am sure you know Bart left the faith not as a result of learning that the Bible is not infallible but his conviction that an omnipotent, omniscient, all merciful being (Christian God) cannot be reconciled with the tremendous amount of natural and moral evil manifested in our world. This is my own conviction as well. I’ve read argument after argument claiming that this reconciliation is possible. None of them are convincing to me. Do you have one that I haven’t heard?I really do want to be convinced but so far (eighty one years old) I am still waiting.
Thanks.
Yes, I know the story of Bart’s leaving the faith and I do understand why you and others agree. There are days when the evil in the world weighs heavily on me and I am deeply saddened by it. I suppose the major difference between us (and this is presumptuous because I do not know you) is that the presence of this evil does not make me question God, but rather it pains me deeply in regard to humankind. It seems that we never seem to learn. I truly do not understand how some people can be so evil, yet there is evidence of it all around us. In short, I find the tremendous amount of evil and suffering in the world to be a flaw of humans rather than of God.
I too grew up in a very Christian environment, although my family were members of a church that referred to itself as “conservative evangelical”, intended to distinguish it from the fundamentalists. Being very interested in science, I ended up getting a PhD in physics. I taught for 11 years at college affiliated with the denomination I grew up in, then took a position at a “regional” university in Kentucky. I retired from there in 2013. Many of your comments resonate with me. But from my perspective, the bigger question is not the inconsistencies of the Bible, but “How can you look at the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field, with it 10s of thousands of galaxies and still believe that God (whatever that term might mean) is interested in humans?” I remain an active member of a liberal church, but even there it is an interesting journey! I was particularly intrigued by your emphasis on questions. One year when I was teaching at the liberal arts college, a consultant was on campus, and in a public lecture, he emphasized the importance of questioning to education, and said the following:
Ask questions
Seek answers
Question the answers
Question the questions.
I wrote it on a scrap of paper, which I found years later, and at that point I made it part of my email signature. I think it says very succinctly what education and scholarship are all about–or should be!
Wow. Thanks. I really like that and may “borrow” it for my next talk (with credit to you, my anonymous blog friend!).
I didn’t mention it in the post, but I believe the speaker was Earl McGrath, who was commissioner of education under Truman and Eisenhower. My name is Chuck Hawkins.
” If, however, one comes to the Bible with the idea that it can only be considered sacred text if it is historically accurate, factual, without error or inconsistency, then by all means the scholarly approach is anathema”
This is my problem. I was raised a Southern Baptist. I was taught all that inspired, inerrant, revealed, etc stuff. As I grew and educated myself and came to believe the bible was a “very human book” as Dr. Ehrman said I found it difficult to believe. To use another phrase from BE “If we don’t know what the words were, how can we know what they mean?” And if the scripture is just a feeble human attempt to understand “god”, why should I chose the Christian version over any other version?
I am somewhere between a 5 and 6 on Dawkins belief scale.
Oh well, I guess I just used this to vent.
No problem chiming in to vent. I am saddened by how many thoughtful folks have been disillusioned by some of the teachings about the Bible. I would urge you, however, to keep venting or better yet, keep talking. One does not need to go from abandoning the idea of an inerrant text straight to the idea that it is “just a feeble human attempt…”. We may not know exactly what the authors wrote originally but that doesn’t mean there is no significance in the text that has come down to us.
Thank you for this post Judy. It was kind of you to share your thoughts.
My pleasure.
“I have come to understand the Bible as an imperfect collection of reflections people of faith over time who have struggled to understand that which is greater than themselves, that which is impossible to capture in words. Yet, try they did. And all they had were words.”
Well said!
Thanks!
Judy,
Thank you very much for your thoughts on this difficult subject. You wrote, “I have come to understand the Bible as an imperfect collection of reflections people of faith over time who have struggled to understand that which is greater than themselves, that which is impossible to capture in words.”
There are probably hundreds of millions of people who agree with you but would replace the word “Bible” with “Koran”. What is your view of this? Does it not matter? Wouldn’t we want as a human race at some point to openly and explicitly acknowledge the fictions in each of these texts so as to take away the claims of exclusiveness by fundamentalists and try to find common ground among all people? Why in the twenty-first century is our country still unsure if Jesus was born of a virgin and literally resurrected from the dead, which entail exclusivity to God and automatically rule our Islam, atheism, and other belief systems? Or do you believe these events are historical, which is fine, I am just still unclear on any basic tenant of Christianity that you believe is true, or actually historically happened, or if you believe the historicity of these events are indeterminable.
