I know that when someone has an “alternative” view of the Bible, or Jesus, it freaks some people out. It freaks the institutionalized church out so bad they call it “heresy”. In my opinion, heresy is just a stigmatized label placed on alternative views in order to control the masses, so I don’t pay much attention. In reality, what the church calls heresy is just another opinion that appears dangerous to those with a vested interest in power or money.
I have an alternative view (read: not the view of those in charge of institutional Christianity) of the Bible and Jesus that I would like to throw out there. The only way I can make sense of it is to see it as poetic, allegorical, mystical. It’s not new. Alan Watts had a very similar view in the 60’s and it jives with mine pretty well. If you wish to “push back” in a respectful way, I don’t mind at all. I’ll start with some general thoughts about the Bible and how I see it.
My interpretation of the Bible has changed over time. I began reading it as a new Christian, full of wonder, awe and zeal. It was special. It was an inerrant book of magic spoken by God threw his people for the good of all humanity (at least those that lived in the Bible belt which was my world at the time). Then I went to Bible college and took some classes. There the Bible was dissected in ways I didn’t know was possible. Textual, historical, and source criticism replaced magic. The Bible, for all intent and purpose, was worshiped as a fourth person of the Trinity. I finished my degree at a more “liberal” school that taught it was infallible (good for everything we need to know to live a “pleasing life”), which at least allowed a little room for science. I was trained in a particular way of reasoning in order to come to the same conclusions as the professor, and I was pretty good at it. However, there were to many hoops to jump threw, to many leaps of unnecessary faith, to much sterility, to much systematic theory divorced from reality.
I think one can look at the Bible from different altitudes. I was taught in college to look at the Bible from a microscopic point of view. Each word should be researched in the original language etc. When I was new to the Bible I looked at it from a higher altitude. I read chapters and books to get the main point etc, or tried to the get the overall point of the New Testament or Old Testament.
However, what if one pulled back to a higher altitude and viewed the Bible compared to other sacred texts (having an open mind might help too)? You might say that there is simply no comparison, the Bible is true and all other sacred texts are false. In my opinion, this would be like an astronomer saying there simply is no planet that compares to the Earth, so we must quit looking. Or, a scientist in the medical profession who says penicillin is the best thing ever, so lets not research further. The world is just to big and diverse for this kind of attitude in my opinion.
From this point of view the Bible is not unlike other sacred texts. It has a creation story, historical information, a metaphysical framework, mythology, heroes and villains, saints and rascals.
Here is an excerpt from Egyptologist, Sir Wallis Budge:
According to the writings of the Egyptians, there was a time
when neither heaven nor earth existed, and when nothing had
being except the boundless primeval water, which was,
however, shrouded with thick darkness. In this condition, the
primeval water remained for a considerable time, notwithstanding
that it contained within it the germs of the things,
which afterwards came into existence in this world and the
world itself. At length, the Spirit of the primeval water felt the
desire for creative activity, and having uttered the word, the
world sprang straightway into being in the form which had
already been depicted in the mind of the Spirit before he
spake the word which resulted in its creation.
And this from The Egyption Book of the Dead:
God is One and alone, and none other exists with
Him; God is the One, the One who has made all things.
He is eternal and infinite; ... He has endured for
countless ages, and He shall endure to all eternity.
God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the Spirit of spirits,
the Divine Spirit.
He is a mystery to His creatures, and no man knows
how to know Him. His names are innumerable; they are
manifold, and no one knows their number.
God has made the universe, and He has created all
that is in it; ... He has stretched out the heavens and founded
the earth. What His heart conceived came to pass straightway,
and when He had spoken, His word came to pass, and it shall
endure forever.
God, Himself, is existence; He lives in all things, and
lives upon all things. He endures without increase or diminution;
He multiplies Himself millions of times, and He
possesses multitudes of forms and multitudes of members.
God is life, and through Him only man lives. He gives life to
man, and He breathes the breath of life into his nostrils.
God is merciful unto those who reverence Him, and
He hears those who call upon Him. He protects the weak
against the strong, and He hears the cry of him that is bound
in fetters. ... God knows those who know Him; He rewards
those who serve Him, and He protects those who follow
Him.
Considering these writings, which are a great example of monotheism, predate Judaic scripture, I would say it is not a far leap from this story to the creation story of Genesis.
Let’s play the “what if” game. What if the first few chapters of Genesis, and the perhaps the rest of the OT, were just a way that the Hebrews tried to describe life as they saw it? What if it is no different than any other culture that was trying to make sense of life and created a story to do so? What makes the creation story of Genesis better, or more accurate, or more useful than any of the other creation stories? Have you taken the time to read other creation stories to see what is similar?
Please keep in mind, this is no scholarly study. It's just one example of what I've found in my study. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. It's just a glimpse of why I've changed how I choose to view and use the Bible. I'll throw some different points of view out there about Jesus in the future....
19 comments:
I am no scholar and my background is very different, but let me throw in the thoughts of a recognised scholar who seems to reinforce what Roger is saying:
George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury had some interesting things to say about ways of thinking about God in a book entitled 'Canterbury Letters':
As a young and committed enquirer Carey had endless books – the first group retold the simple faith, but seemed to ignore or deny questions – for Carey there was a need to transition from simple belief to a profound doctrinal understanding!
The second group dealing with questions and competing claims didn’t have the same excitement and commitment to faith.
Faith was said to be shaped in four ways - anchored in the Bible - taught by the church - probing of every human culture - always relevant to the way we should live - something that has to be articulated and owned by each generation.
