The In-Between
Home today reading, rain non-stop for the last 30 hours, the long headcold still clotting my head. A good session splitting wood day before yesterday, craving any kind of exercise today but too sick and the weather too wet to come up with anything. Catching up for school: Madame Bovary; and EFM, more than two weeks behind, Abraham and Isaac.
Sick headache. After nap mouth taste. Mikey home from school, walk from the bus wet, watching ESPN and asking me silly questions more beautiful than my home or career:
'Troy, why are mini-bibles orange.' Talking about his 'real' father; amazing to me everyone gets along after nearly a decade.
***
EFM is awesome. For each section of the bible we read there is accompanying text, easy to read but touching on scholarly issues, not just regurgitating the story; critical, rational, also faithful. I love it.
I know the modern focus on innerrancy is a reaction to the higher criticism, skepticism, some of it Christian much of it not, of the last century. Innerrancy was one of the famous Torey Fundamentals published early in the 20th century. Did modern fundamentalism invent innerrancy? Not fully, though I admit I don't know the full history of church attitudes on scripture. I believe scriptural literalism was elevated in varying degrees during different church periods, but clearly the canon achieved high status early in the church's history as the oral tradition was lost and a permanent basis for faith became necessary. I have to wait for year three in EFM, church history, for the full story.
The short, obvious point I'm trying to make is that there is a very good middle-ground between verbal plenary historical inerrancy, which the text we have does not present, and faith-undermining skepticism. Many Christians now hold to this middle ground, the in-between, and I'm one of them. I know the Episcopal church declares the entire Bible to be God's Word though that is not defined; many of its scholars have adopted a rational approach to reading the library of books which are the bible. I do not believe God wrote the thing; people wrote it, moved by God. The OT is one group's religious history 'taken up' as Lewis said. This perspective is very liberating for me; I don't think I could believe freely without such a position; there are passages in the OT which tell us more about the writer than the Creator; others which stand out as the finest religious literature I've read.
For example, I was stunnned as I read the story of Isaac's near-sacrifice in Genesis. Having heard the story as a child, I thought I knew it, but I didn't know it. Its religious power is overwhelming; its foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice awe-full. It's cold, unwavering command of obedience and subsequent deliverance powerful eucastrophe, to use another Lewis term. The only thing I know that comes close to Genesis is Sophocles' Oedipus and Oedipus at Colonnus, and yet those plays, wildly superior to anything in Homer or Hesiod, stand outside the Redeemer tradition. Oedipus is laid low by Apollo, and only after long years of blind despair is he allowed to enter the God's presence. He is his own sacrifice; there is no substitute.
But I'm drifting.
I simply want to mention a middle ground altnerative to fundamentalist literalism. Why? Because such rigid adherence to every line of scripture enhances bigotry, hate, exclusion. Oh yes it does. We don't keep the Mosaic law anymore, us carnitas eating Christians, but we dredge one or two up when necessary. Women are kept out of public ministry because of explicit commands St. Paul makes to specific churches, but then he also orders women's heads to be covered in prayer, their hair to be uncut, and marriage to be avoided, if possible, since the escahton was imminent. We ignore some of his particular directions, but not all. Why do we insist on keeping some of the OT and epistolary commands? Why has James' letter been remembered for its strong language about doubt and the tongue (and the tongue really does wound) and not for its heavy-handed warnings against favoring the wealthy, even against having wealth?
I wrote a paragraph trying to answer that, but I deleted it; I need to think about these things in my own heart.
Rejecting literal scriptural inerrancy does not mean rejecting inspiration nor does it mean rejecting the supernatural; it certainly doesn't have to mean rejecting faith in Jesus. I know when I come to the gospels I may find it daunting, trying to understand each evangelist' point of view and wading through the swamp of gospel criticsm. I'll get there when I get there; hopefully my faith survives and is strengthened as it has been from reading Genesis and the EFM content. But just because Paul's letters become just Paul's letters doesn't mean they don't contain revelation from God. Faith, hope, and love. What higher religion do we need when these are placed in Paul's Christian context?
I've probably said all this before, but it's a position which is solidifying in me as I find there are alternatives, rational and faithful alternatives, between innerrancy and disbelief. Rejecting innerrancy does not have to lead to the radical revisions of Crossan or Spong (and they get press here only because they write for a popular audience).
