"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."- Jesus Christ,
The Gospel According to St. John, Chap.5 vs.39
As I ate my lunch this past Sunday - I read Time magazine and browsed through The New York Times Book Review - my way of catching up on the world and its culture, outside of my little circle of life.Time magazine featured an article about the potential benefits of teaching the Bible in public schools, while The New York Times Book Review featured a large advertisement for a book by Victor J. Stenger, called "God, The Failed Hypothesis."
The contrasting viewpoints of these two items irked me - which is what happens a lot when I consider how we, as the potentially most informed generation in history, having at our literal fingertips, access to more information than at any other time in history, seem to be more generally illiterate and lacking in common sense than ever! Our view of the world seems to continually confuse the things that should and shouldn't be taken seriously.
PART ONE : THE BIBLE AS A TEXTBOOK
The Time Magazine article, called "Why We Should Teach The Bible in Public School," had a very important sub-title that's barely visible in the above picture: "But very, very carefully."
The article emphasized that "experts" endorsed the "teaching", but not the "preaching" of the Bible. To that I say: Good Luck with that!!!
The issue is that yet again, as often happens in debates about the validity of the Bible in developing a view of the world, this controversial book - the best seller of all time, and best seller every year (according to the article), is being treated as something that it is not.
- The Bible has been debated as a science book
- The Bible has been debated as a history book
- The Bible has been debated as the literal word of God
The Bible is a very deep book - a compilation of spiritual experiences recorded over time by hundreds of authors. It records various encounters with God that are interpreted in the context of the cultural lives of ancient Middle-Eastern nomadic tribal people. God as they understood Him.
Unlike the Qur'an, the Bible does not claim to be a direct revelation from the very "mouth" of God. It stands as a record of communication between God, men and women. The Bible is the interpretation of God by those who experienced Him.
Therefore, to assign the study of the Bible as a textbook, or as a reference book on historical facts is to miss its point entirely.
TEXT WITHOUT CONTEXT
It is very difficult to understand the Bible without knowledge of the culture that it comes from. The Bible comes out of the community of God's people - in the Old Testament, the Jews, in the New Testament, the Church.
The New Testament in particular, is a series of "interpretations" of the events in the life of Jesus Christ. In fact, the giveaway for this fact is often omitted in modern versions of the Bible - "The Gospel According to ......" prefix is often omitted and replaced with just "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "John." The rest of the New Testament is made up of letters, or epistles, written by Paul and other apostles/disciples to already existing Church communities - their purpose being to correct or explain errors in conduct based on misinterpretation of Old Testament scripture, or as encouragement for their current efforts in building strong communities.
The Bible came out of a community and is meant to be understood in the light of that community. The Bible as we know it today was not actually available to the "general public" until the 17th Century - almost 1600 years after the facts!!! By this I'm not suggesting that the Bible is not accurate - on the contrary, because the oral traditions were considered sacred in those ancient societies, the Bible is painfully accurate (at the expense of many of its authors having to reveal their ignorance and moral failures!!)
The Bible was never intended to stand by itself - this is an idea that came about during the Reformation - it was always used by the Church as a supplement to the life unfolding from within the community of like-minded believers.
Trying to understand the Bible outside the context of the Church or community of faith, is like trying to learn how to fly a plane by reading an in-flight magazine!!!
WHICH VERSION OR INTERPRETATION?
If the Bible were taught in school - which version or interpretation, (as I call it), would you teach?
- The Jewish version - focusing on the Laws of God?
- The Evangelical Protestantism version - focusing on the superceding of laws with the Justice and Mercy of God's Grace?
- The Pentecostal version - focusing on the gifts of the Spirit?
- The Quaker version - focusing on the indwelling presence of Christ?
I don't think the Bible can be taught generically.
In my mind, it would be better for educators to be more faithful about teaching the centrality of religion in founding civilizations - not just Christianity - but also Judaism and Islam. The spread of those religions has influenced most of the cultures in the world. The Bible reflects that influence - not the other way around.