I agree that there are folks who would take my words and replace “Bible” with the name of their sacred text. I was born into, raised in, and grew to find meaning for myself in the Christian tradition. Yet I am aware that if I had been born in another time and/or place I very well could have been born into, raised in, and grown to find meaning in a different tradition. This is in part what I meant when I said in my post that I have learned to tolerate ambiguity and tried very hard not to put boundaries on my listening. I am not so presumptuous as to believe that I fully understand all the ways God can and has made God’s self known in this world. Regarding you second question, I do not equate truth with historical accuracy so it is not problematic to me that we cannot be certain of the historical accuracy of some of the stories in the biblical text.
While I’m not a believer, I’m not a hard atheist, either. I just don’t seem to be spiritual. In a way, I envy those that have had an experience of the divine…I never have though I would welcome it. I have little problem with ambiguities as you also state. I’d drive myself nuts if I tried to have certainty about everything I accept or reject!
What I try to understand is why so many people must have certainty! Why they are unable to have questions without answers. There just seems to be two (or more) types of people. Those that must have answers and those that don’t and the complete inability to accept each other!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I found them fascinating!
My pleasure.
My first intro to you was in a Presbyterian Women’s Circle studying your book, “Who is Jesus: What a Difference a Lens Makes.” Finally, I really understood that each gospel has its own perspective. Ehrman had exposed me to the idea in his NT Great Courses study. Later a retired PCUSA pastor friend introduced me to the blog and I started reading books he wrote or recommended. Can you suggest any theologians who are working to reinterpret scripture and creeds? I am soaking up the scholarship, but now I am looking ar our religion with a critical eye. Among other things I question why the crucifixion gets explained in terms of sacrificing the lamb of God for the sins of the world. Paul Knitter, a Roman Catholic theologian wrote “Without Buddha I Could Not be a Christian. ” I liked that he says all language about the God or Ultinate Reality is inadequate… quoting a Tibetan saying “fingers pointing at the moon.” God is not a Super Somebody in control. Suffering just is and has causes…tectonic plates, dna, etc., God is Spirit. I feel that presence in my life, but am not sure now that I can say that “Jesus is my personal Lord and Saviour.” I might not qualify as a new member in my church of 40+ years, but it is a place where I can continue searching and learning and working to implement Jesus’ commands found in Matthew 25.
You might want to take a look at Luke Johnson’s The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters. It is not new (2004), but he is an excellent NT scholar and has a heart for making the material relevant. In terms of reinterpreting scripture, I am intrigued and enriched by the work of feminist scholars, especially from cultures other than my own. They stretch me in significant ways and challenge me to take fresh looks at the text. (See, for example, articles by Musa Dube, Leticia Guardiola-Saenz, for example).
Those who require absolute truths will be religious or anti-religious, because it can only be one or the other. They need to believe that they know. Hedgehogs, not Foxes. So really, for such a personality, being anti-religious is the same thing as being pro, because you can’t be indifferent about it, nor can you be truly sympathetic to the beliefs of others, tolerant of their existence. It’s just the other side of the coin. All or nothing.
Those who see that there are shadings of belief, that the truth lies between the extremes, that (as Scotus Erigena said) that God transcends being, and the existence or nonexistence of such a force isn’t something you can nail to a board like a dead butterfly, may also believe or disbelieve, but they are not disturbed but rather encouraged by the differing beliefs of others, knowing that we’re all striving for the truth (those of us who care, anyway), and some people are just listening to a different drummer, as Thoreau said.
In Roberto Rossellini’s film Open City, there is a priest who is working with the anti-Nazi partisans in Nazi-occupied Rome. (Rossellini himself was not an observant Catholic). The Fascists arrest him, and he is told that one of his comrades is an atheist, an anti-clerical. He already knew this, and didn’t care. He knows his comrade to be a good man, willing to risk himself for a good cause, and what more would Jesus have ever asked? He responds “I believe that those who fight for justice and truth walk in the path of God and the paths of God are infinite.”
That’s what I call real faith, because it doesn’t cling to any one version of the truth–we can’t ever know all of it, but together we can see so much more than we ever could separately. For that to work, however, we have to understand that our comrades can be of many faiths, and each must be respected, as long as it respects others. If you’re only looking at the surface and not what lies beneath, you’re not looking at all.
Thank you. I agree that a myopic view prevents us from even the hope of approaching understanding.
Thanks for these posts but, for me at least, you didn’t really tackle the difficult part. That of ministering with a critical faith within the confines of the church congregation. It’s important, of course, to encourage students to probe the biblical texts and to raise questions of them, but in my experience clergy are decidedly unwilling to do the same with their congregations. They seem almost invariably to adopt a “not in front of the children” approach. That is, don’t raise critical issues in case it “unsettles” congregation members.
So my question is whether (and, if so, how) you raised such issues with the congregations in which you ministered. And if you did, what were their reactions?