Carey suggests that it is not possible for a serious Biblical student to ignore the scholarship and the rigorous and detailed analysis and fruits of some 200 years of research! The essential need to think about our faith theologically! The absolute importance of tradition!
At one point Carey suggests that truth and error have been difficult, if not impossible to distinguish, and that the 'authority' of the church's history has to be seen as to some extent ambiguous!
Pete,
I would say that the "victorious" write history. In other words, what we consider "orthodox" today is just the thought process of those who "won the day" in an earlier point in history, not necessarily a system of thought that is "true" or "better". So, I would agree with you that not only church history, but all history is, at best, ambiguous.
"What if the first few chapters of Genesis, and the perhaps the rest of the OT, were just a way that the Hebrews tried to describe life as they saw it? What if it is no different than any other culture that was trying to make sense of life and created a story to do so? What makes the creation story of Genesis better, or more accurate, or more useful than any of the other creation stories?"
Maybe Genesis is the Hebrews' way to explain the order of things...their intended relationship and purpose. If there is any grain of "truth" to the story, I would fully expect the explanations of other cultures to contain similar elements.
But the Bible's (and other religious texts') primary purpose isn't to explain creation, relay a few historical details, provide the basis of a philosophy/mythology, or do a few colorful character sketches, is it?
Actually Bob, those seem to be the general purposes from my point of view. I would add that some texts provide a more or less detailed path toward a spiritual goal. But the "primary purpose" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? What would you say?
I think "the purpose of the Bible is in the eye of the holder" is precisely the reason it, as well as other religious texts, have been such a source of evils throughout the ages. Like anything that has its the true purpose perverted (the body, the environment, relationships, social order, money, food, etc.)
Yea, I'm pretty much an evil pervert. LOL
The truth is that no matter what my intent was with what I wrote, you understood it through your lens of bias, understanding, awareness, level of cognition, culture etc. and used it to infer that my position will cause evil and perversion, to which you are entitled. Obviously, I see it differently. Interestingly, my message was understood in a different way than intended. Why would the Bible be any different?
I didn't catch what your position is though?
I'm sure it isn't the first time you've been outed as an "evil pervert" ;-)
But seriously, the point I was making is that when we approach anything--from a hand tool to a religious text--the object's primary purpose must be kept in mind in order to make best use of it. Sure we can use a hairbrush to pound in a nail but your results may vary.
So far you seem to be saying the Bible's primary purpose is a repository for one culture's attempt to understand the world. And that other religious texts have the same purpose.
Or maybe I am reading you wrong?
Speaking specifically of the creation story in Genesis, absolutely, and it appears to be a borrowed attempt at that.
So, what do you believe the primary purpose of the Bible is?
To reveal God.
(This applies to all other religious texts as well. Thus it does not surprise me at all to see similarities between them.)
Bob,
In my own view I would say not only each religious text has something to say that is helpful in revealing God, but also every part of the physical world, psychology, systems theory, etc. The world seems full of God to me. I have a hard time separating it all anymore. It all seems thoroughly God-filled.
So (to borrow some Bible-speak) if all things exist [find their full purpose] to give glory [full revelation/understanding] to God that He may be all in all then is the Bible still just one culture's repository for understanding the world: a creation story, a little history, a few character sketches, and some philosophy? and a clearly plagiarized one at that...
Does that make it just one of equals among religious texts, seminal psychological writings, scientific findings, and manicured gardens?
Is Christianity [Christ followership] on equal par with panthesim?
Maybe your ruminations on Jesus will address this.
I don't know that I would say that all things exist to give glory to God. I would say all things that exist give glory to God, or at least give us some clue as to what is going on behind the scenes.
Christianity and pantheism are two different ways of attempting to understand our place in the cosmos. Both are a finger pointing at the moon, and not the moon itself. Neither are adequate IMO. However, I would lean toward panentheism myself.
Not sure how to compare the Bible to a garden, but the garden has as much to teach, and show, and give. Looking back, I would say, if all I had was a garden and the Bible, I would have learned more about how life works from the garden.
"if all I had was a garden and the Bible, I would have learned more about how life works from the garden." ROFL!! There's a joke in there about the birds 'n' the bees or about Eden...not sure which.
Given your conclusions here, I'm really looking forward to the post about Jesus. In discussions like this he generally needs to be dismissed or misinterpreted.
I would say that the "victorious" write history. In other words, what we consider "orthodox" today is just the thought process of those who "won the day" in an earlier point in history, not necessarily a system of thought that is "true" or "better". So, I would agree with you that not only church history, but all history is, at best, ambiguous.
Maybe the development of "Christendom" at the time of Constantine is a good example of the "orthodox" that won the day!
Was this a God-given opportunity which the church rightly seized and which ensured the triumph of the church and of Christianity in Europe, or was it the triumph of the empire over the church?
Bob,
When you say "mis-interpreted" which interpretation are you using as a standard? Sounds like you have discovered the one interpretive method that guarantees the meaning straight from Jesus' lips. Do tell.
I have no doubt that you will see my view as a "mis-interpretation". But the joy of living my life is that it matters not.
Pete,
Constantine is a perfect example. Those with power, who were concerned with controlling the masses won the day.
I dunno. The creeds seem like a good starting point since their purpose was to define a Christology.
Fully God, fully man. Firstborn of all creation, image of the invisible God in whom God was pleased to have His fullness dwell.
Why would this interpretation have any more authority than any other in your opinion?
There seems to be little argument about Jesus being a man, it's the God part that is suspect in some circles, and I would say it's the interpretation of "Christology" that makes Jesus nearly irrelevant as a model of a transformed life (hence the state of the church today). But again, I'll try to explain my heresy in a later post.
Post a Comment