aldenswan.com

Dear Christian Nation,

One of the problems that we have, and why some atheists and other forms of non-believers find Christianity nuts, is that so many of us read the Bible in ways that allow us to make it say whatever we want. Thus, we have those committed to a life of poverty, and also those committed to material wealth; we have legalists and antinomians, liberal pacifists and fundamentalist war-mongers, and the list goes on. Many non-Christians don’t understand that when Pat Robertson proclaims a natural disaster as punishment from God, or when Oral Roberts sees a 900 foot Jesus, they aren’t speaking for the rest of us. This individualized, subjective (and dare I say postmodern?) reading of the Bible is, at the very least, setting a bad example for non-Christians who are trying to make sense out of what we believe (or are supposed to believe).

This is not to say that even with good hermeneutics (the art of interpreting ancient texts such as the Bible) we won’t have disagreements; however, I’m certain that we’d have significantly less disagreement over many important passages, with just a little dedication to truth. After all, aren’t we supposed to be dedicated to truth?

Ben Witherington has posted a brilliant piece called Hermeneutics– A Guide for Perplexed Bible Readers, that should be of interest to Christians and may also be of interest to non-Christians. It may also upset a number of Christians who insist on creating their own private reality.

Witherington first makes a good case (please pay attention to this) for why Christians should work a bit harder to try to understand the Bible correctly. The problem, however, is that many of us simply don’t want to hear this; actually treating truth as something worth working on interferes with our “making it up as we go” brand of reality. In other words, hermeneutics interferes with their heresy.

Witherington says:

But why would we need a guide to the perplexed in regard to the interpreting of the Bible? After all, don’t Christians have brains and the Holy Spirit to guide them? Well yes, but all modern brains are affected in the way they think by the modern cultural milieu in which they are immersed. They are affected as well by their whole educational progress (or regress) through school as well.

And frankly, ancient Biblical cultures, languages, and modes of conveying meaning are often so different from what modern ‘common sense’ may deduce that we do need some guidelines to help us interpret the Biblical texts which came out of very different cultures and circumstances from our own, ESPECIALLY if we are only trying to interpret the Bible on the basis of one or more English translations, none of which are perfect representations of the original language texts.

Witherington also gives three rudimentary rules of interpretation, with a brief explanation of each rule:

1. What it meant is what it means
2. Context is king
3. Genre matters

Some may feel that these rules are meant to explain away some things, or to discredit some “pet” interpretations; however, these are simply rules for actually understanding what the Word of God actually means. Doesn’t this seem important? However, as sad as it is, there will be many who simply reject this approach as being “liberal,” or based on reason rather than “spirit.” These people will go on with their own version of reality based on subjective, individualized, out-of-context readings of the Bible, in effect taking the position that their own understanding is more authoritative than the Bible itself.

Sounds terribly postmodern, doesn’t it? Again, I’m not against different opinions on what a text means, and certainly not when it comes down to the application of a text’s meaning. However, if you’re going to simply pull meaning out of the air, why use the Bible at all?

There will be verse-mining and rumors of proof-texting. It’s unfortunate and apparently inevitable, especially when Christians reject “the good sense that God gave you.”

I can relate to this:

Very soon I will start posting my thoughts on Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, as I’ve been promising for some time. A couple of days ago I poked a bit of fun at him, just as a warm-up. Today, I’m talking about an episode of his TV show entitled The Enemies of Reason, which is available to view online. In this show, his topic is superstition. And, I found myself agreeing with him through much of it.

Superstition, as Dawkins explains it, is when people make irrational cause-and-effect connections between things. I don’t recall the exact example he used, so I’ll provide one: A black cat crosses in front of you, and the next thing you know you’re struck by lightning. Rather than making the connection that walking in a lightning storm is dangerous, you presume that it was the black cat’s fault. Dawkins finds superstition behind various New Age beliefs, astrology, and so on. His critique of superstition is right on point.

While he didn’t go into this on this particular show, I believe that superstitious beliefs are present in many Christians. While I can blow off superstition in general as idiotic, superstition in Christians drives me bonkers, and I would team up with Mr. Dawkins to expose it. As he explains that people in general have a tendency to draw cause-and-effect connections between things, it is normal, then, to expect that it is no different for Christians. Reason, which I believe is not an evolutionary trait as Dawkins does but is a gift from God) is to enable us to think through our life experiences and find truth rather than drifting into superstition.

However, superstition has been found to be very valuable to some in the organized religion business, especially if it can be tied to money. Tithing is one such teaching, where people are taught that if they don’t give at least 10% of everything to their local church, bad things will happen to them. (For more on this topic, read this.) I believe whole-heartedly in giving and generosity, and believe that God blesses those who are generous. However, God is not a machine, and tithing is not a simple formula. There are many other examples of superstition that exists in the Church, and they keep people from the real truth.

While I agreed with perhaps 90% of what Dawkins said, there are points that I do disagree with. For one, faith is not necessarily the same as superstition. Faith does not have to be irrational, or illogical. Another point on which we disagree is, as I mentioned earlier, the origin of reason. There are difficulties in a materialistic understanding of man’s ability to reason. Tied to the nature of reason is the question of the limits of reason: Dawkins puts way too much faith in man’s ability to figure things out and arrive at any notion of truth. If, as Dawkins believes, reason is an evolutionary development, the question then becomes “are we evolved enough to really grasp reality, or are we merely ants in comparison to the humans of the future?” How will we ever know? I’m sure my cat thinks he has things figured out, too.

On this topic, Tom Gilson writes an interesting post, dealing with the arguments from reason for the existence of God.

I am a fan of reason (with its limitations), and as I listened to Dawkins, I also realized that I am a skeptic by nature. I - believe it or not - actually look at some things the same way he does. As I flip through channels and see various TV preachers who I won’t name, I feel the same sort of revulsion and anger that I’m sure he does, as I see the cockeyed culture and manipulative teachings that have very little if anything to do with reality. I am angry because they tarnish what I hold as truth; coincidentally, that’s why Dawkins gets angry, too. The main difference, of course, is what we believe to be the truth. So, I guess I can at least understand some of Dawkins’ attitude.

Finding that I agree - a wee bit - with Richard Dawkins is an odd thing. I haven’t changed my opinions on his book, however, and I’ll hopefully get a chance to deal with that some next week.