Great question. Ever since my first class in biblical studies I have been bothered by what I perceived as a lack of courage in addressing some of the more difficult issues in the church. Over the years as I have had opportunity to teach, preach, and serve in a variety of churches I have found many in the congregations more open to these difficult discussions than we sometimes give them credit. I do think there is a time and place for raising these critical issues. It is difficult to address some of them fully in a 15-20 minute sermon (but that doesn’t mean you have to talk down to the congregation). I have found more success in offering classes and retreats in which there is time for open discussion. My style is invitational and I have been honored over the years to have folks in the congregation willing to try on some new ideas.
Sorry, I don’t get it. You admit that bible is an errant mostly non factual book filled with inconsistencies written by anonymous authors decades after the actual events, and all we are left with are the copies of the copies of the copies of the cop….from centuries later and you still call it a sacred book ! When did you decide that it was a sacred book ? The moment you were born? To use your own words you think you were born believing. You inherited and adhered to a certain belief within Christianity that not even the critical study of bible could shake off. What a coincidence that you were born into the “right” religion though! Lucky you ! I wonder what you would believe today had you been born in Yemen ! Simply asking questions is not the same as being skeptic. A true skeptic suspends belief until he/she finds sufficient reasons for that belief. You apparently did just the opposite. You managed to hold on to your belief in spite of the critical studies of the Bible. Sometimes our understanding of the “sacred book” is so loose, so vague and so ill defined that it can accommodate any interpretation, you can make it say whatever you want it to say. At the end of the day the “ sacred book” always comes off as winner.
Obviously, or at least I had hoped it was, my statement of being born believing was hyperbole. That said, I find several of your comments to indicate that you misunderstood my posts. In neither post was I suggesting that I’d been born “into the ‘right’ religion or that my sacred book was the “winner.” I was merely sharing a journey within Christianity that included both an ongoing belief in God and critical scholarship. (As you may see in some of my earlier responses to comments, I think that had I been born in another place or time my faith tradition might well be something else.)
Dr. Judy, thank you for your post. Given your view of the Bible and “living in the question” what do you believe about Jesus? If you could be specific doctrinally, that would be very helpful. The question is NOT intended as argumentative, but rather, after reading your post, I can see how you would arrive at being a deist or unitarian, but don’t see the connection between your enjoyment of the text and your belief in some type of Christian faith. Again, I am not really concerned with what your belief is, but am interested to know what beliefs you have and what they are based on.
While I cannot lay out my statement of faith here in this response I will say that my self-identification as Christian is based on my understanding of and belief in Jesus as a full expression of God. This is based on my reading of the NT and my grappling with the life and ministry of Jesus as I understand it from the NT.
Interesting thoughts – thanks for sharing your insights and life experience! I suppose we all have our own ways of approaching (or not) the Bible. For me, none of the standard tenets of the Christian faith (the Incarnation, Redemption, Resurrection, Second Coming) can any longer make sense to any thinking person living in the 21st century, Christian or not. If your emphasis is on how to live your life in relation to other people – and it sounds like it is – then I can completely understand and agree with you. For me, this *should* be first and foremost what it means to be a Christian in today’s world. Everything else is simply the window-dressing of history and tradition. I also understand the need we have to gather together as a group of like-minded individuals to share our celebrations and sorrows – as social creatures, we have always had this need, and always will.
I think the Bible is endlessly fascinating, from a literary, psychological, social, mythological, and historical perspective. For me, it isn’t a sacred book, but I think it must be respected for its antiquity and for its continued relevance to people today for whom it is still sacred scripture. Like you, I also believe there is something greater (or vaster) than us behind the universe. The constants that define the laws of physics are too “fine tuned” for life to be accidental in anything but an even more incomprehensible anthropic cosmology. But looking to the Bible for help in answering these fundamental questions is obviously a fool’s errand.
Thanks for your thoughtful posts. I appreciate what you say about living in the questions, but I would love to know if you have come to any beliefs about who Jesus was and what it means to you to be a Christian. Thank you.
Oh my yes, but it would take far more space and time than I have here. Perhaps for a quick response I can say that I believe Jesus was a man seeking to live a full and faithful life in his time and in so doing was a full expression of God. His life and ministry can serve as an example to me of how to approach my desire to live a meaningful and faithful life.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Unfortunately I still can’t get my head around it. I get the questions part, that is what drives folk to research, which should be encouraged, but otherwise I find this post to say very little. What do you mean when you say a woman of faith? Faith to me is believing something without evidence, something which I think is contrary to scholarship. The only way I could see anybody, especially biblical scholars, reconciling the two positions would be by compartmentalising the two positions. ie. Holding a religious view and a scientific view and the two don’t have to meet. Bart always asks folk to back up their theories with evidence. Without evidence we simply have a belief. I know this personally, having been a fundamental Christian for most of my life and then briefly a liberal Christian. I used to count personal experiences as evidence until I realized that anecdotal evidence is not admissible, and for very good reason.