So, rather than teach the Bible - teach the students about the origins of the Justice system, democracy, and indeed, the origins of the educational systems that we currently have. All of them have their roots firmly established in the spread of religious teachings over the centuries.
A course on the influence of Quaker Christian philosophy on the eventual abolition of slavery would be invaluable in demonstrating how religion positively influenced law through cultural self-examination and peaceful means.
Our civilization was, is and continues to be influenced by the Judeo-Christian, and Islamic cultures that founded it. The better we understand this going forward, the more prepared the next generations will be to deal with it and potentially debate the pros and cons intelligently. Who knows we might even come to an amicable agreement like the Christians and Muslims who have worshiped together at the ancient Christian Monastery of St. Catherine's in Egypt - the Christian monastery has a mosque within its walls that's been there since the 7th century !!!
____________
PART TWO: GOD - A FAILED HYPOTHESIS?
"God, the Failed Hypothesis," by Victor J. Stenger is yet another book by an Atheist "Evangelist" - destined to be a best seller.
This books subtitle is fascinating: "How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist"
I had always hoped that science was in the business of explaining "how" things are the way they are. It should really not be in the business of proving the non-existence of anything - it sounds rather ridiculous to even suggest that time should be spent even explaining something that isn't!!!
There are so many things that do exist that we need to understand - that it seems pointless to be concerned about non-existent things!!
Of course, the real motive of this book, I hope, is not to prove that God doesn't exist - it's really to challenge the existence of the kind of God that a lot of people believe exists. I can't really blame him for writing it either - we live in an age when people willingly, for money, embarass themselves on national TV by demonstrating that they're not as smart as the average 5th grader!!! How can these people be trusted to even drive cars???
If , however, Stenger DID write his book to prove the non-existence of God - let me just say this:
Scientists should concern themselves with "how" and not "why?" When they cross that line they move into the realm of philosophers and theologians and are no longer scientists.
The Bible uses many analogies in describing the nature of God. God is Light, God is Love, and many others. To deny the existence of love is a sad state of mind. I realize that many scientists might describe the symptoms of love as being just a bio-chemical reaction - but Love is not that. Lots of unbelievable things happen because of love - self-sacrifice, healing, forgiveness, and peace.
When Atheist scientists like Stenger and Dawkins describe the kind of God that they believe does not exist - I agree with them. But only the very foolish would deny that love exists - even though we can't actually see it and can only describe it through analogies and poetic imagery - just like God.
COMMON FLAW
Both views of God that are implied in these two items, in my opinion, have a common flaw. Both assume that the Bible is the self-contained definitive definition and full-disclosure of God - not so - that would make God something that can be limited by our understanding - which is not possible given our very finite minds.
We do not fully understand our own human nature - how can we ever expect to understand a nature beyond our own?
God is known ONLY through revelation - that's the premise of the Bible - we can only know God as He reveals Himself to us - and for Christians, this is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. We obviously can't know this, but we can believe it -
DOUBTING DOUBT
I have an interesting thought. I often doubt my beliefs about God - more often than I care to admit. Sometimes those feelings of doubt are overwhelming.......So.................
When Stenger, and other Atheists doubt their beliefs - do they actually momentarily believe in the existence of God? I envy them those moments - When they don't believe that God doesn't exist!!!!
1 comment:
Very nice. The TIME article is as much a product of protestant evangelicalism as anything who approach apologetics for the Bible from a rational, scientific, historical persepective. So basically I think most of them would see it as a foot in the door of public schools since they share a common ground with the unbeliever and atheist on that level: all things must be subjected to rational scrutiny for its validity and the hope would be that the validity might accidentally be seen by those applying the scientific methods to the Book. But then it cuts both ways, what about the "believers" who actually buy the system and come to the conclusion Stengl did? A high price to pay for a foot in the door. sigh....
Post a Comment