Allright, off the soap-box. Thanks for letting me share.
Be well all. Love to each.
Sick headache. After nap mouth taste. Mikey home from school, walk from the bus wet, watching ESPN and asking me silly questions more beautiful than my home or career:
'Troy, why are mini-bibles orange.' Talking about his 'real' father; amazing to me everyone gets along after nearly a decade.
***
EFM is awesome. For each section of the bible we read there is accompanying text, easy to read but touching on scholarly issues, not just regurgitating the story; critical, rational, also faithful. I love it.
I know the modern focus on innerrancy is a reaction to the higher criticism, skepticism, some of it Christian much of it not, of the last century. Innerrancy was one of the famous Torey Fundamentals published early in the 20th century. Did modern fundamentalism invent innerrancy? Not fully, though I admit I don't know the full history of church attitudes on scripture. I believe scriptural literalism was elevated in varying degrees during different church periods, but clearly the canon achieved high status early in the church's history as the oral tradition was lost and a permanent basis for faith became necessary. I have to wait for year three in EFM, church history, for the full story.
The short, obvious point I'm trying to make is that there is a very good middle-ground between verbal plenary historical inerrancy, which the text we have does not present, and faith-undermining skepticism. Many Christians now hold to this middle ground, the in-between, and I'm one of them. I know the Episcopal church declares the entire Bible to be God's Word though that is not defined; many of its scholars have adopted a rational approach to reading the library of books which are the bible. I do not believe God wrote the thing; people wrote it, moved by God. The OT is one group's religious history 'taken up' as Lewis said. This perspective is very liberating for me; I don't think I could believe freely without such a position; there are passages in the OT which tell us more about the writer than the Creator; others which stand out as the finest religious literature I've read.
For example, I was stunnned as I read the story of Isaac's near-sacrifice in Genesis. Having heard the story as a child, I thought I knew it, but I didn't know it. Its religious power is overwhelming; its foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice awe-full. It's cold, unwavering command of obedience and subsequent deliverance powerful eucastrophe, to use another Lewis term. The only thing I know that comes close to Genesis is Sophocles' Oedipus and Oedipus at Colonnus, and yet those plays, wildly superior to anything in Homer or Hesiod, stand outside the Redeemer tradition. Oedipus is laid low by Apollo, and only after long years of blind despair is he allowed to enter the God's presence. He is his own sacrifice; there is no substitute.
But I'm drifting.
I simply want to mention a middle ground altnerative to fundamentalist literalism. Why? Because such rigid adherence to every line of scripture enhances bigotry, hate, exclusion. Oh yes it does. We don't keep the Mosaic law anymore, us carnitas eating Christians, but we dredge one or two up when necessary. Women are kept out of public ministry because of explicit commands St. Paul makes to specific churches, but then he also orders women's heads to be covered in prayer, their hair to be uncut, and marriage to be avoided, if possible, since the escahton was imminent. We ignore some of his particular directions, but not all. Why do we insist on keeping some of the OT and epistolary commands? Why has James' letter been remembered for its strong language about doubt and the tongue (and the tongue really does wound) and not for its heavy-handed warnings against favoring the wealthy, even against having wealth?
I wrote a paragraph trying to answer that, but I deleted it; I need to think about these things in my own heart.
Rejecting literal scriptural inerrancy does not mean rejecting inspiration nor does it mean rejecting the supernatural; it certainly doesn't have to mean rejecting faith in Jesus. I know when I come to the gospels I may find it daunting, trying to understand each evangelist' point of view and wading through the swamp of gospel criticsm. I'll get there when I get there; hopefully my faith survives and is strengthened as it has been from reading Genesis and the EFM content. But just because Paul's letters become just Paul's letters doesn't mean they don't contain revelation from God. Faith, hope, and love. What higher religion do we need when these are placed in Paul's Christian context?
I've probably said all this before, but it's a position which is solidifying in me as I find there are alternatives, rational and faithful alternatives, between innerrancy and disbelief. Rejecting innerrancy does not have to lead to the radical revisions of Crossan or Spong (and they get press here only because they write for a popular audience).
Allright, off the soap-box. Thanks for letting me share.
Be well all. Love to each.
Comments