I suppose we will respectfully agree to disagree. I simply do not find a life of faith and scholarship to be inherently at odds with one another. You say “without evidence we simply have belief.” Simply? And why must your “evidence” for faith be the same as for theories in other areas? Faith is not science and not dependent upon scientific theories. Faith is not based on whether (or to what extent) a text of reflections on God (the Bible) can be proven to be historically accurate. I will not be able to convince you of the validity of my belief in God because, as I understand your comments, the “evidence” I have does not meet your criteria for holding an idea. And that’s ok. What I believe in cannot be proven in any way that is satisfactory for folks looking for data and theorems. Thank you for your comments.
Let me ask a direct question to you. Do you personally believe that it is a fact that Jesus is a pre-existing creator of the universe who took on the human flesh? Do you believe that it is a fact that Jesus was killed and literally raised to heaven as a historical fact? Do you believe that without this belief, it is impossible to please God?
If you do not accept these tenets, may I ask, why do you insist on being a Christian and not just culturally Christian?
I personally do not support fundamentalism, but at what point does someone stop being Christian in any meaningful way. Christianity is a broad term, but it does have an actual definition. If you do not meet the bare minimum of this definition, why still call yourself a Christian? Why not an admirer of Christianity or a cultural Christian?
Thanks
I hold a much broader view of Christianity than you do. I do not believe that one can (or should) so narrowly define a faith tradition with a checklist. I believe you would have the same squabble with, questions of, people in all faith traditions. So many tenets have developed along so many different lines within Christianity itself that perhaps we would do well to go back to the basic teachings of Jesus as we find them in Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:29-31, or Luke 10:25-28. Thanks.
So let me ask you, what theological belief do you consider heretical? Is there any position a Christian can hold about God, Jesus or the Bible that would constitute a heresy for you?
The old Marcionite view that maintains the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are two different and contradictory beings…
I understand that for every good Christian that maxim that comes to summarize the ethics demanded by his faith, i.e, those two commandments referred to by Jesus in Matthew 22: 37-39, are the foundations of his whole life and his hope in his salvation – as you say in another post, “whatever that may be”, which, in effect, we do not know or hope to know until it is completely meaningless to know – and therefore something that makes it very great to be a Christian.
For me, this is not necessarily so. In the first place, a God who puts as his first commandment or requirement that his creatures love him above all things, is a God or very self-centered or very insecure of himself, for he must believe that to have the love of his creatures – that I don’t know why or why he wants it – he has to impose it as a mandatory rule.
I have six children and five grandchildren, and the last thing that it would occur to me is to demand, under threat of tremendous and eternal punishment, that they must love me above all things.
Christians may argue that who am I to compare my case with that of their God, but in cases like this, I am glad that I am not at all like a God who demands love from his creatures under tremendous threats.
And loving one’s neighbor is fine, of course. But that precept, that ethical rule is much earlier than Christianity. It is one of the ways in which the so-called Golden Rule is expressed, the principle of treating others as you want to be treated, which is the result of that love to your neighbor. It can be considered an ethic of reciprocity in some religions, although other religions treat it differently.
The idea, as you may know, dates at least to the early Confucian times (551–479 BC). The concept of the Rule is codified in the Code of Hammurabi stele and tablets (1754-1790 BC).
It can be argued that the Judeo-Christian rule goes further and does not require reciprocity in that love of the neighbor. It can be; but this claim can be answered by saying that in the concept of “how one wants to be treated” one can perfectly include the desire to be well treated even if there is no reciprocity.
You are certainly correct in that a number of the teachings of Christianity predate the Judeo-Christian tradition. I am not arguing that it is the first or only tradition to highlight these ideas. This is the place where I first learned these and I am quite content to remain in this tradition and attempt to live a life according to those basic tenets as best I can. One’s own experience of and understanding of God is quite personal and if your understanding of God is that of a demanding, selfish creator intent to punish all who step out of line, then I have no reason to question your aversion to this God.
Thank you Judy for sharing your reflections on scholarship in relation to life of faith.
“The tracts I used to find under my windshield wiper outlining the Six Steps to Salvation or some such information gave me the shivers. If salvation (whatever that means) is as easy as six steps then what’s the point really?)”
As you know, for evangelicals, salvation is primarily about being sure of spending an eternity with God in heaven (e.g. by saying the Sinner’s Prayer). The point is to avoid spending eternity in hell (if they are right about this horrible outcome for everyone by default, I for one would know the Six Easy Steps). For them, it is distinct from sanctification (unlike Catholic theology, where the two notions are intertwined) which can involves a lifetime of moral cultivation and wrestling with challenges of life. Lots of popular evangelical books are about cultivating spirituality, prayer life, mission, evangelism, church life, and lots else. It is a never ending process, not six easy steps, at least in this life.
