Monday, October 29, 2007

How will U know the truth?

Is the Bible all there is? In a lot of Christian circles, the Bible is considered to be God's inerrant word. Yes, there are reams and reams of paper used on books discussing the Bible, parsing its words, writing about the lives and sayings of saints, and telling us how to apply the Bible to our daily lives. Any Christian bookstore carries tons of these books (on the shelves that aren't devoted to Testamints, wishy-washy Christian pop CDs and fancy Bible covers for good Christians to tote God's word in style). But no one would say that these books are greater than the Bible. Most of them derive their messages from the Bible, and their readers are likely to maintain that the Bible is all a person needs to live a good life.

Which brings us to the fork in the road at which many people stand during crises of faith. Most of my church-and-religion-eschewing friends grew up in strict Bible-believing churches. The two paths at their fork were "Suck it up and believe that the Bible is God's direct, factual word" and "Stop believing in the Bible." I have always been surprised that a third fork, "Stop seeing the Bible as inerrant and learn about interpretation" doesn't exist, but when you grow up hearing that the only options are to believe completely or not at all, it's not much of a shock that most people choose the latter option when they are no longer able to choose the former.

Many people who have moved past accepting the Bible as inerrant truth do so because of the contradictions in purportedly factual stories. Everything from the number of troops in a battle to the events of Creation has two tellings, and those tellings are rarely identical. We can call these multiple representations poorly-concealed lies or we can accept them as the consequence of compiling multiple versions of a culture's mythology in one place. And accepting that Biblical stories are mythology (and that they are based on even older mythology involving--gasp!--tons of foreign gods and goddesses) doesn't make them less truthful; it just means we are dealing with a different sort of truth.

There is scientific truth, which can be supported using stringent testing and repeated by any person with the right equipment; the slightly-less-easy-to-prove historical truth, which rests on eyewitnesses and the words of the winners but which is still rooted in an actual event that people agree happened; then there is religious truth. Religious truth rests on morals and lessons derived from myths and parables. It can be found in the emotional cry of poetry or derived from apocryphal stories speaking to universal human experiences. Even if the Bible lacks scientific or historical truth, it can still be religiously true. We can still use it and its lessons to guide our lives.

To tell the truth, I'm not entirely sure how a person justifies these discrepancies if they claim the Bible is 100% true in all senses of the word. Do you just ignore the parts that disagree? Insist that sources disputing the Bible's scientific and historical truth are wrong? It's probably unfair of me, but I can't help but think that some degree of self-deception is involved in such a worldview. Regardless, the point is that believing in the religious truth of the Bible doesn't mean you also have to accept that every single word possesses full scientific and historical accuracy, and it doesn't mean that you can't question it or accept some parts more readily than others. I think this is probably more along the lines of what God wants--for us to use our minds to discern what is meant by the writings of the Bible, to decide what is meant by different parts, to make sense of what is being offered in its pages. And if that isn't truth, what is?

Friday, October 26, 2007

I am a man who has heard all he can

A lot of people grow up learning a lot about the divinity of Jesus. A major crux of the Christian faith is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, a diving being in human form. He performed miracles, possessed great wisdom, and was resurrected from the dead. I think the emphasis on Jesus' place in the triune Godhead makes it difficult to think of Jesus as a person.

So what? Jesus is God--why does it matter if we see him as human? I think it matters quite a bit. We're told to call on Jesus, to pray in His name, to see him as our friend and intercessor. Many fundamentalists take this a step further and emphasize the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus. But if we see Jesus as only divine, as only perfect, as only God, then He is distanced from us. That distance makes it difficult to envision a Christ who cares for us personally.

Theology aside, Jesus was a pretty cool dude. For starters, the man liked to party. His first miracle was, of course, turning water into wine at a wedding party (Jn 2:1-11). In Matthew 9:14-15 and Luke 7:34, we see that Jesus was thought by his contemporaries to be "a glutton and a drunkard" and that he and his disciples did not fast on the appropriate days (probably Jewish Holy days). Many of the Gospel stories start by mentioning that Jesus and his disciples were eating at someone's house.