“this body of writings [the Bible] that not only has survived all the centuries but has also survived all our pushing and probing, our analysis and dissections.”
The problem surely is that the Bible – in terms of its assertions concerning Israelite & Jewish history, arguably its picture of humanity’s unique place in the cosmos as depicted in the Genesis creation story, Jesus’ divinity claims through the eyes of the NT authors – has been battered by archaeological evidence, evolutionary science, and historical Jesus studies?
“It comes as no surprise that in the academy it is questions that drive the study, the research, the writing. It is asking the next question that moves fields forward. Many people are not, however, as willing to grant this philosophy in regard to our faith. Why can it not be the same?”
I agree to some extent about the nature of the academy. Yet the central goal of most disciplines of academic research is to push forward the frontiers of knowledge, to develop new knowledge – that is, to provide answers to how the natural world and the social world are like (natural & social sciences), how ancient civilisations were like and what happened in the past (historical studies), answers to how to organise society (as per disciplines of economics and politics), not just formulating probing questions for the sake of it.
[TO BE CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT]
[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT]
If academic research can never provide reliable answers, then it undermines its raison d’être. Hence applying this academic ethos to the role of the Bible for the faith community today, one can ask whether the Bible is a source of religious knowledge (i.e. justified true beliefs) about the transcendent, or it is only a sourcebook about all kinds of probing, challenging and stimulating questions members of the faith community can ask about the transcendent.
Everyone, irrespective of their religious disposition, can affirm that the Bible is a source of knowledge concerning how a tradition of people in a small part of the ancient world, wrestled with and thought about the transcendent. But this is knowledge about the human religious psyche, not knowledge about the transcendent per se – unless knowledge of the first subject matter somehow reveals something about the latter (something your post does not attempt to address). The Bible certainly makes affirmations about nature of human existence, meaning of life, ethics. A non-religious person can accept that some of these affirmations are true, or can find that the Bible’s normative perspectives on society and individual conduct to be worth following. Yet, does the Bible contain any truths about nature of the transcendent, not merely truths about how people thought about it, not only about how we ought to live and treat one and another?
Throughout Christendom until modern era and emergence of liberal theology, the Bible was treated as a source of religious knowledge, the bedrock of religious doctrines, as a reliable if not also infallible source of knowledge about the transcendent. I think modern historical-critical scholarship is not congenial to traditional Christianity, if not also undermining one of its epistemological foundations (Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy have other foundations in terms of Holy Tradition & ecclesiastical authority, hence they can more easily accommodate scholarship alongside life of faith, though until VaticanII, Catholic theologians had an uneasy relationship with biblical scholarship). As Bart has written much about, patristic Christianity was focused on orthodoxy, on having the right beliefs about God, on right doctrines. Liberal/progressive Christianity today re-envisions what Christianity is all about in a very different way, away from holding right beliefs, to more a right way of life and focus on social. I would not say that biblical scholarship necessarily undermines the Christian faith, rather I think it makes it more nebulous, more wishy-washy unless one can rely on Holy Tradition and ecclesiastical authority for right doctrines.
I do want to thank you for your posts. They were thought provoking to me. Coming from a strict fundamentalist background early in childhood and then journeying to deism I find your posts inspiring. I found it intriguing that you like the gospel of Matthew. I would like to see if you can do a post about your insights, thoughts on a certain topic within that book. It has to do with the writer claiming Jesus says that “he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill…” you have within the verses and chapters surrounding this phrase Jesus talking about good moral principles one should follow. But some groups have interpreted this to mean Jesus came to die for the sins of the world and was prophesied before hand (Hebrew Bible). I would like your thoughts about this. I hold to the understanding that “fulfill” has multiple meanings here and one meaning is “to follow or ad here to”.
Thanks for you comments. Several have asked about a post on Matthew so if Bart is willing, perhaps one day down the road I’ll tackle that one…
Please do!
Hi Judy
Very refreshing post. thank you. I don’t believe in the bible, BUT many people I love have built their lives with it. I was raised with it, I have good memories with it. I have reviewed hundreds of studies that show the good things religions do. That makes the bible sacred for me. I mean for that very very important and respectable, but not the only one nor inerrant, nor supernatural. I believe religions must not disapear but evolve into reason as they have done since they appeared. Until that happens one must recognize the good and criticize the bad things religions do.
Nice to meet you Judy.
And you, as well. Thank you.
I add my voice to those thanking you for your contributions here. In your post, this line appears:
“Not only do I live in the questions, but I believe we are meant to live in the questions.”
Any time we make an ‘is’ statement, we are doing science. This axiom applies anywhere it appears– even when someone ‘believes’ that something ‘is’. When one determines what other people ‘are’ meant to do, or how people ‘are meant to live’, and the substance of such conduct is one’s religious faith, we have trouble.
I take your comment as largely innocuous, of course. I don’t believe you judge people on whether they ‘know’ that answers to questions are antithetical to the central purpose of human life, or that someone who doesn’t feel as you do is missing the point of existence. I would, however, counsel some care as to the line between what you ‘know’ and what others ought to ‘believe’.
Thank you. Point taken. And, no, I do not judge people who don’t agree with me as missing the point of existence.
Judy,
You wrote, “I do not equate truth with historical accuracy.” I can’t even comprehend what you are saying here. Let’s say you grew up a Mormon, and there came a day when all historians agreed, and you agreed with them, that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Are you saying that you could still be a Mormon? If so, in what sense? Maybe because Mormon stories teach good values and provide good social community and provide comfort? These are fine reasons to be part of any organization, but is this the essence of what you are saying? To be honest, you seem to be tiptoeing around your real position, which I cannot clearly discern, and I’m hoping you can more clearly state it.
Sorry you find me tiptoeing around my position. Two posts (or ten) are not sufficient to lay out one’s faith journey let alone a full blown theological statement. That was not the intent of the posts in the first place. As far as not equating truth with historical accuracy, I do not find that a difficult statement. There are people who view the Bible as 100% historically accurate, who think that every word and every story describes in a literal, historical sense what happened. I cannot accept that. Nor do I think this is how and why it was written. We have plenty of evidence showing the traits of the various genres of literature we find in the Bible and a retelling of the events in CNN fashion is not part of that evidence. In fact, this question presumes a post-Enlightenment mind to even ask it. So, yes I believe there are truths about God and humanity within these writings, but it is not a history book. Thanks for you comments and questions.
Your writing is absolutely beautiful.
I am sorry. I have huge respect for you and Bart, but I found this post frustrating. You explain what you think the Bible is not and then say that you find the Bible fascinating, as most people of all faiths do, then you explain that you believe there is some force that is bigger than you that some people in your tradition call God and you like this idea and feel compelled.
This is all good and well, but how do you go from this to being a believing Christian in the Presbyterian Church? I do not see any meaningful definition of Christian in all this, either Liberal or conservative. There are Christians who believe the Bible contains mistakes, and there are non-Orthodox Christians, but reading this post does not give me a reason to think that you qualify as even a liberal Christian.
What doctrine associated with Christianity do you accept that distinguishes you from other moral people? Being fascinated with the Bible and being inclined to concede that there are things bigger than yourself, while asking questions is not bad at all, I just don’t see how this can qualify as Christianity in any sense, whether liberal or conservative.
The point of this post was for you to explain how you maintain your Christian faith. I am not at all compelled to believe after reading this post that you, in any meaningful sense can claim to hold the Christian faith, either a liberal version or a conservative version. Being fascinated with Bible writers, resonating with the stories, and pondering mysterious life forces is not in any workable sense “Christian faith”, let alone a Presbyterian version of that faith, if I recall correctly, in your case.
Sorry you found it frustrating. I fear we see things so differently that I will not be able to convince you of the validity or integrity of my being a Christian. But I did not set out to convince anyone of that; I was merely sharing how I am able to live in both the world of the academy and of the church. I do not know, nor do I need to, your checklist for being a Christian, but suffice it to say that in my own mind and my own experience, my life as a Christian involves far more than acknowledging that the Bible is a fascinating book and conceding “that there are things bigger than [my]self.” My understanding of God, largely understood through the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, certainly puts me in good standing to identify as a Christian. My place in the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)involves agreement with a wide range of ideas that make that denomination different than other Protestant denominations, not least of which is centrality of Scripture. So, thank you for your many comments. While you may not see any reason to allow me to identify myself as Christian, I will continue to do so and live a life faithful to that calling.
I will acknowledge that I still don’t see why you are Christian. It is not that I see it as impossible for a book with human flaws to also contain great truths, it is that when reading the Bible I see only evidence of human thinking (occasionally inspiring thinking, often not) and never anything that suggests that the authors had any actual contact with anything supernatural.
Perhaps the reason you don’t see why I am Christian is based on your reading and understanding of the Bible and not mine. While I, too, see the role of humans in the writing of the Bible, I also believe that they were wrestling with their own understanding of God. To have such an amazing record of those who have gone before us is a gift to all of us who are wrestling with the concept of God today. (And, as a side note, the fact that my understanding of God comes largely through my understanding of the life and ministry of Jesus puts me certainly in the tradition we call Christianity.) Thank you for your comments.
I know – as evidenced by modern scientific experimental psychology – that there are people who can believe at once in two totally different and even deeply contradictory things. That does not mean that these people have cognitive problems (Cognitive dissonances may or may not be a problem; but they are never a disabilityor) or are not very intelligent. It is a question that is studied in neurosciences and that is summed up in the enormous difficulty of separating reasoning from emotions and feelings, since they all circulate through the same neural circuits and are processed in the same areas of the brain or very overlapping each other. (A. Damasio).