Anger and frustration are emotions a lot of people are made to feel guilty about. I personally have a temper problem and have spent years trying to restrain my tongue. How nice to know that Jesus also had the same issues! The most memorable "Jesus gets pissed off" story is when he kicks out the moneychangers and bird-sellers from the Temple* (Mt 21:12-13, Mk 11:15-19, Lk 19:45-48, Jn 2:13-22). Jesus also tends to get mad when he is asked a "dumb question"--one he thinks the questioner should see the answer to. "How long must I be among this sinful generation!?" is a common question of Jesus, asked most often after he has been talking to the Pharisees. His frustration is not reserved only for his enemies, though--Jesus dishes out plenty of sarcasm to the disciples. Jesus calls Peter "Satan" when Peter does not understand the discussion about his impending death (Mt 16:23, Mk 8:32).

My favorite "Jesus gets pissed off story" is such because I can see myself doing it--and what a joy to feel even a small emotional link to Jesus! In both Matthew 21:18-19 and Mark 11:12-14, 20-21, Jesus is hungry and goes to pluck some figs from a tree he sees along the road. The tree had no figs because it was not fig season. He curses the tree and it withers. Many sources link this story to Jesus' discovery that the Temple in Jerusalem, like the tree, was bereft of any fruit. But I see it as much simpler--the man was hungry. Everyone has been hungry and cranky at some point. He wants some figs and the tree has none. So he pulls out the toddler in all of us and curses the tree.

Jesus wasn't just a partier with an anger control problem. Many of his miracles begin with someone asking Jesus for help and Jesus "taking pity" on them. He also heals people who are not among the Israelites who Jesus was sent to save (Mt 9:18-26, Mk 5:21-43, Lk 8:40-56, Mt 15: 21-28, Mk 7:24-30) because those people begged him for help. Often, Jesus' expressions of frustration with the disciples are followed by him further explaining what he has been telling them. He has a huge heart and cannot bear to see his people suffering in ignorance.

This isn't a comprehensive list; frankly, it's what I came up with on the fly. But it serves my point--Jesus was really and truly human and that side of him is just as important as his divinity. So many churches and lessons are so focused on the miraculous, divine, amazing nature of Jesus that they alienate us less-than-perfect people, us glitches, from feeling near to him. But Jesus isn't some remote holy being floating in the clouds. Jesus knew loss (he mourned the deaths of John the Baptist and Lazarus, his two friends), he knew loneliness, he knew anger, he knew fear (I defy anyone to read his words in Gethsemane and not feel the despair), he knew how to have a good time, and he knows what it's like to be us. And I think he would understand feeling like a glitch.

*An interesting side note is that the money changers and people selling animals were doing business in the Temple in order to facilitate the offering of sacrifices. I often wonder what Jesus would think of churches with gift shops or churches that hold bake sales.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

This is the beginning.

So. I have decided to add my tiny raindrop voice to the giant ocean that is the blog world. Perhaps I will be the only person to ever read this, and that's cool. Mostly I need a space to discuss my religious/spiritual thoughts.

There is a conflict in my mind because I have long associated sharing the Gospel, talking about church, or even general religious discussion with evangelical fundamentalist Christians. As a result of this association, I am loathe to discuss my religious leanings lest someone think I am "one of those religious wackos." I know a great many people who associate religious emotion of any kind with fanaticism, and I've self-censored over the years to avoid being lumped in that group.

So here I am, a faithful person who is quiet about that faith. Perhaps this is the same as hiding my light under a bushel basket, equivalent to being a "Sunday-only Christian" who is content to sit in a pew for an hour each week and leave it all in the church building until next Sunday rolls around. The thought of this bothers me a lot.

I am also bothered by the fact that my religious reticence completely takes my stance out of the dialogue. I am giving my voice to the fundamentalists from whom I seek to distance myself. In handing over my voice, I align myself with them. because when people hear that I am a Christian, they will paint me with the brush used to paint the "wackos."

Hence, this blog. It may be a futile effort, never to be read by any but me. But at least it's there.