But there is something I would like you to explain to me: if you are a Christian believer, the only original and valid source of your faith is the Bible (Sola Scriptura). And you need to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, because if not, vain is your faith (it is a building built on sands).
And if it is the Word of God (which only Christians believe because the Bible itself says so of itself), it cannot contain truths and falsehoods at the same time. For if that were so, what criteria would you have for separating the true from the false? None that were not tremendously subjective. And that subjectivity is only in your brain. And your brain, like everyone’s, is an almost perfect machine to deceive. And the easiest person to fool by your mind is yourself.
I think that arguing that in the Bible there are basic truths that one must believe if one says one is Christian and other issues or details that do not matter whether they are truths, lies or mistakes, is inadmissible. Since if we accept this, we must forcefully believe that the Bible is not the Word of God, and our faith ends in a God who sometimes is right and sometimes is wrong; sometimes he tells the truth and sometimes he lies. There are no Words of God that are true and others that are more or less so or even, that are clearly wrong. The God of Judeo-Christians cannot err or lie. That is why I confess that it is impossible for me to believe simultaneously in a thing that I know is true with an extremely high probability and its opposite.
Thank you for this long and carefully crafted comment. I am not, however, swayed by your argument. My response to this will be brief. Suffice it to say that your “ifs…” are reflections of your understandings and not mine. You have your own definition of what a Christian believer is and must think and certainly the tenets (or at least some of them that that person must hold. Since I do not agree with them from the outset then we will arrive at different conclusions. In short, I take a very different view of “Word of God,” and my understanding of the text we have received being the product of human hands (in response to and reflection on God) prevents me from coming to your ultimate conclusions.
Respectfully, what you or anyone (be they more or less educated) thinks Christianity ‘is’ matters naught. Christianity is what the NT says it is, period. There can be discussions over what the texts mean, but the core of the religion is beyond definition via informed opinion or personal preference. The cultural drivers giving rise to faith in the face of an absolute absence of evidence in support of any of the Bible’s central claims are plain to see, including in your opening post here.
You believe for one reason — you choose to. The reasons for this choice are emotional. As an island unto yourself (as all conscious creatures are) there is not much to be done about that. It is when you apply your beliefs to others that we get in trouble. In truth, you are worshiping your own mental state, assigning credence to those aspects of the Christian tradition that make you feel good and rejecting those which do not. In this, you are just like everyone else. That is the nature of the human mind, not the product of any supernatural force.
So I think you and I must agree to disagree. If it is true that I “believe for one reason–[I] choose to” then it’s fair to say that you do not believe for one reason–you choose not to. And I’m ok with that. I am not out to change your mind, but neither am I out to tell you what you should or should not or may or may not believe. I also find your statement that “Christianity is what the NT says it is, period” is fraught with difficulties. The NT is a collection of writings by different people in different areas of the world at different times trying to work out for themselves what it means to follow Jesus. There is, I argue, NO ONE DEFINITION of Christianity lying between the first lines of Matthew and the final lines of Revelation. Indeed, most of these folks thought the world as they knew it was about to end, so they would be surprised I think that you and I are debating this issue. Thank you for considering my posts and for sharing your understandings with me.
And my thanks to you. Do you believe you could be a Christian if the Bible did not exist? After all, why would the maker of the universe need a book (even if it wasn’t so throughly faulty)? If you think that there is another source of faith in Jesus, please explain what that is. Isn’t everything a person can know about Chrisitianty contained in the Bible? Is there another resource that is not Pauline or Pentecostal in nature?
Honestly asking what references you are employing.
And you are positing that faith is necessary, which it is not. The reasons for unbelief in an unproven idea are not the same as those required for faith of your kind. Surely, you know this.
Thanks for your thoughtful and heartfelt comments. I admire and respect Bart, and I have read many of his books. But much of his success has been achieved by using fundamentalist Christians as a foil. They are an easy target, to be sure.Comments like yours are not so easy to dismiss. I wish this blog would have more of them.
Also, I think we all should recognize the power of what I call ‘the cultural lens’. The formative influences of time, place, condition, and experience do more than inform our views; they supply the bases from which we judge everything we encounter. It’s not what we perceive, but the instrument by which we percieve. Read our Dr Silker’s defense of her continuing faith again, this time with an eye to the cultural lens, and you may find reasons a scholar of the NT can still maintain belief.
I don’t mean this to be a gotcha or snarky question, but am genuinely curious. How do you get through any of the mainline confessional church services? There is precious little in the Apostles Creed that I truly believe, yet I love to sing the hymns. For some reason, the sillyness of the lyrics doesn’t seem to bother me nearly as much as a flat out recitation of “I believe …”.
Thanks. Steve Schullery, Kalamazoo, MI
Thanks, Steve. I have to admit that I get through many of the mainline Christian services leading them! 😉 Seriously, I understand and appreciate your comments and there have been many times when I sat back and wondered if I should be there since there I disagreed with some of the things we were saying (and singing). Then I remember that we are a community of faith and that probably no two believers in that congregation believe exactly the same thing about all of this. I think each of us (who identify with the body of believers called Christian) must wrestle with these questions faithfully and that our wrestling will take us on some interesting journeys if we let them. That is, in part for me, where “living in the questions” comes in. If I waited for all the answers or waited until I found a group of people with whom to journey who understood all of this exactly as I do then there would be no such thing as a church community. And I find great value in people coming together (flawed as we may be) attempting to live faithfully in this world and caring for those both within and outside its walls.
Thanks for sharing your views Judy. It’s clear to me that you have faith in the existence of a almighty God. And it sounds to me like you see the bible as an ancient record of some humans’ expression or understanding of this God. I have two questions. Firstly, I’m curious if you see this god as ultimately the same god that other religions are based on, even if their expression or understanding of this god might be very different (or even plural/polytheistic). I mean do you believe there is ultimately one all powerful god? My second question is whether you identify as a Christian. By this I mean, do you believe Jesus existed and ultimately was a deity that became a human, died and rose from the dead a few days later? Or do you believe the Jesus bits are also part of these ancient humans’ attempt at expressing the nature or some aspect or the god you believe in. I apologize if I’m now 100% clear. English is my second language. I guess I’m trying to understand if you see things as a typical Christian, or if you have your own version of these beliefs that are a bit more personal which allows you to see both sides of the argument.
Thank you for your comments. If by “typical Christian” you have in mind a more conservative understanding of the Bible and a view of what one might call the “Christian God” (which I would not) as the only expression of the ineffable, then I am not a typical Christian. As you can tell from my posts, my understanding of the Bible is not as the literal, inerrant Word of God. It IS, however, for me, the Word of God presented through human hands and meant to be a guide for us as we try to navigate our lives in the world. I am not prepared to state that every “god” upon which every religion is based is the same one, but I am open to the idea that my understanding is not the only way. I have what one would define as a low Christology; that is, I emphasize the humanity of Jesus more than the divinity. And, finally, yes, I work hard not to be so closed in my understandings that I am unwilling to see both (or even many) sides of an argument in order that the conversation be fruitful.
What a wonderful article. It’s like reading a reflection of my thoughts, questions, childhood experiences in a southern baptist church, & faith. I am having problems trying to put into words how refreshing it is to read your thoughts from a faith & scholar approach. Each end of that spectrum has always brought me disappointment & left me shaking my head. It’s been a treat to read that my approach from scholar (I’m by no means a scholar, but read & study that approach) & faith side can actually go together (as I have always thought). That approach has strengthened & grown my faith & knowledge.
again, thank you for taking the time to do this. I look forward to more.
Hi Judy
Do you think it’s a case of being aware of one’s presuppositions regarding God ? The two I have let go are that we are made in God’s image and that God is conscious .
The first one re in God’s image is just us being anthropocentric as God may be in a form we can’t comprehend and also might just be about our own psychological projections about events we can’t explain.
The second point I find more interesting and gets round Bart Ehrman’s problem of Suffering,I do agree with Bart though .If God isn’t conscious and just more about a state of being i.e. god means coming from love and compassion. If this is the case that if we show more love and compassion to one another we might be happier and the groups we live in might be better functioning as well. The Good Samaritan is a case in point ,it’s what you do not if you keep the Law/go to church /whatever. This means God isn’t in a postion to stop suffering as that’s not what it’s gig is ( as they say) .
Anyway that my view ,we can use the Bible as a resourse but we should’t tie ourselves up in knots trying to defend it.I recently exchanged emails with an apologist who maintains the great flood was localised to Mesopotamia and all of mankind had been summoned there ,which is problematic for lots of reasons. He also claims that the majority of non Christian scholars think that Mark and Luke wrote Mark and Luke which is also highly problematic. Anyway ,upward and onward.
Dominic
Do you think that if someone generally follows the teachings of Christ but finds conclusions like Barts regarding the resurrection to be equally or more plausible than the traditional view (that God truly raised him), then that person will be denied access into heaven? Do you think that Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists will be denied access into heaven because they do not typically believe in the resurrection?
“If a mind never has any perplexities at all, never makes contact with material which it cannot comprehend, never finds any of its presuppositions no longer supposable, the likelihood is great that it has more affinity with a corpse than with Christ.”
— Roy Pearson, _The Believer’s Unbelief_